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 5:24 pm
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:24 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 22 of 24 [ 5798 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:14 am   Post subject: Moderator's note on recent events   

Hi, everyone,
This is not easy for me to write, but it is still, the right thing to do.

I was a member of .org before I even knew about PMF. net, and before that I belonged to TJMK and posted extensively on Meredith Kercher at Huffington Post, so I am quite familiar with the case and background of all the principals involved in the campaign to win justice for her and her family.

It was disquieting to find out through snide comments on JREF and Huffington Post by the FOA group about the split between Michael and Peggy Ganong. Looking into it further, it became clear over a period of time that Michael's version of events was true, while the other side's, was not. It is ironic that when one spends so much time dissecting the lies of Amanda Knox, one develops an ear for when some one is lying to you, and that if one must fight for justice for a girl who was murdered, one must not then lose sight of another injustice that is being committed under our nose. No cause, no matter how worthy, justifies the committing of another injustice.

I have come over time to accept that what motivates a small select group on the other side is self-aggrandizement and purely selfish motives, in contrast with the behaviour of Michael, who has always been a gentleman and came from purely altruistic motives. yet I know that life is unfair, and sometimes we just have to move on.

I also saw that there would come a time when we we'd need to redefine our purpose and mend fences; yes I felt very strongly, in advance of the Hellmann verdict, that this would happen. Yet it seemed people were being pumped up to believe the guilty verdict would be confirmed, and I thought when it didn't happen, these groups would flounder. Michael will confirm I asked him beforehand how he'd feel if that was how it turned out. I already knew then. I posted a comment asking what if? back in April or May and got back an e-mail reply saying their Italian lawyers had said that the guilty verdict would be confirmed. I felt that I was being told not to discourage the troops. So I kept my mouth shut and was positive and encouraging for the sake of harmony, but dropped a few hints here and there. But it still felt like we shouldn't question the 'experts' too much.

When Michael invited me to become the moderator my goal was to try and reconcile the two PMF groups, and if that wasn't possible, work as hard as possible to strengthen this group. The other one, bless them, were a lot more unwelcoming of new people and unable to see how the terrain had changed.

You've seen my post, written in good faith, inviting the .org group to visit. I asked all of you, even Michael, to put aside those differences and stop sniping. I promised to use my power to bring peace between the two groups, and was prepared to resign if that wasn't respected here. But within the next two days I received the following condescending, insulting PM's from Peggy Ganong and visits from the other group's co-admin Fly By Night, designed solely to provoke this membership, even when I was trying to make peace. They demanded, er 'suggested' I ban any members who didn't comply, made slanderous statements, insulted my friends, and weren't interested in debate. They kept insting Michael had sent me over to their group, yet when I rebutted that my post was deleted. Not the actions of honest people.

Then I got this message: “You are not authorised to read private messages”
Then several members were banned from that board.
Then I got another message today.
“You have been permanently banned from this board”.
“ A ban has been issued on your IP address”.

Really? I already stopped posting there because of their behaviour, and I see now my access was denied so I couldn't retrieve the PM's I received. Luckily, I saw that coming and had already saved them, and as I warned Peggy Ganong, we would both be judged by our subsequent actions. I no longer feel obligated to keep her PM's confidential, based on her behaviour and outrageous comments. It is a pity that the membership of .org have been denied the opportunity to see for themselves, but I will present to you in their entirety what I received and wrote over the last two days. And I consider it a badge of honour to be banned by them.

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Ergon,
I am sure your aim is pure, but I would really prefer it if you would remove your post. We have made it a policy not to refer to Michael's endeavor. I only wish Michael would do the same, since I routinely get snarky comments about me or PMF.org that are allowed to stand on his board.
I wish you luck and of course you are welcome to post here whenever you like. But there is not point in mentioning "net" as far as I can tell. I am sure you will be a great moderator.

Thanks,
Skep

Ergon wrote:
Hi, Skep,
Thanks for the clarification. Since I wasn't aware of any posted policy about this it was written in good faith and as a courtesy. Therefore I do not wish to remove my own post. However, in keeping with your wishes I will not mention Michael or .net again.

You should know that I first saw negative comments about him on your site then when I saw like comments on his I told him that was wrong. I also called out a troll who posted a very nasty slur about you in trying to stir things up. That was as a member, but as a moderator I will carry a much larger hammer. I want us all to focus on the case.

Wishing you all the best too,
Ergon

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

I think you could and should have checked with the moderators here before posting. Your post concerns matters that do not concern us.

I don't know what post about Michael on PMF you are referring to. I have removed what few posts people have made and spoken privately with the parties involved. Most people don't give a toss about this unfortunate split and the decision here not to mention it was made long ago and is respected. I am aware of the disparaging comments made on .net and allowed to stand. People have sent me Michael's self-serving and posted lies about Clander, me, etc. Clander in particular does not deserve such treatment. Luckily, he doesn't let it bother him. I am pleased to hear you plan to put an end to that, though I'm not sure how that will work when the source is Michael.

Good luck. And honestly, I think if you give it some thought you'll understand why your post, about your promotion on .net, has no place in our discussion. Clander and FBN share this view.
Skep

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Ergon,

Just to circumvent more trouble, I want you to know that you must not post your clarification of ANYTHING on this board. What goes on at .net is of no interest to people here, and the only time I get wind of it is when someone thinks I should know that I am being defamed by someone on .net. I received the latest string, all prompted by your post announcing your new position and my response to it (and FBN's). The fact is, as we both stated, Michael decided to start a new board, not us. He seems to be obsessed with claiming the contrary, and it is a shame. No one cares. Now that you work with him, maybe you can get him to see how this harms the cause of Meredith Kercher. I did not provoke or desire a split. That's all I will say on the matter. And I have never posted a word about it or tolerated any postings about it on .org.

FWIW, and now that you are moderator, you might want to set the record straight on my "involvement" with Marriott and this site being "commercial". Neither of those things are true. I am not paid, FBN is not paid, Clander is not paid, and we have no ties to Marriott. What an absurd idea. Again, who is hurt by this nonsense? Meredith's family, who have placed their confidence in PMF.org. The only silver lining is that the site where this kind of garbage is being spewed doesn't get a lot of traffic.

I appreciate your commitment to the Kercher family and justice. I happen to think you have made a mistake in allying yourself with Michael. It's because in all honesty I think he is someone who gets a sense of self-importance out of this in an unhealthy way. I fully assume responsibility for the mistake I made in asking him to co-moderate with me. I had no idea how overly important having that power was to him or how devoid his outside life is of any meaning. Please bear these things in mind in your dealings with him. And please consider this PM confidential and not for sharing with anyone. I have no desire to be involved in this silly "war" Michael can't seem to stop waging. Aside from the factual comment I made yesterday - that Michael decided to start his own board - I have never mentioned .net or its posters or posts in any public forum, including this one. Is it too much to ask for the same courtesy in return? As moderator, you can lay down the law. I was told by a couple of people that Michael has erased some of the vitriol well after the fact, in the dead of night. That is something he excoriated Candace Dempsey for doing.

I long ago moved on from Michael's little meltdown. It is time for Michael and his two acolytes, Guermantes and Cape, to do the same. I hope they will. As for ttrroonnicc, he is mentally unstable and trouble. You'll find that out in due time. I banned him from this board for good reason, after repeated warnings. So of course he hates me. The same happened with Donnie, who used his access to Michael's board to copy PMs he exchanged with members and then share them with Bruce Fisher. I hope you don't let your board become a place where people who get banned from here for cause go to complain. It sure doesn't help Meredith.

Respectfully,
Skep

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
P.S. Just so you know, anyone on the board you administer who makes disparaging remarks about the .org moderators or members by name, or about the .org board being a "clone' (it is not) will be banned from .org.

I had hoped these kinds of comments would eventually go out of fashion, but they don't seem to. Ideally, your board should not make any reference to ours and vice versa. Our board has maintained this standard - I have deleted what few comments have been made, mostly just after the split, wanting to know why, etc. It is a shame that Michael's group seems unable or unwilling to do this so far. Maybe you can turn things around. The only exception is the factual comment I made in light of your post. Michael decided to start his own board. Period. End of paragraph.

The bottom line is that 99% of the people who post on this board simply don't give a shit about these matters and don't want their discussion of the case to get lost in this kind of crap. I don't want it on my board and I don't want people lurking here who go back to the other board to make nasty comments.

Skep

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

P.S. I now realize that the post you made yesterday "setting the record straight" was at Michael's behest (someone sent me the posts on .net). It is ironic that in asking you to do that, Michael was proving FBN right. As you may recall, I have come to your defense on more than one occasion when people have questioned your passion for astrology. As you also may recall, I am not a believer in astrology, but I saw no reason to prevent you from expressing your views on the subject. I hope you will take that as a basic belief in your good faith. I have no other goal now than to put an end to this nonsense for the sake of Meredith's family. It's a good thing they don't read Michael's board. As it stands, with the snarky comments about people the Kerchers trust, it is an affront to them. Please, please, do what you can to curb the nastiness over there. It would be a shame if .net became nothing more than a place to trash .org. All I know is that .org has never been and never will be a place to trash .net. Anyone who does so will be immediately banned. I doubt that Michael realized, when he created his own board, that he was exposing everyone to this danger. It is more than just a PR danger. Good luck to you.

Ergon wrote:
Skep,

I did not post anything on your site at "Michael's behest" but FBN came over and had a few things to say did he not? And I posted my clarification in response to the first claim that Michael set me up to it.

So who's making the unfounded allegations now?

I have appreciated your support of my views and taken that as an example of your good faith. I hope we will both take our future actions as further proof.

Ergon

Ergon wrote:
Skep,

I have no knowledge of the causes or circumstances of the split besides what people have posted. Neither side looks good from what I have seen so far, but my interest is to move on. You will note that I did contradict ttrroonniicc when he said what he did and consider that my first warning to him. Who you ban on your own site is up to you.

If, as you say the Kerchers don't read the other site, fine. If they do, they will see there are two groups of people who passionately believe in justice for their daughter.

I will of course respect your request for confidentiality regarding this PM. Will read your PS to respond further.
Ergon

Skpetical Bystander wrote:
I'll reply to both of your PMs. There have been zero comments about .net on .org, by me or ANYONE else, with the exception of my factual comment and FBN's observation that followed. I don't know what your reply to tronic was because I don't have access to .net and would not read it if I did. I don't have time to do more than moderate this board. I wish I could say the same about .net -- i.e., that there have been no comments about me or .org on that board. This, unfortunately, is not true. Moreover, there have been no comments on .org about the whole ordeal -- again, I wish .net had the decency and the discipline to refrain from making these comments. They make everyone look bad. In particular, I object to the demonizing of Clander, who took heroic action in an extremely difficult situation. He has been called a fake Italian because he speaks fluent Portuguese. He happens to be the son of an Italian diplomat whose mother is Brazilian. He has been accused of theft, which is absurd.

You could simplify everything as moderator if you simply told posters that no comments about .org, the split or its moderators will be tolerated. That's what I did here -- as soon as Michael decided to start his own board and threatened to take this one down -- and the policy has been respected. It is very simple. And it is the decent thing to do.

Quite honestly, I think that if Michael could be honest with himself and his group about what he did and why, then he would not feel the need to constantly revisit the thing, rewrite history, and make disparaging remarks in public -- albeit to a very small audience.

FWIW and FYIO, the Kerchers were deeply dismayed by what Michael did.

I wish you the best on .net.
Skep

Ergon wrote:
I'm the moderator, and not the administrator, but as someone has obviously told you what's been said about you in the past, they can confirm that I asked no such comments be made in future. You might at this point trust I'll enforce what I said instead of telling me how to do it? I have my own style, thanks.

Just as I will give Clander the benefit of the doubt that he did not intentionally or otherwise sabotage Michael's site or left him unable to make revisions to his own site.

I also do not wish to involve the Kerchers in two competing versions of the truth, and would like to move on in that respect. As I said, you'll just have to trust me in my actions.


There you have it. It is sad to see the Kercher's name invoked as being 'dismayed by what Michael did' as if he had ever approached them or claims to speak for them.

It is sad to see a group of good people so misled by the leadership of .org or the suppression of dissenting opinion.

It is sad to see those who claim to fight for injustice do so by committing injustice.

It is sad to see the efforts of an honest man like Michael be so blatantly misrepresented.

This year will see quite a battle take place in the fight for justice for Meredith Kercher. It will take the efforts of all her supporters, not just a select few, to win the fight for public opinion.

And, such a battle requires we let go of our ego, if we are to win.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

ss) wtf)

Ganong isn't worth talking about anymore.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:19 am, edited 7 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Ergon. Didn't I say "Hard as nails"? I expected nothing less from the 'Iron Lady'.

It's hopeless. Now, everybody, let's move on. Let's be done hating SB. We let her know we are angry, but she doesn't seem to get it or to care. Sigh.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

ttrroonniicc, I'll send you a PM.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

amber2670 wrote:
Well at least you said something there before being banned.

I was banned today and all I did was post HERE that I disagreed with Cape's banning.
I don't feel like it was at all disrectful towards anyone and was totally shocked i was banned.
I seriously cannot believe this is the way "members" are being treated. It's very sad that people are banned in this way and no doubt the reason PMF is getting a bad name elsewhere. This is seriously a huge disappointment to me, I guess someones true colors will do that sometimes.


Amber, I'm so sorry to hear that you've been banned from .org. Being banned merely for saying you don't think another individual should have been banned, on ANOTHER site, is a new one to me. That is taking 'harsh' to a whole new level of which in all my years of being both a Moderator and a poster on various sites, I've never seen the like. Unbelievable!

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

ResIpsa wrote:
I thought it was pretty bogus that .org banned capealadin without being up front about it so I posted there to ask if it was true (since they'd posted nothing public about it) and my post was deleted as if it had never existed. Then I posted again asking why my post was deleted and asking the question again, and Ganong deleted that post as well, and later posted a "read your email or PMs" post. I posted saying that it appeared that my posts had been deleted, and I didn't know why and asking Ganong if she'd been deleting my posts, and Ganong posted saying that she'd deleted my post (singular - a lie) because it was OT and saying that I should read my PMs and email. I checked my PMs and email and there was nothing there at all explaining the deletion of my posts. She only sent a PM after deleting two of my posts saying "I'm deleting your post" - note that she had already deleted 2 of them before sending that PM and that she gave no reason for it. I wrote another post saying that I'd checked my PMs and there was nothing from her saying anything about my posts being OT and nothing about her deleting my previous post, and I again asked whether it was true that capealadin had been banned and if so, why, since it was obvious that bannings are public and this one wasn't, etc., and she didn't answer that either.

I asked Ganong how it was OT to ask a simple question about a long time member being banned when bannings are usually quite public and I asked why she wouldn't answer a simple and straightforward question, fully expecting that the response would be to delete my posts and ban me as well. And guess what? Ganong lived down to her poor reputation, which preceded her.

She deleted my posts asking a simple question about capealadin's banning, and she's now banned me permanently (She's also naive, apparently :) ).

In the result, she's completely gutless and cowardly, and incapable of defending her actions. She didn't have the guts to respond honestly to my posts, she hasn't the guts to be accountable to the membership of her stolen site, and she is just another blowhard coward on the Internet. I'm laughing, but anyone who actually put any faith in her at one time should be reconsidering. She's not only a liar, she's also a coward, a thief, and an all around loser.



Hello ResIpsa,

I'm sorry for your case as well. To be deleted and banned for doing nothing more then making a good faith and legitimate enquiry, is again extremely harsh and unfair.

I'm afraid that the powers that be on the other site, appear to have forgotten that it is the community that really owns the board, whilst the Admins and Mods are simply stewards, guardians who work on their behalf. It is the Members that are the shareholders, the stakeholders and for many, it is also their home away from home (or at least, one of a few). It would seem that the current regime regards itself as some sort of self-appointed royalty and its members as mere subjects or worse, chattel.

Here meanwhile, sure I built this board and continue to build it, but it's the Members that provide all the bricks and mortar for me to do so, whilst it is also they that fill what would otherwise be nothing but an empty shell with life and heart. And as for the case, it belongs to society and we are all society, it belongs to ALL of us. That seems to have been forgotten elsewhere.

_________________
"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 daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I wrote some stuff about the current drama and posted it then thought better of it. I stand by what i said I would PM it to anyone who's interested, however, we're here for a reason other than putting the boot into another board. Sorry for continuing the drama.

So here's to finding justice for Meredith.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Okay, I woke up this morning to find a load of PM's posted on the board. I'm not fully sure what I think about that yet, but I do think that should have been run by me first. This is also the first time that I've seen them. But, now they are there, in public, I have to respond to them...in public. Of late, I feel that my hand is being forced at every turn.



Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Just to circumvent more trouble, [/b]I want you to know that you must not post your clarification of ANYTHING on this board. What goes on at .net is of no interest to people here,


If it is true that it is of no interest to those at .org, why then FBN's post? His post is of interest, but Ergon's response to it to clarify its errors is not? How does that work? And this is despite the fact that Ergon's clarification was not to clarify .net, but to clarify what had been stated erroneously (lies in the vernacular) in public on .org and that therefore, makes it fully of interest to its members. It also makes me wonder, why it is, that it is Skeptical Bystander that is behind the scenes secretly deleting posts, PM'ing people and banning people, yet it is FBN who is being pushed to the forefront to be the public face of it all. Peggy always did need others, usually men, to hide behind and act as her shield, to jointly own with her or own FOR her the things SHE has done, hard as nails or not.



Now this:

Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
FWIW, and now that you are moderator, you might want to set the record straight on my "involvement" with Marriott and this site being "commercial". Neither of those things are true. I am not paid, FBN is not paid, Clander is not paid, and we have no ties to Marriott. What an absurd idea. Again, who is hurt by this nonsense? Meredith's family, who have placed their confidence in PMF.org. The only silver lining is that the site where this kind of garbage is being spewed doesn't get a lot of traffic.



Since the split I haven't followed Peggy or her activities at all, neither have I had any contact with her and as such, have little idea what is going on with her from one day to the next. However, to be fair, I have seen or heard no evidence or rumour (other then allegations posted by a single member here, which I didn't quite understand), that Peggy is in any way working for or with David Marriott, or is under the pay of anyone. This certainly wasn't the case when she was my co-Admin and it is inconcievable to me that she is now. Besides, Peggy would never tolerate having any boss, she has to be the one in charge. Neither have I seen any evidence that she is involved in any form of commercialisation in regard to this case. They have changed the board style along with some other cosmetic tweeks, but that's nothing to do with commercialisation but rather, no doubt, to differentiate and distance it from the original board that I own (which is a little strange, since it seems that at the same time they want to claim that it is original board, which it isn't, but in light of that one would think they'd want to make it look as much like the original board as possible). I had heard that she has voiced the future possibility of asking members for donations in order to help fund a much more expensive hosting plan, but there is nothing wrong with that and it is quite normal practice for free sites run by volunteers to request donations to help with the day-to-day expenses of keeping the site up and running and free. That's the only thing I've ever heard about money.


And now these:

Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
People have sent me Michael's self-serving and posted lies about Clander, me, etc.


Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The fact is, as we both stated, Michael decided to start a new board, not us. He seems to be obsessed with claiming the contrary, and it is a shame.


Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Aside from the factual comment I made yesterday - that Michael decided to start his own board...


Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael decided to start his own board. Period. End of paragraph.


Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I doubt that Michael realized, when he created his own board, that he was exposing everyone to this danger.


Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
You could simplify everything as moderator if you simply told posters that no comments about .org, the split or its moderators will be tolerated. That's what I did here -- as soon as Michael decided to start his own board and threatened to take this one down



Ergon quoting Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Quite honestly, I think that if Michael could be honest with himself and his group about what he did and why, then he would not feel the need to constantly revisit the thing, rewrite history, and make disparaging remarks in public



The first thing. Never have I told a single lie about Peggy or Clander, not ONE.

The second point. Peggy is very brazen, with what are outright bare faced lies, repeated (quoted above) again and again.

I did create a board. THIS board...right back on Sunday, Jan 20, 2008, as it says under my avatar. I ask again, what is the date under Peggy's avatar and in her profile? At no time since that day have I ever created any other board. This is the ORIGINAL board I created on that date on our first hosts under my account at Freeforums.net and later moved (some three years ago) to our current hosts on our current server under my current account at Hostgator.com.

In his role as Technical Admin (which I had given him, after being in the role for barely two months), Clander began the security role of weekly backing-up the forum and downloading onto a server he owned or hired as a dedicated server, I'm not sure which it was. This was so that if there ever was an accident on our hosts server or the site ever got hacked, the back-up copy could then be uploaded to our hosts and the site restored. Our hosts actually would make a back-up copy of the forum themselves once a week, but one has to pay them to restore their back-up whereas they do it free if you provide your own back-up copy, so it makes financial sense for us to maintain our own back-up copy. This was being done by Clander because the forum back-up, even though compressed in a GZip file, was multiple GB's in size and neither Skep or I had room for it on the hard drives of our respective PC's (I did own an external hard drive, but that had blown some months before and was unusable). Clander not only had the space on his PC, but as I said earlier, had access to a server on which he could load it for storage.

On the night of the split, Clander accessed my FTP account on hostgator, and presumably after copying it onto his own machine, deleted a key core file from PMF's root folder. This file was the index file and without it the software that runs the board was disabled. The only way I could repair that damage was to replace that key file on the server, which I didn't have, or to pay Hostagator to restore the board with their weekly back-up. Of course, it took me some time to discover how it was exactly, that Clander had broken the board and what needed and what could be done, to fix it. Clander emailed Peggy and I (of which I still have the email), telling us that he had disabled the board. He ignored my complaint at the damage. Peggy meanwhile made no complaint or request that he fix the damage, effectively endorsing what he had done. At no time after the event, did Clander ever apologise for doing it, never did he offer to replace the file he had taken back onto the server, never did he offer to return the file to me, never did he offer to pay for the damage (this came out of my own pocket), never even did he inform me of exactly what he had done so I knew what needed fixing or how. Peggy and Clander meanwhile informed me (dictated to me) that I would no longer be Administrator, as they were taking the forum from me. This I refused, as I was the creator and owner and it isn't for them to just help themselves to what they don't own.

During the following days, Peggy then contacted my hosts at Hostgator via telephone, requesting that they hand over control of my account with them to her. Naturally, since I was owner of the account, they refused and they notified me via email (of which I still have the copy).

Having failed to wrest ownership of PMF from me using that method, Peggy and Clander (without informing me), decided they were going to steal one of the back-up copies of the forum that Clander had downloaded previously, create a new account with a new Host provider, on a different server, load it up to there, chop me as Admin and Founder out of it, and then run it together as 'PMF', when in fact it was nothing more then a stolen copy. At NO time did I give my permission or consent for this! At no time was my permission or consent sought! Meanwhile, I'm still trying, alone, to repair the original board. I heard what they were planning from a third party who set himself up as a go between. I informed them that I certainly did not give my consent to this and that I would regard any such action, quite correctly, as theft. I told them that the World would view such a theft in a very poor light. I received no more replies from Clander. Peggy's response was to tell me that if I should ever tell anyone, it would damage the cause for Meredith and the Kerchers and I would then be the bad guy!

At no time, did I EVER attempt to take down their stolen copy of the board! I couldn't, I had no access to the Admin Control Panel on it, neither did I have access to the FTP account for it with their new hosts.

Meanwhile, I was still trying to repair the damage to the original site and I finally managed to get it repaired. I still couldn't get it online however, as Peggy had taken the domain name, which had always pointed to THIS board on THIS server, and repointed it to the stolen copy under their new hosts. Without a domain name (every website must have a web address) I couldn't get the forum back online. Already out of pocket after having to pay to have the damage done by Clander repaired, I then had to buy a new domain name in order to replace the address that Peggy had stripped from the site (PMF.net). Fortunately, a kind friend here (you know who you are) helped me out. It takes a day or two for service providers to recognise a change of domain, so that took a couple of days. Finally, after a week or so, I had the forum repaired and back online, the forum everyone here is on.

At NO time did I start a new board. All I ever did, is repair the ORIGINAL Perugia Murder File forum and get it back online after it had been sabotaged. This is the original board that I created, built, maintained and Administrated on Sunday Jan 20, 2008 and daily thereafter ever since that date. The 'other' board is a product of the back-up copy, that had all the same data and settings as the original, that was stolen from my server account, in March 2011. That board has only existed online in real terms, since that date. Peggy stole this with Clander's help, with his full support and knowledge. If theft is 'heroic', then I don't want to ever be a hero.

Of course they don't want me or this board mentioned on their site, they don't want their membership, their sources, their readers, to be informed or reminded of the fact that their board is not the original, it is a copy of the original that they stole from its owner. That is why I am 'dead' and must remain so evermore. Not content with stealing the site, it seems they must expunge my very existence. The only claim they have to ownership is possession, which seems to be the only claim they need. People are not deleted on my mention to protect the members or the Kerchers, they are deleted to protect their own arses and prevent anyone finding out the truth, and so that Peggy can remain on her throne, Queen of all she surveys.

This is not about 'power' or 'not having a life', at least not for me, it is about propriety, truth, justice, right and wrong, something bigger than me, years and tears of my life, my friends, my second family and dammit, this is my home.

The most distressing and heart rending of events for me along with being robbed and betrayed, is being emotionally blackmailed to remain silent, by Peggy using Meredith and the Kerchers. For Peggy Ganong to be writing how upset the Kerchers were about what "I" had done is just thoroughly DISGUSTING!!! How dare she do that to me, or any person!

I have changed my forum title from my publicly displayed title 'Site Admin', to my hidden forum title of 'Founder'. I shall keep it so throughout the weekend. This is to make a small, but very important point.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
I wrote some stuff about the current drama and posted it then thought better of it. I stand by what i said I would PM it to anyone who's interested, however, we're here for a reason other than putting the boot into another board. Sorry for continuing the drama.

So here's to finding justice for Meredith.


Sometimes these things have to be brought out so people can then move on, daisy. As you can see there are deep rooted feelings that have never been resolved. I tried to be neutral, to make peace, and to bring together the two groups, and you saw how they responded. I also say the cause of Meredith Kercher was harmed immensely by the underhanded tactics used to take away the board. They should have worked together, but some were encouraged by their initial success to have dreams of media glory, and wanted it for themself. Therefore, to what extent was their 'work' motivated by their ego?

What right do we have to expect standards of ethical behaviour from the FOAKers when we break those same standards ourselves? Case in point: we excoriate Candace Dempsey for stalking and taking pictures of the Kerchers when the Seattle Mafia (as I call certain admins on .org) did exactly the same by stalking the Knox family and following them into the bathroom of their fundraiser to eavesdrop on their conversation? Driving by their homes and taking pictures? Calling Amanda Knox's sisters all sorts of names? I will call them out for hypocrisy on this.

I feel badly that I was forced to reveal the PM's sent to me. I would never have revealed them, except for their subsequent behaviour. What did PG hope to achieve by making such horrible remarks about other members of this board? Why did FBN feel the need to come here and insult Michael? Was he acting in good faith, or was he trying to provoke, like any other troll we had to put up with? In the end, I will be judged by my actions, as they, theirs. people can decide for themselves who was acting in good faith, and who, not.

I hope you will publish your thoughts about this instead of just sending it by PM, so we can all see and learn from whatever you wish to say. If anyone has any criticism to make of me, please do so. I am open to any suggestion, openly or by PM, to make this a stronger board. hint: I like to discuss this openly, and I welcome all opinions. Nor is there a party line on the discussion of the case or how to help support Meredith and her family.

A long time back I wrote a post on .org urging members to make sure they never end up behaving like the FOA. They missed my point, of course. Many of them were behaving like the FOA.

What should the direction of this board be this year? How can we best support Meredith and counteract the PR efforts of the media? Are we able to see it through to the end, till justice is done? I invite all the old and new members of the PMF family to visit, to provide feedback, and to help bring justice for the girl who should never, be forgotten.
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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
What right do we have to expect standards of ethical behaviour from the FOAKers when we break those same standards ourselves? Case in point: we excoriate Candace Dempsey for stalking and taking pictures of the Kerchers when the Seattle Mafia (as I call certain admins on .org) did exactly the same by stalking the Knox family and following them into the bathroom of their fundraiser to eavesdrop on their conversation? Driving by their homes and taking pictures? Calling Amanda Knox's sisters all sorts of names? I will call them out for hypocrisy on this.


To be fair, the person in question was already in the bathroom, as they needed to use it, and the Knox girls walked in on them while they were doing so. Moreover, the Melloxes were using the function area of the restaurant, which was the downstairs level, which had its own bathrooms and so forth. The PMF Seattleites meanwhile, were upstairs, in the public area of the restauarant and it was the bathroom upstairs the member used. For some reason, instead of remaining in the function area and using the private bathrooms there, the Knox girls came upstairs and used the public bathroom.

The PMF team went to the fundraiser since it was a public event, in the sense that it had been advertised as such in the local press and the media were all invited. As PMF reported on the case, they attended as reporters. The PMF members went there with journalists, and in fact went with and were sitting at a table with a Journalist I can reveal to be Garfield Kennedy, documentary maker partner of journalist Bob Graham.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks, Michael. I stand corrected, and apologize to the named parties.
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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
I feel badly that I was forced to reveal the PM's sent to me. I would never have revealed them, except for their subsequent behaviour. What did PG hope to achieve by making such horrible remarks about other members of this board? Why did FBN feel the need to come here and insult Michael? Was he acting in good faith, or was he trying to provoke, like any other troll we had to put up with? In the end, I will be judged by my actions, as they, theirs. people can decide for themselves who was acting in good faith, and who, not.


I do wish you had asked me first. We have a PMF rule about posting the content of PM's and emails and as such, it has made me look a hypocrite. Regarding the board split. You may not know this, but it isn't actually the first split, it is the second.

Before the community moved here, to PMF, we were on a different forum, The True Crime Weblog Message Board, Moderated by Peggy and myself and owned by Steve Huff. Near the end of its life, there was an almighty row. There was a popular and long serving member who got into a big argument with Peggy on the board and wouldn't let up. I had to step in and soon she was arguing with me. She wouldn't let it drop and so Peggy contacted her via PM in order to put an end to the affair. Instead of letting it go, the individual took the contents of those PM's and posted them publicly to the board, in super large fonts, with colours to highlight them. As a result, Steve Huff stepped in (something he never did) and gave a stern warning to the member responsible, announced to the forum anyone ever again posting private correspondence without permission would be instantly banned, and also insisted the member in question write a formal apology to the whole community on the board and if she didn't do so, he would shut down the whole forum, forever. The member in question, with very hurt pride, made the apology but announced she could no longer stay on the forum due to the humiliation of it and would be leaving. She left and took a group of her friends with her and they set up a new message board 'All of Us' and took up there. After this VERY acrimonious event and subsequent split in our community, we felt our current board was tainted, could never feel the same, and it was shortly after that the decision was taken to move to a forum I had created, Perugia Murder File. Even then, it took a long time for our community to get over it and recover...and I still haven't really.

So you see, I really would have rathered you ran it by me first. I understand you didn't know, but if you had come to me I would have told you.

_________________
"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 daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hey Ergon, in light of your and Michael’s comments, I’ve tempered my initial rant. I hope you take this in the spirit of friendship that it is meant in. I typed it firstly in response to you, then I read Michael’s and your next response then edited again. FFS don’t post again before I’ve got a chance to hit send, haha! I’ll be here all day!

If any of the above is true, even in part, Michael and I have no reason to believe otherwise then, Skep needs to have a word with herself. That is one of the sneakiest, nastiest things I’ve heard someone do to a person. I cannot stand thieves and frankly, would rather people who are thieves stopped it with the “justice for Meredith” because their words are hollow.

I tried to sympathise with Skep’s situation in my previous post (which I deleted) as I know she’s put up with more than most in real life with the exception of Pete Quennell (for who I still have the utmost respect). She’s faced down the Knox/Mellas clan in person, not something that I would wish on anyone, had her address/personal info posted online and taken shit in the street from Knox supporters. That doesn’t give you the excuse to steal someone’s hard work and stitch them up though. You have a conversation first and explain your position. If no way ahead is found, you mutually agree the terms of the split and inform the membership of the situation to allow them to make an informed decision. What Skep and Clander did is awful. As Michael says, the membership is the board not the admins, something that is very much forgotten it seems over at .org.

As for the blackmail comment over the Kerchers, that is utterly despicable. Skep and Pete Quennell are not the only people in touch with the Kerchers and I’m fairly sure that this whole sorry mess will reach their ears eventually, including Skep’s claims about essentially owning contact with them and using them as a tool for blackmail. That’s the heartbreaking fact, not the theft; and it’s the only conclusion you can draw from Skep’s own words. It’s huge shame really as the point of the family contact with .org and TJMK is to set up a memorial fund for Meredith to allow others to study in Perugia and enjoy the opportunities that Meredith had, albeit briefly thanks to Knox, Guede and Sollecito. I believe that the fund is something that both boards and blogs could have contributed positively to and possibly could have healed the rift. I doubt that is the case now. The only losers there are the Kerchers as we’re all not real, just avatars on a board and we can go back to our lives at anytime where our sisters and daughters haven’t been murdered in a foreign country. Perhaps Skep can reflect on that and her need for power but what I think is more likely is she will be executing damage control for when the inevitable bomb drops in South London. I’m genuinely sad about that.

Finally Ergon, when someone says don’t mention X on Y forum, don’t. No matter how well intentioned, any mention of .net on .org was always going to go down like a fart in a lift. There’s a large element of responsibility here to be taken by you. Whilst I also support the reasons for posting Skep's PM’s, it doesn’t sit well with me at all either. If you could do anything to repair this damage I say do it but essentially this situation has screwed up a lot of relationships and made it very clear that the boards will never reunify in any form. You need to chew on that a bit hun because it wasn’t a great move. It might not read as such but I do say all of this with love because you’re a very kind soul and did what you did with love. I may not talk to you much directly but I read you most days and I can’t believe anything you have done is malicious just a bit daft and it’s backfired out of all reasonable proportion thanks to the reactions of certain folk on .org which is sad. Hugs m’dear and hears to a more successful board going forward. Please understand you have my support in your role as Moderator.

Finally, JLOL & IIP must be loving every second of today. Like all their Tuesdays came at once. It’s the only thing that Skep and I agree on. Not because the thoughts shouldn’t be out there but because our dirty washing shouldn’t be aired in public. Slightly hypocritically, I’ve just aired mine. Doesn’t sit well with me either.
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hey Michael, I had forgotten about the All of Us board. I posted there for a short time as I got on well with Sooze and co. To be fair to Soozie, she posted everything in large fonts and pretty colours, I'm sure it wasn't personal to Skep :) It's now sadly gone to the great internet in the sky but while it was around, it was quite fun with the exception of the subject matter of course but the people were lovely when I was there. I didn't realise that was the first split as they never really said anything about PMF other than their hatred of small fonts which turned into a bit of a running gag. I found PMF/Allofus after I posted on Candace Dempsey's blog after being outraged at one of her posts, was shot down in flames for having a contrary opinion then The Machine saved me and brought me safely to the warmth of PMF.

In my personal opinion, as I said above, lets take the bitching to PM or to a private board where the world cannot read it. This is between us, not between us and the world. It's not a case of hiding it, it a case of getting back on message and sorting out our public face. Ergon didn't start this, its been the 9000kg gorilla in the room for a while. I've been dying to ask what the issue was with the split but thought better of it as it seemed like a touchy subject. Now everyone knows what happened. Whats said is said. What is posted cannot be unposted as nothing is deleted from the internet no matetr how hard you try. Lets all take a breath, take the night off and move on.

Please? If you want to reply to me about this, PM me. If you want to talk about Meredith and how exactly the Italians are hoping to screw the lovebirds to the floor in the final chapter of this sorry saga, bring it on.

Love to all x
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amber and Resipsa,

It's...just wrong...that you've been banned. Especially because you did absolutely nothing wrong. I wish I could say I'm shocked, but the truth is, I'm not. The same goes for Ergon.

I want to thank you very much, for your concerns ( reasons) for me being banned. In as much as I like, admire, many of the posters there, although the majority no longer do, I would not WISH to be part of any site, that operates in the way that they have.

I always knew, that this situation would come to a head. Someone, I knew, would be the impetus. It is no surprise to me, that it was Ergon, who has an innate sense of the World around him..past, present and future.

I will only say this. Discounting myself, they . ORG, have lost some valueable, interesting, and wonderful posters. Ergon, Amber and Resipsa..and those are the ones that I know about. Who knows how many lurkers, wanted to ask where Michael was, had their posts deleted, and were shut out? That's a good guess, in view of what has transpired.

Daisy, I have read your really well thought out post. I'm going to read it again, and will then pm you.

Ergon, It's a ying yang situation for me..re: posting the pms. And, I'll tell you why. Whilst I would never do so, ( even though I have been tempted once...they were Skeptical Bystander's to me, when I informed her, I would be posting here..
and very mean and rude , her pm's were to me..I did confront her about them, and she sort of aplogized) ..

My point is, In saying that I would never publish, I was not in Ergon's situation. I absolutely believe Ergon has only published for the sake of transparency. To set the record straight, if you will. Their are exceptions to every rule, and I believe Skeptical Bystander has banked on the code, of keeping things under wraps.

This has allowed her to in essence, get away with things..and keep her participation, undiscovered. In doing so, it kept Michael looking like the bad person, and Skep, the long suffering Martyr.

So, in light of that, I'm giving my thumbs up to Ergon. Because, lying, maligning Michael, albeit with a peculiar, passive aggressive way of doing things, is much worse to me, than giving an insight as to what's going on.

We are here, for Justice..to find out the truth. That's what motivated, in large part, for even being here.

I'm looking at the contradictions, in just one day. Let's take JUST ONE. Anyone posting on .ORG, as to what's happening, has posts deleted, and or banned.

However, Fly by Night, gets to come over here, posts to his heart's content, the message he wants, or is told, to get across. Bullying, snarky, control freaky posts.

If Fly by Night is reading this, let me start off with courtesy, for dummies. First, when coming onto a site, for the first time, have the common courtesy to introduce yoursel, because, SHOCKER, some people may not know you from a bar of soap. Next, give a brief intro, as to the reason for posting. Not..trying to lay down the law...as you see it.

Who ARE You? A foot soldier, coming over here, full of your own imagined self importance.

What did you accomplish, btw? I'll tell you what I think. You and Skep have done more damage to your site, .ORG, than any of us could have dreamed of. You have shown your murky colours.

You have been the authors of your own disgrace. Banning good faith posters, behaving the way you have done. You should be cringing with emabarrassment.

Should any troll, or Foaker, behave the way you have done, you'd be all over them like white on rice.

Skep, you talk about Candace Dempsey being a fake, a liar? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I, like Ergon, wear my banning with pride. Furthermore, now that your emails, your reason d'etre is out there, I would have RESIGNED. I'll have no truck to be part of a regime like yours.

You only have a board because of the posters. You have fooled them. Some may not care, others believe in you. To each their own.

We shall continue here. And, even though Fly by Night, would LOVE to think this board is disintergrating...

No, NO and No. Michael has worked too hard, HE is PMF. All the shenanigans tried by you and Skeptical bystander, are out in the open. Live with it.

Guermantes, I appreciate you. All of you.

It's always nice to be right. I chose to come here. I was right.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thank you, capealadin. My motives were exactly that, transparency. If you see what Skep sent me, what do you think she's been telling so many at .org, under the table? They were all willing to ignore .net, and Michael's contribution. I saw it's been eating away at him all the years, affecting his health, bound by the mantra of 'not hurting the cause'. And I fell into that trap. I tried to make peace. I asked members to put it behind them and not name anyone on the other board.

All that fell by the wayside when we got the home invasion by FBN and several members were banned from the other org. My fault, and I have many, is that I am too honest for my own good, and willing to call it like I see it.

There are principles (do not reveal PM's) and there are higher principles (loyalty to friends, speak the truth, do what you think is right, and then accept responsibility) It was those higher principles I chose, and stand by. And now, at least the 900 lb gorilla in the room is out, and we can all move on.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks, daisy, of course I take what you say in the spirit of friendship. I hope my post to capealadin covers what you said? I too would like to move on, but, there was indeed a gorilla in the room.
And as a healer I know that what cannot be healed, sometimes cannot be healed. But until we let go, we are still stuck in that place. Once the appeal is filed, hopefully by next week, we can truly move on,
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline amber2670


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:56 pm

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

What's absolutely terrible in this is that people are being banned from even READING to follow the case on PMF.org.
I have never taken anything from .org and posted it here as is claimed that some do. There was absolutely no reason to be banning everyone who posts here. I guess a year later we are now being MADE to choose sides. Banning me and others from following that site does NOTHING for Meredith Kercher and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. How dare anyone here or there claim to be doing what is best for the Kerchers. I mean we all can only hope but never know for sure what they would want. .org was paid a year up by an anonymous donation. I can only hope that they are aware of how the site they donated to is being run. That members who only wanna read along and follow news about Meredith are being banned from doing so for NO reason.

I'm thoroughly disgusted by all of this. I'm unsure I wanna be a part of either side. This is not how things were supposed to be. I've devoted 3 years to following this case in hopes of justice for Meredith. This being banned over voicing my opinion is total bullshit. Neither site is more dedicated to the cause than the other.

Michael I have a new respect for you and the way you choose to moderate your board. I'm so sorry that you've been treated the way the you have and the terrible things that have been said about you. Skeptical bystander is not a spokesperson for the Kercher family that I know of. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry but she should never presume to speak their feelings. That sickens me and I tried to contact the admins there and of course got no response. I just don't understand how she feels justified in banning members that have never insulted her or her board. It's fine at this point I just don't know how they feel justified in alienating people who are part of the cause they supposedly feel so strongly about.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

And Michael. Please keep FOUNDER under your name. Not just for the weekend. Let's keep the record straight.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon, I am on the same page as you. And, yes, Michael has suffered, because he allowed himself to be blackmailed, for the sake of a cause he so dearly believes in.

In my opinion, Skeptical Bystander, by her actions and words, does not have the same interests as Michael. It's all about HER. NOT the Kerchers.

For Michael, it's been about the KERCHERS, not about him.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amber, you have NAILED it.

Skeptical Bystanders actions have shown one thing. It is NOT about Meredith, and the cause for justice. This, to me, is so obvious.

It's about .ORG. Her * Importance *. She should have been happy, to have more than one site, on the side of the Kerchers.

Disgusted is right. Peggy has done a huge injustice, banning people who she feels interfere's with her agenda. Her need to keep her disgraceful role, secret. So, she axe's anyone who gets in the way of that. Pretty Feudal. You and Resipsa's banning is beyond ridiculous. It's petty, mean spirited, and, done out of fear.

Hopefully, we can now move on.

We will have everything they do. And more. No worries.

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

Offline amber2670


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:56 pm

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Yes sadly no one there would even recognize my name (even though I've been a part of this/that site for much longer than some) that's how meaningless my banning is. I only wished to follow along there and never wanted to start any drama. Like I've said I'm fine it at this point if that's the way they want to treat people I dont want any part of it.

I won't be bringing this all up again. I'm glad this all got out there now because I was one who was in the dark for all this time. Not wanting to rock the boat by mentioning the split.

Now to get back to our reason for being here.....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I'm with you, Amber.

I just wish to add, that it's so nice to have you here. Thanks for your input so far. Everything happens for a reason, in the same way that actions beget reactions.

I think there's only 1 WEEK, to the dead line for the appeal docs to be filed. We can expect a flurry of activity then.

I forget when the other Court dates are set for..re: Mellas et al..Jeeze..the dates get postponed so many times, it's hard to keep track.

There's been some chat, about whether knox will return to Italy. Either for her parents, or for her own trial.

I would think not. I doubt the Mellas/Knox will return either.

I see some heavy fines coming down.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Unimpressed by ganongs slur - what can I do about it though.

I found ganong to be disloyal from the start

I had information from a lawyer in Perugia. Offered it to ganong, quennel
ganong came back with "busy now reading 'rememberence of things past' (in the original french)"
I thought ??? ... you snob

Then I got no reply at all to further info just trying to be involved - received inside information
... apparent mods ... what to do with it ... only place I argue about the case is PMF. I got angered
when they plainly ignored me.

This whole board is better without that controlling self agenderized lying individual Her membership
and their contribution mean nothing to her.

Heavy restrictive moderation. A mirror cultish FOA situation now with her in charge ... she is
something like a candace dempsey (humorless, cold, driven by her own agenda). I touched
a raw nerve with what I said. Tentacles of Marriot - Marriot plan - Marriot make approaches.
Marriot undermine. Marriot have influence (what ganong wants).

Enough said - pretty angry about it that's all. As capealadin said, let's move on now.

(ozone smell)
Top Profile 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

If a group of "like-minded-people" decide to shut their doors to others, it is fine with me. But then how are they different from the people they are criticising? To quote Sartre "you won't go far, the door is closed from the other side". But they should better be aware that closed communities are the first to degenerate and disintegrate.

But why we are bogged down with this group? Have we lost our focus? Why we are giving free publicity to the others!

Many have suggested that we move on. That is the best suggestion I have seen on these pages in the last few days.

Sadly I find some similarities with the person she (on the other site) is trying to criticise.

As Michael has rightly said " Power corrupts and absolute Power corrupts absolutely".

Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Troon,

We have been open and honest. I can understand you feeling angry about being treated that way.It's a disgrace, really.

However, we have no control over how Admins behave, and what they do. They have the power, to delete and ban, at will.

The community pretty much are there for the cause, and for each other. They are loyal to Justice for Meredith. And, that's good.

As I say, I would have resigned anyway.

There's lots more twists and turns. I feel we should keep our energy positive for a just outcome.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

amber2670 wrote:
What's absolutely terrible in this is that people are being banned from even READING to follow the case on PMF.org...

...That members who only wanna read along and follow news about Meredith are being banned from doing so for NO reason.


They IP banned you as well? That was completely unnecessary. I feel a little bad, as it was I that taught Peggy to do that...but only with trolls and spammers.

Contact me privately in PM and I'll tell you how to get around it, so you can at least read the board as a guest and follow events regarding the case.

The other thing I'll say, is that as you probably know, I would always post up the latest news reports following the case. Since I had the break where I was taken ill and had all the computer problems, I've not been doing that. That's because whilst I've found a workaround for my cpmputer issues they aren't solved and my machine is very flakey and constantly running in the red. Therefore, I've not been operating the browser and all its open multiple tabs I normally use for news aggregation. Considering recent events where some members have been deliberately blocked from reading the news on the 'other' board, I shall endeavour to begin doing that again here. I just hope my poor little box can take it.

Amber2670 wrote:
I'm thoroughly disgusted by all of this. I'm unsure I wanna be a part of either side. This is not how things were supposed to be. I've devoted 3 years to following this case in hopes of justice for Meredith. This being banned over voicing my opinion is total bullshit. Neither site is more dedicated to the cause than the other.


Yes, I understand and sadly, that is the danger...that people may say "A plague on both your houses!" and walk right off and that is a terrible shame. As for the case, as you say, no single individual, group or faction owns it. This case belongs to everyone. It certainly belongs to the Kerchers, but it is in EVERYONE's interests to see true justice done.


Daisy -

I love your posts, not just what you say but how you say it, I wish you would post more often, as I just love reading them...you're a star. They also contain a great deal or both pragmatism and wisdom and I agree with all of it :)

Regarding 'All of Us', yeah it splintered off from the TCWMB, the foreunner of PMF. The split was a big thing and nearly destroyed us, as serious as the second (except it lacked the devastating factor of being between owners, Admins and Mods). Only about 8 or 9 members broke off in the split, but that that was devasting when you consider the TCWMB at that time only had a membership of just over hundred (some of which were FOAKers...Charlie Wilkes was a regular poster there in those days) and about 60% of the membership never or rarely posted. Some of those that left were key members too, not only Soozie, but also Sparrow (who when still with us helped translate Rudy's German diary the translation we still use to this day), May (who created some beautiful PowerPoint presentations for us, which are still here), Damien, (who would provide us with all sorts of translations from the local press in the Perugia area)...Jools also went there for a time. I lost some good friends, people I liked. The split was almost fatal to us and we swore never to let anything like that happen again. Well...


Cape -

I really want to thank you, you've been a brick!

Cape wrote:
And Michael. Please keep FOUNDER under your name. Not just for the weekend. Let's keep the record straight.


Nah, just 'till the end of the weekend or so will do. Otherwise, it smacks of blowing my own trumpet and being very English, I'm not into that.


Everyone -

The subject of posting private PM's or/and emails without the sender's permission.

Once one starts doing that, it crosses a line. Even if one justifies it in some sort of grey area. It is the slippery slope, as then just about anyone can invent a grey area in order to justify the publication of private correspondence and before you know it, everyone's doing it and a whole lot of people are being hurt. And then one can't point the finger as they'll automatically get it pointed back at them. There are people who have already crossed that line, like Donnie and Bruce Fisher, who did even worse by posting up private correspondence that wasn't even to him (Peter Quennell's...and I thought that was absolutely disgusting and said so). IT IS THEREFORE BEST TO RETAIN A BLACK AND WHITE RULE - NEVER. It is in all of our interests that this rule is in place and observed, whether we are members of .net or .org, FOAKers or those who believe in guilt, neutrals or partisan.

There are exceptions, as there are to all rules, but these exceptions are also black and white, not grey and are as follows:

1) Someone sends you a legal threat, such as a Cease & Desist (C & D), or some other form of legal request in order to silence you. In those cases, it is PMF policy to post these up on the board in public. This is in fact the standard procedure of most sites. I also encourage members to post them, should they personally receive any. I remember Peter Quennell once, getting terribly angry because a FOAKer posted up on his blog an email Pete had sent him in which he threatened to sue him if he didn't stop doing whatever it was (I can't remember what it was now). I said to Pete, in as much of a sympathetic tone as I could...Pete, look, you sent him a legal threat...it may be unpleasant, but he has every right to post it up in public. A very big and powerful on world stage site I used to help Moderate back in the day before the case (staff on our site included experts that would testify on select committees and creators of famous security softwares you may have heard of...such as HijackThis! (Merijin), SpywareBlaster (Javacool) and many others in the anti-malware, PC security and PC health industries...members numbered in the hundreds of thousands and there were many hundreds of posts a day). As such, we'd often take on very shadowy but powerful malware/adware vendors and some of them would respond by trying to shut us down or threatening legal action by getting their hotshot lawyers to write the owners, Paul and Robin Laudanski, Cease and Desists (some of these altercations were legendary in the anti-malware and white hat communities) and as policy they were always posted publicly and formally responded to publicly. This was to show the world they were attempting to silence us with legal bullying and as a result, they would back off. They didn't have a leg to stand on anyway, as their crap was blatantly spyware or worse.

The other kind of threat it's acceptable to post is the illegal kind of threat, such as threat to kill or cause physical harm, sexual harm, damage to property or the use of blackmail, stalking or some other form of illegal harrassment, threat, illegal conspiracy, sollicitation or any other form of illegal activity.

2) Where the sender gives express permission for them to be posted.

3) Where you give the sender in advance of that which you use, formal notice clearly stated in your reply, that they should be advised that you reserve the right to share or post anything they send you in return. In that instance, they do not have to give you permission to publish as further contact from them is done so under the full knowledge of your stated notice. This is usually done in situations where the contact is unsollicited and unwelcome, or where the recipient anticipates legal or illegal threat may be made or when someone is in contact with an enemy under truce (between those who believe in guilt and FOAKers would be a good example). The sender of course, can stipulate the same notice in return.

4) Where it is already in the public domain and it being so is nothing to do with you.



Next subject, Everyone -

Regarding the recent (most) unpleasant events. There is truth in the adage that a boil needs to be lanced. At the same time, there is a point where it can become destruction rather then cure. Rather then things calming down, they are accellerating out of control and a great deal of damage is being done. I feel my presence here at the moment, whether I take part in it or not, is fueling the fire. I'm therefore going to take myself out of the equasion for a while to allow things to start to cool down. I'm going to take a break from the forum until after the weekend.

In addition, I'm emotionally drained and devestated and I need to take care of my mental and physical health. If I don't take a break now, it could be the end of me as a participant in this case, let alone a functioning site Administrator.

I shall still keep an eye and perhaps pop in from time to time before then, but on the whole I'm going to take a time out. I have some PM's in my inbox waiting to be dealt with and I'll leave those until after the weekend too, although I'll certainly read them before then (I hope everyone doesn't mind). I shall of course, respond to any emergencies.

In the meantime, speak about recent events if you must and need to get things out of your system (keeping things legal, within the forum rules and fair), but PLEASE do discuss the case. It must not be allowed to get buried in this. And while I'm not about, please respect the staff. And please, I beg you, nobody start another public scandal or Battle Royale (Troon, here me?).

Thank you to all those that have leant me support, thank you to those who have supported the cause for Meredith, and to my friends, both present and absent, I love you.

Michael

PS:

Troon wrote:
I had information from a lawyer in Perugia. Offered it to ganong, quennel
ganong came back with "busy now reading 'rememberence of things past' (in the original french)"
I thought ??? ... you snob


Should have sent it to me ;)

PPS:

Amber2679 wrote:
Yes sadly no one there would even recognize my name (even though I've been a part of this/that site for much longer than some) that's how meaningless my banning is. I only wished to follow along there and never wanted to start any drama. Like I've said I'm fine it at this point if that's the way they want to treat people I dont want any part of it.



On an amusing note, I recognised you as soon as I saw you, I remembered you very well even though you joined years ago. The reason is that when you first joined PMF I was poised, finger hovering over ban button, to ban you. This is because I suspected you at first when you registered, of being a spam bot. This is due to your username...short word followed by a set of numbers, very spambot-like. Fortunately, I held off and waited, realised you weren't a bot and now here you are :)

_________________
"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 amber2670


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:56 pm

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Funny you say that Michael. This is the first forum board I've really been a member of. I just used the name I use in my email. I never thought about it being similar to those of bots. About 6 months back or so I was ip banned from .org by mistake. I contacted clander and he fixed it, I guess they thought the same as you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael, thank you for letting us know that you're taking a much needed break. Yes, it's very important to take care of your health. Very. Hurry back, though, as soon as you're able.

Me, a brick? Thanks. With many bricks, one builds a strong foundation. As to * being English*. Yes, that you are. And, way too much of a gentleman.

I never knew about that other forum. I mean, I know it's been mentioned before, but I never got to read it. Is it gone, forever? I thought things on the net are there for posterity?

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

A rather poignant OT.

I received a call, from a friend of my daughter-in-law. She's hosting a shower for her..and wanted some info about my son..for a game they're playing at the shower. Really, I'm not American, and I'm quite fascinated with the way things are done.

So, she wanted some anecdotes. One of them, which I told her about went like this.

We had a beautiful, enclosed garden, full of the most beautiful flowers. My son was 2 years old, and would be in the garden, with his playthings. I was on the phone, and he picked a beautiful flower for me, and with a beautiful smile, gave it to me. I kissed him, told him how lovely of him to pick a flower for his mommy.

Well, back to the phone, and other things, for a bit. I went outside, to find EVERY FLOWER PICKED !!! In a huge pile, with a little chap, beaming proudly. ( the house looked lovely, every vase filled, for days). :)

hugz-)

I put the phone done, and thought how very sad for Arline and John kercher. Not having the joy to ever know a child of Meredith's. And, that's why it felt so poignant. I loved remembering little things about my child. Such a joy. And, the Kerchers? The memories must be tinged with so much sadness.

I'm out for the day and night. I'll be back tomorrow, and I wish you all a perfect day.

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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Have a good day... Michael and Cape.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I have stopped reading here, let alone posting here, for many, many months. I expect that after this post I'll be banned, and in fact it would surprise me if this post was allowed to stand for any length of time.

On March 16, 2011, Michael logged onto PMF as administrator and started to ban Skep. Without telling anyone, he removed both Clander and Skep's admin status and then proceeded to eliminate Skep from every forum, ban her email, erase her from the site. Clander logged in in the middle of this little operation, saw what was going on, contacted Michael directly (thinking it might have been some kid playing on Michael's computer) and was told that this was a reaction to Skep's IGNORING HIM ON THE BOARD. Knowing that the formal owner of the board was actually Skep, Clander took the board down to preserve it and stop Michael from making himself sole person in control.

THE INSTIGATOR OF THE ENTIRE SPLIT WAS MICHAEL, with his single-handed, unannounced banning of Skep.

No one can have any reasonable discussion on this subject without knowing that fact. Once you know it, you can reflect on who did what and who was right and wrong in the follow-up of Michael's act.

Here's the screen capture of the log of the activities that went on that night. It happened before the split, and it led to the split. It speaks for itself.

MOD EDIT: url to image - viewtopic.php?p=92864#p92864




picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Feb 11. The image above has been re-sized to fit the maximum width. I kindly ask that you don't ignore Moderator's requests in the future. Thanks.



picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Feb 13, moved image over to the relevant discussion thread and replaced image with link to post in that thread where it is housed
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Briefly popping in during my break, but heading right out again

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

Thoughtful -

I hope you are well.

No, you won't be banned for your post (why do you think you would?) and I am quite happy for your post to be there. Although, your assertions are incorrect.

I shall deal with them fully once I return from my break. Have a nice weekend :)

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Congratulations, Thoughtful. I had no idea you had been promoted to Administrator. That's how you have an Admin log, right? Or are you just the ERRAND GIRL? Pfft.

I wonder how you got it? I wonder who gave it to you?

Michael will deal with it. Pathetic. Methinks some people are very, very defensive. With good reason.

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thank you for your unexpected cordiality, Michael. I'm fine, and sincerely hope that your health is bearing up.

If you are going to address my message after your weekend break, naturally you can and should correct any wrong assessments I have made, but you should, I believe, mainly address the screencap I posted.

A clear explanation of what you were doing right then, specifying that Skep knew nothing of it while you were doing it, would certainly clarify matters and probably be worth hearing.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I'm not an Administrator, Cape. I have had those screenshots and copies of many PM's exchanged between Michael, Clander and others at that time for months; since just after the split, in fact. Why? Because I really cared, and I asked, and my questions got answered. It's that simple.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Calm down, thoughtful. We've all seen these screen shots.
I knew 'your side' would dig them up. Nothing new, so spare us the false drama.
It's the official version being fed by your Admins to the membership. By the way,
could you please reduce the size of the image so it fits within the forum margins?
Thanks.

Please don't be paranoid, no one is going to ban you for that.

Since Michael is not here to respond, I'll respond for him. If you ask me, a pity
he didn't succeed in deleting Skeptical Bystander. She has no scruples, no ethics,
and no reflection. No emotional depth either, as is so blatantly obvious from reading
her latest PMs.

What the membership doesn't know is that she and a little clique around her
had been undermining Michael on this board for months prior to that fatal day.
Did the thought ever crossed your mind that Skep and her manner of communicating
with him could be part of the problem? Skep must be holy and blameless and
beyond reproach, eh? Not everyone is "tough as nails", you know, thoughtful.

You are fully aligned with Skeptical Bystander and your outrage is understandable.
There are two sides to every story and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Michael’s actions show that he has been desperate for the conflict resolution
between the 2 admins. He has done it in an attempt to force Peggy to acknowledge
him and deal with him, and to resolve the long-standing frictions between them.
It was an act of desperation.

I hope he gets better and replies after the weekend.

When people don't have the grace to respect someone's illness, it's sad, thoughtful. ss)

P.S. I think I need Cape's help...
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
I have stopped reading here, let alone posting here, for many, many months. I expect that after this post I'll be banned, and in fact it would surprise me if this post was allowed to stand for any length of time.


Thoughtful, you're the second person from .org who showed up, made a similar comment about 'expecting to be banned' then, wasn't banned. Nor will you be. A bit of a difference in style, don't ya think, addressing people who have been banned?

All members of .org are welcome to post here, on PMF.net. Do tell them that, will you?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Guermantes:

Whatever the conflict between the two Administrators, one of them cannot single-handedly delete the other. That's all. It's not an admissible form of conflict resolution, I'm afraid, and furthermore it can set off a lot of unfortunate repercussions, which is exactly what it did.

You're right that I'm feeling a bit of outrage, but it's not because of what happened in the screenshot - passions do take over sometimes - but because of the egregious accusations of "theft" that are all over the place today. The person who was being liquidated committed theft? Nope, sorry.

Anyway, no one is in a hurry. Michael's explanations can be awaited, and I doubt he is in need of anyone to jump in for him. The simple fact I'm trying to point out is that he instigated the split by single-handedly deleting his co-Administrator, and whatever happened afterwards was as a reaction to this unilateral act. That is my only point.

Ergon:

Thank you. I don't expect to post here much after this discussion, but your welcome is appreciated.


Last edited by thoughtful on Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I will ask, though, that anyone else who feels the need to come over with such little snippets do so after the weekend. It is unfair to Michael, who needs his rest right now and will only feel forced to respond.

I, on the other hand, will be here ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
I'm not an Administrator, Cape. I have had those screenshots and copies of many PM's exchanged between Michael, Clander and others at that time for months; since just after the split, in fact. Why? Because I really cared, and I asked, and my questions got answered. It's that simple.


It's not that simple, Thoughtful. Other people really cared , asked questions, and OUR questions weren't answered.

So, one asks the question. Why were some posters favoured over others? Why not have shared with all the posters?

I guess you caught Skeptical Bystander at good moments. I suppose she wasn't reading...ala Troon's complaint.

I daresay you are on the same page as the * Big Shots* on .org. I daresay, seeing as you are privvy to all things, you APPROVE the actions taken? The deletions of rebuttals, made in good faith? The bannings?

You're proud of those things? You're so proud, you run over here, doing other's dirty work?

I'm surprised at you, Thoughtful. I would have thought you were above such shenanigans.

Why aren't you all acting in the best interests of Meredith?

We're trying to move on, here. We accept the bannings, the high handed way things have been done.

And, with the bannings, our Moderator isn't allowed to post, to read, to offer anything.

Bravo. It says so much, that Michael allows you all to bring your dirty laundry over here, allows your subterfuge to remain posted, doesn't ban you, or FBN.

Take a page out of his book.

I know this looks like * Kill the Messenger *, Thoughtful, and I've never had a problem with anyone, but I'm just gutted by the behaviour.

I admired you so much. I loved your posts, and took Bard's word, that you were a very nice person.

And yet, you do this. ss)

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thoughtful, You say you doubt Michael needs anyone to jump in for him.

Do you think Skep does? You're OUTRAGED?

I should be outraged. I'm a poster in good faith. But, I will not be bullied, and you may be sure, I am NOT intimidated by anyone. I have posted on other sites, and been pulled over the coals.

I have stood up for Skep, time and time again. And, been insulted for it. Called names because of it. But, I persevered, because that's loyalty.

And, how did we get paid back?

I'm outraged, at the goings on. I'm OUTRAGED that FBN came over here, and acted the way he did. I'm OUTRAGED at the way Michael has been treated.

I'm OUTRAGED at the treatment handed out to Ergon, Amber and Resipsa.

And, I expected no less from Skep. I did expect more from you.

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Guermantes...

You don't need my help, Darlin. You've said it beautifully. I'm too outraged to be as coherent as I would like.

You were treated so badly, G. So unfairly.

I admire your reasoning. Your take on things. You're outstanding.

I'm sorry, Thoughtful, that I'm taking it out on you. I would like to think, if you WERE an admin, you would have behaved very differently.

In view of the happenings of late, I have to say, I believe your loyalties are misplaced. Because I know you can read..and I know that if you're a fair person, you cannot believe tht what has happened to me, and Ergon, Amber, Respisa is right. Or fair. Or nice. Or decent.

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks, dg.

I really wish Michael wasn't being put through this, in view of his health. Not that .ORG respects that, or has any empathy .

I really have no more expectations of any decency from .ORG. None.

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

Offline MarkJones

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:43 am

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi everyone. My name is Mark. I find this entire ordeal to be very disappointing. I think thoughtful might be missing a key piece of information. Today SomeAlibi chimed in to give his take on the split. Here is what he said:

"What is true, which Michael has completely forgotten to relay in his version of events, was that when the split became very likely, he took the first action and started deleting access rights to the other co-moderators at the time and actually started deleting their entire profiles."

Read carefully. Michael did not act until the split was becoming very likely. Michael knew they were going to steal his forum. He tried to defend himself and save his hard work but he failed. Clandor was able to take the board offline before Michael could secure it.

The facts are plain to see. Peggy Ganong is a thief. Michael tried to stop her but she succeeded.

Look at what Clandor said today about Michael's work on the board:

"Sure, Michael created an account on freeforums.org.
A 10 year old can create a free account there in a few minutes.
You can have a look at my "forum" here: http://clander.freeforums.org


This is what Michael is claiming the rights to. An empty forum created by a website which allows someone with zero computer knowledge to create a forum.

That is worth zero!

What is that without all the posts and the translations?
NOTHING!"



Clandor ignores the fact that Michael built the entire board. Go back and look. Every important topic, every important file, has Michael's name on it. How arrogant of Clandor to disount this effort!!

Clandor is a thief as well. Clandor's opinion above follows Ganong's exactly. They have no regard for anyone. Ganong decides what people on her board care about. She dictates what they can say.

Thoughtful, the truth is clear to see. Your screenshot proves that Michael was trying desperately to save his hard work.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MarkJones

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:43 am

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I am not sure how anyone could possibly trust Thoughtful anyway. She is the one that broke into the cottage to take pictures. Yes, she did that. She proudly posted her photos on .org. Who in their right mind walks into someone's home and takes photographs?

Peggy sends out the pawns to do her dirty work. Who will come over next, SomeAlibi maybe?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MarkJones, for helping with the true facts.

You've made such on point truths. It's so appreciated. We're the little guys, at the moment. Scrappy, though :)

I believe in Michael. In Guermantes. In all the lovely posters here. We're solid.

And, I appreciate so much , readers like you, who come out, and post, when you see how things are. hugz-)

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

MarkJones wrote:
....

Look at what Clandor said today about Michael's work on the board:

"Sure, Michael created an account on freeforums.org.
A 10 year old can create a free account there in a few minutes.
You can have a look at my "forum" here: http://clander.freeforums.org

This is what Michael is claiming the rights to. An empty forum created by a website which allows someone with zero computer knowledge to create a forum.

That is worth zero!

What is that without all the posts and the translations?
NOTHING!"


....

Clandor ignores the fact that Michael built the entire board. Go back and look. Every important topic, every important file, has Michael's name on it. How arrogant of Clandor to disount this effort!!

...

Thoughtful, the truth is clear to see. Your screenshot proves that Michael was trying desperately to save his hard work.


Clander, being an IT guy, might be overly impressed with 'computer knowledge'. What few people realize is that Michael had a great deal of prior moderator skills and 'people knowledge', you know, the sort of things that build up a community?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thank you Mark. Aye, truth will out.

There is a good German expression for what Clander has done (Ava will understand :) ):

What he has done is called "Sich ins warme / gemachte Nest setzen", which roughly means

'ohne eigene Leistung in eine geordnete / gut vorbereitete Situation kommen;
von der Vorarbeit anderer profitieren' (Run it through Google trans, if you like)

Engl. translation:

'to take advantage of an existing situation', 'to have got it made'

(though it doesn't convey the exact meaning)

It's like 'cuckoo in the nest' - an unwelcome intruder in a situation.

[It's curious to note that a cuckoo does not, ever, build a nest.

It lays its egg in the nest of another bird. ;) ]

By the way, Clander rhymes with 'slander'. nw) sor-)
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Sending support in light of recent developments...
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Well..well.. What a bunch of nonsense :) How in the world can you call anyone an instigator if you don't know the ins and outs of the fight/argument or whatever happened before the action was taken. Usually there are 2 people to blame. Michael banning Skep? How horrific. Unbanning (or creating a new account) is simple enough. I seriously doubt that he was going to take over the board by himself without the domain name and knowing very well that Clander kept a copy of the board. That is impossible. What Clander did is plain wrong and he should have stayed out of it.

daisysteiner wrote:
I cannot stand thieves and frankly, would rather people who are thieves stopped it with the “justice for Meredith” because their words are hollow.
Amen Daisy :)

I don't understand the people coming on this board throwing around insults and accusations about Michael. They also insult the board members as well.

thoughtful wrote:
I have stopped reading here, let alone posting here, for many, many months. I expect that after this post I'll be banned, and in fact it would surprise me if this post was allowed to stand for any length of time.
And that for an intro. I am feeling all warm and fussy...not!

thoughtful wrote:
THE INSTIGATOR OF THE ENTIRE SPLIT WAS MICHAEL
LITTLE LOUDER PLEASE. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

thoughtful wrote:
Thank you for your unexpected cordiality, Michael.
BBM. WTF?

And on and on it goes. What kind of person talks like that anyway? Incredibly rude and arrogant.

Anyway. Maybe it is better we move the recent discussion to a sub thread? It is interrupting the discussions about the appeals.


Last edited by max on Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hello Tamale :)

Welcome. Thank you for visiting and feel free to drop by. We appreciate your support.

For now, I'm logging off, I might be on later tonight but this is it for me right now. Cheers.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

max, I'm going to leave it up here for now till Michael gets back. He wanted to respond after some well deserved rest.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

7 more days till appeal is due to be filed.

Good night, all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MarkJones

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:43 am

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Can anything be done about this? Any lawyers on board?


http://www.perugiamurderfile.com
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Tamale..and welcome. Very sweet of you...... th-)

Max...Bless you..

It's so heartwarming for people to come on board, old and new, to give support . For all the awful people out there, it's so good to remember all the good ones. Yay-)

I think, Max, that Michael should open a subforum for this discussion. So that we need not be disrupted for the reason we're here.

Personally, I love knowing more about the posters. I like the occasional OT's, the pics, etc.

But, this is too much.

We have been getting a high increase in traffic, and more people joining. I imagine that is why we're having this onslaught. pro-)

We're supposed to be on the same side, united in wanting justice. Apparantly, there are * some *, whose ego's and love of power, feel threatened.

None of us here, have ever wanted, or needed that. Michael won't even take any help, to help pay for the running expenses, or for better computer equipment. :(

Skeptical Bystander crowed for days, because someone kindly paid for a year's running expenses. I was happy for them, thought what a lovely gesture. Every so often, there's crowing about how many vistors. Perhaps they should count the bots, or how that number goes up, everytime a page is refreshed.

Most of their pages are taken up with pics of animals ( And I love animals, don't get me wrong, and music videos). Fine.

We're not here, to be in competition with anyone. We're here in support of a terrible injustice. A beautiful young lady murdered. The parents don't have a $$$$$$Million dollar PR machine.

All they have, is people like us, who try to keep the story straight.

If .ORG was so concerned with the memory of Meredith, they wouldn't have behaved as abominally as they have, and continue to do.

I call fake. I call shenanigans. I feel people there, wanting power, and in wanting it, trying to intimidate, and shut us down.

Not happening. Not on our watch. Because, we're the real PMF. The original. With the Founder in house. And, no matter how they try, that will never change.

So, they can spew their hate. Let me tell you. We have received support, from the INNOSCENTI. nw) Now, that is prolly because they loathe Peggy so much.

I have received so many pm's from them..and publicly, some have supported Michael and me. I know we're on opposite sides, I know it's because , for them, we're the lesser of the two evils.

But I appreciate it. I'll take it. And, in return, although my position will never change, I'll be more ..cordial. :shock:

Oh, and thanks for banning me. Org. It's brought your ugliness to a head. And, brought out some lovely people. YAH!!!!! Yay-)

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

MarkJones wrote:
Can anything be done about this? Any lawyers on board?


http://www.perugiamurderfile.com



Probably not, Max. It's done by a very unfulfilled, unhappy person, who got no accolades for his * work *. Not a mention...not a peep. ss)

So, the lash out. Anyway, anywhere he can. He'll get some accolades from his group, but, he won't sell any books, and PMF is not about making money..especially on the back of a murdered young woman , cut down in her prime.

Not all in the group welcome this person doing this. There are some cut from a better cloth, who draw the line at this kind of thing. I would say Halides and Rose do not approve, for instance. nw)

But some people need to get their jollies this way. I say to him, and his friends..enjoy. Feel good. If that's what makes you feel important..you're a bankrupt human being. pig-) pig-) pig-)

He's a sad sack, going for a cheap laugh. Someone with no talent in anything. He sounds like Bruce Fis(c)her. I could be wrong, in which case I apologize :)

I will add..I have received pm's from some innoscenti..deploring certain posts by those on their side. They understand, as I do, that some posters, on both sides, just echo stupid posts, articles, because they are basically mindless humans. wtf)

They will bleat..Hilarious, so funny etc. They just come across as so weak. Pathetic, really. ss)

I have to say, I agree with them. i.e. There is a thread, I think it's about masturbating over Knox. It's absolutely disgusting..

It's a thread on Jref. I don't like Knox. I believe she's involved in a terrible crime. I cannot get over the video of her singing and swaying in Court. It always reminds me of Diane Downs, who shot her children. Shudder.

Even so. Humour is one thing. That thread is just sick.

It would be great if we could have a place where both sides could really debate. In good faith, without piling on. I believe Michael has tried to make that happen.

Here's a frightening thought. I am a bit interested in the Scaazi (sp) case. I don't have enough info..but I'm feeling there's a miscarriage of justice there.

Some of us may find ourselves on the same side. :) WHOA........ nw)

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I'm just so appreciative for all who are here. I'm so happy to see readers, lurkers ( that's an awful word :) who have come on board..and for all the pm's. hugz-)

Justice is truth. It's for Meredith. it's for everyone wronged in this World. Right now, it's for Michael, as well.

I'm just a poster. Not computer savvy, not a legal wiz. But, I'm real. I can tell the real thing, from Bull sh*t.. an-))

I have never been a blogger. I have a face book account, and just sort of muddle through. is)

When I started to post on PMF, I was intimidated. Everyone seemed so smart, so..knowledgeable. Michael was the one, who took so much time and trouble..and there were many posters then,but he helped me, encouraged me.

I'm going to tell you a secret. I found out, that a poster, who patiently, expertly, tirelessly, was....FULCANELLI.

He posted everywhere. Ran PMF, was often desperately ill, spread the word, and, in the end, made himself very ill.

He got no help, was ignored by his *partner* who did nothing but basically , swan around, trying to look important.

Pfft. I was taught to understand quality. Michael is that, in spades. And, that's why I'm here. When the split happened, and Michael was CUT off, he didn't ask anyone for anything.

I trusted my instincts, which have never failed me, and followed him here.It was Michael, Guermantes, and little ol' me.

Skeptical Bystander, no doubt, thought..no loss. oop-)

Well, Skep. I have news for you. You may have followers. You may have fooled a lot of people. But, I've been around the block. I've been fooled. BUT, I've learned.

I KNOW the real McCoy. This little cog, worth nothing to you, is steadfast. Is real. Not perfect, for sure.

And, I'm NOT going away. Did you, in your power driven frenzy, think that I give a contintal F**ck, that you banned me?

You were nothing without Michael. You used him, let him do all the work, and then discarded him.

Well, I hope you rue the day you banned me. I hope you regret banning wonderful people, like Ergon, Amber, Resipsa..who did nothing, except ask for clarification.

You are a sorry excuse for a human being. I couple you with with the liars, power driven assholes.

I take note, that you are the author of your own demise.

Never, ever, underestimate people, Skep. In your power driven agenda, there are people who see through you. sun-)

There are so many smart people out there. They may seem seem nothing to you..they may not even speak French.. wtf)

but, they're smart. They can figure things out.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Last edited by capealadin on Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

sor-) I'm just so gutted, reading how such a gentleman like Michael, has been treated.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Last edited by capealadin on Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Oh, Innoscenti, I know you're loving this.

Just know, If I was on your side, I'd kind of love it, but my sense of fairness, would be appalled.

Michael has given you an open door. Give him some respect, if grudgingly. It's a hell af a lot more, than you ever got from that closed society, Called. org.

Michael, and Ergon have even, had the nerve..to tell me to cool it :) nw) sometimes... huh-) :)

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Cape, you are everything that a loyal friend should be.
cl-) tt-) cl-)
Hand Salute

Sure would be a much better world if everyone had your loyalty, compassion, and strong personal principles, morals, and values.

In direct contrast, it is interesting to me that the only two FOAKers who seem to be really going overboard gloating and crowing about latest acrimonious PMF split debate, are two of the biggest and easiest documented and proven FOAKer LIARS.
s-(( ar-))
Two total losers in life and in personal principles
ss)

1) brucie who still repeats even yesterday, the ever so easily proven as false, his Amazon BIG LIE about when and why he changed his name.
The IL state public records are so easily accessed and so unequivocally categorically evidence of yet another deliberate, documented lie from him.(again)
This after he shamelessly screwed everyone who trusted him by declaring personal bankruptcy and welching on promises to repay friends and creditors....TWICE. (the max allowed in IL, BTW) eek-)

2) donnie the dimwitted dork, wan-) using his upteenth phoney moniker elsewhere, is especially sickening with his relishing, gloating, derogatory, insulting comments about PMF and its members yesterday.
He who is easily recognized as a pathetic parasite on society, contributing absolutely nothing.
He who has been documented as a sneaking, weasely traitor.
He who is apparently too stupid to realize that as a documented traitor, he is deeply distrusted and detested ....by BOTH sides. eek-)

These two butt buddies deserve each other. tu-))


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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Quick look at just how immoral and unprincipled and ignorant some people can be.

1) donnie the dimwitted delusional dork, posted this almost instantaneously after my above post:

since Stint is reading IIP daily, I just have to respond.
Stint, Bruce Fisher doesn't need my help, he'll be fine and most probably he will ignore your latest rant (it's something I should do also), but I can't.


**You can't do a lot of things, donnie.
That is one of the things that makes you such a pathetic social parasite
You only succeed in showing yet again that all you seek is attention to help your obvious serious psychological impairments.
This while you sit (all alone) in that Commie built death trap of an 'apartment' that your mommie bought for you

ss)

PMF is a hate site, filled with idiots, with no lives. You deservd to be tricked by me and I won. We won. Thankfully, I was sneaky enough to save ALL of the PMS that I received.

**You are even more stupid than I thought if you think being a traitor to those who sincerely offered you help when you begged for it makes you a winner.
You are in fact the lowest scum of the earth.
You are a traitor who publishes private PMs and considers that to be some sort of great "win"
You seriously are in need of a lot of help.
You probably will not ever find any good psycho help in your ex Iron Curtain commie ghetto.
You should know that I also have all the E-Mails that you sent me begging for people to help you.
Help you with your self induced simpleton inabilities to cope with everyday life in your ex commie town.
But I have not found it necessary to lower myself to your level and start putting anyone's PMs on imageshack.
As you are doing.

tu-))

I will continue to defend justice, Bruce Fisher and everyone who's on the good side. As childish as it may sound, it's still the best what I could come up with before my hitting session and meeting with real life friends. What about you, Stint? Say hi to your fellas at both .net and .org from donnie. Ciao Sucker

**Are you really so delusional to think I would say 'Hi'; even to to a turd, for a worthless twit like you.?
Traitors have no friends anywhere, you stupid POS.
Try reading even Commie history books to see that, you shit-headed numbskull.

BTW:
1) That does sound, and really is....childish
2) You will be easily ignored by me again after this.[/b]


2)Then butt buddie brucie, the documented proven LIAR pops up with:

I laugh at those at PMF that have built themselves up to think they have great authority. They moderate a discussion board that they created. Last time I checked, the internet was an open playground. Anyone is free to start a discussion board at anytime. They are also free to appoint themselves king and/or queen of their forum if that gives them a sense of achievement.

** Finally something with an iota of accuracy from puppy dog donnie's idol.
Yes, last time I looked, the discussion board you started had a pathetically putrid rating for hits compared to PMF.
But yes, anyone can start a simpleton copycat POS. :roll:
Anyone can publish their own book/s too if every publishing house rejects it as unadulterated shit between covers.

Also, the stupidity of your cheering section there is evident when you show them the childish stunt you pulled *YEARS AGO* with the "PMF.com" kindergarten type stupidity.
Your in house dummies on the Board you freely started but very few read, now cheer you in unison like the .com shit is something new.
Do they ever get out of the cocoon of ignorance that you started for them?
Are they that out of touch with the case ???

And you tell everyone that PMF is idiot infested.
huh-)


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi Stint,

Thanks a bunch, for your kind words.. k-((

As for the sad sacks you mention...it's transference. They're hate filled. They're delusional as well, because they don't see it. ss)

Do you have the dates, for the upcoming calunnia and slander? They've postponed so many times, I've lost track.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

(((OT-OT-OT)))

A few things to read and look at before your weekend really begins.

Seems we are not the only ones involved in a "messy internal power dispute" ;)

Andrea Vogt's piece in

THE GUARDIAN

Love this bit from Andrea's tweet: "Document is real, but threat is not" (the same can be said about the document posted by thoughtful above.) :)
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi Stint,

Thanks a bunch, for your kind words.. k-((

As for the sad sacks you mention...it's transference. They're hate filled. They're delusional as well, because they don't see it. ss)

Do you have the dates, for the upcoming calunnia and slander? They've postponed so many times, I've lost track.


Meant every warm word of it from bottom of my heart, my friend.
When you get wound up, you are just awesome

Here's my best accounting of the dates I have seen (NONE from IIP, BTW)
16 Feb...last date for Appeal of Hellmann to be filed by Galati.
28 Mar...Sollecito Family hearings start in Bari
30 Mar...Knox Parents Slander
10 May...Knox Parents Slander
24 May...Aviello Slander

Again, I just copied and filed dates whenever I saw one from a source I considered reliable. (never IIP)
Cannot vouch for accuracy beyond that, and welcome any corrections
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

G, that got a lot of press. i need Ergon's prediction :)

Thanks, Mr. Info Stint :)

But, I'm wondering why Knox parents slander has 2 different dates?

The awful cat, that I mentioned over a year ago, was back this morning. He's huge, very aggressive, and i wouldn't want to be face to face with him, in a dark alley. I mean, I adore animals, but this one is a rogue.

I haven't seen him for a long while, and the last time, he tried to trip me up. He's got this black and grey striped tail.

Anyway, he's roaming the neighbourhood, and has a really loud sound. It made me think of the downstairs of the cottage.

Not the cat blood, per se, but the fact that the boys room was in such a mess. IIRC, that was not the way the boys left it.

It's a small thing, but, Meredith had the keys, so that she could water the plants. Was that key missing as well?

Because, who would know that key was for downstairs?

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hello, everyone. New member, first-time poster. What are the odds that I would click on here and read a post about the exact thing that I have questioned from the start of my readings: the downstairs key? It's my opinion, capealadin, this key to the downstairs is no small thing. Who would know Meredith had it, indeed? Who would know what was in the downstairs apartment? Who would know that the apartment would be empty? I wish the prosecutors would have persued this as a possible motive.
Meredith needed to be at home for someone to filch the key. Palm it quietly and Meredith wouldn't even know it was missing. Unless she caught them. Pure speculation on my part, I know. But, oh, so simple an explanation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi Napia,

I don't see it as a motive for the crime. I just wondered about the disarray downstairs, and if the key was missing as well. Actually, I don't think there was any reason to take the key, unless it was on Meredith's key ring, and has no bearing on anything.

I need someone , who remembers, to fill me in. My inkling is that Rudy may have gone downstairs, to help himself to the bud.

Or, was the room messed up, as part of the staged breakin. If that's the case, Knox would be the only one to know Meredith had the key.

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:

Thanks, Mr. Info Stint :)

But, I'm wondering why Knox parents slander has 2 different dates?


Prolly because the hearing was postponed so many times already ??.
The original date was set @ 4july2011
I would suspect the latest date is correct.
When I saw the latest, I may not have deleted the earlier one from my file ???
Perhaps someone else can help this ol guy who faces galloping senility :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I think it was because of postponements. Senile, You ? Not bloody likely :)

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Interesting bit from a show, yesterday. The host said: Circumstantial evidence can be far more compelling than direct evidence.

For instance: What are the chances...that this happened, or that happened. Many cases are decided on circumstantial evidence, than otherwise. Defense attorneys always go to contamination, etc.

I agree. As murderers don't film or record themselves, as a rule..one can always find one or two..but, in at least 99% of the time. This conversation came about, because A man is on trial for killing his wife and unborn child :(.

There was no dna evidence at all. He has an *alibi *..although, there's funny goings on with that.

Still, it seems that juries do pay a lot of attention, and give merit to, behaviour, lies, etc.

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

Offline kathyh


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:01 pm

Posts: 25

Highscores: 22

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Cape, Stint and all the other loyal posters and lurkers who have stayed with Michael and this (the original) board. After the split, I stayed with Michael and this board and have not been to the other board, and I never will go there, not after they did what they did, not only to this board, but to Michael.

I didn't realize how much lying was going on about the split, to the posters over there. What I've been reading over the last day or two has shocked me to the core. I would have posted yesterday, but was too angry to even think straight.

FBN; I used to love reading your posts when the boards were intact. I can't believe you are saying the things you are saying, and turning against Michael like this. I'm sure he is hurt to the core that you could say such things! How could you?

Maybe those who have been banned from there could consider it a very lucky escape. I would!

If they want to ban me, that's fine! My name is still there, on the board, and I would like it to be removed. As I say, I never go there.

They will never be forgiven for what they have done. (Sorry Ergon. Never is a very long time and I may manage forgiveness eventually, say, a few decades, ok?)

A subforum would be a very good idea for all those who want to discuss this, I think, but that of course is down to Michael.

I am so disgusted at their behaviour, I'm almost speechless, but as you can see, not quite.

How dare they try to dictate to our brilliant moderators and of course, Michael!!

Ergon, welcome to the board in your new position. I know you will be a very good moderator and I look forward to all your future posts. I know I will find them as interesting as all your past posts have been.

Cape, Stint...you are our warriors who are not afraid to fight for what you know is right and for that, I admire you both so much. Thankyou!!

It seems to me, that the cloned board is run like a dictatorship. It was never like that when Michael was there, so maybe we should feel sorry for those poor posters who are being so lied to. It may not be spoken about much on here, but no lies are told.

As you know, I don't post very often, but I've been so angry about this, I felt I had to say something.

Btw. I believe smelly (stinky) AK, is not only part of the murder of Meredith Kercher, but guilty of the actual fatal stab that led to her death.

Thankyou, all you wonderful people.

Maybe they are worried that they will lose a lot of their posters when those people learn how much nicer and better it is on this site eh? Love.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi KathyH,

It's been, and is a pleasure to know and be on board with Michael. He's just a very special person, in so many ways.

I can only echo what you have written. Well, not trumpeting your compliment to me :)

Yes, we have support. And, it's appreciated. However, bear in mind KathyH, that some lurkers who have * shown support * are prolly trolls. Trolls get their jollies that way. I think it makes them feel important. Oh well.

For me, I could care less about being banned. However, I thinks it's a disgrace, the way it was done. And, for no reason.

It says a lot about them, though, and not about us. Chami said it best..when he talks about the loss of their credibility.

Thanks so much for posting. You have a very good take on things, and..umm..yes, I think your banning has prolly already happened...:)

And, no matter what .ORG does, there are many, who hold Michael in high esteem. .ORG can never take awy the fact, that Michael is the Founder, the creator, of PMF. Facts are facts.

I hope Michael is having a good weekend, and nice cups of tea.

My Mum believes a cup of tea, is the answer to everything. We took her to a party in L.A., and someone mentioned they had found a body by the pool that morning. Mum said: Did you have a cup of tea, Dear ? :)

Thanks for posting.......Kiss.....

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

Offline bucketoftea


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm

Posts: 1377

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I think you all need to get over yourselves.

I'm banning myself from.net. Bye.


Note
Just a Note.
~ You won't be banned (yet), but you are now on Moderated Status and have been put on Restricted Privs - Congratulations! You also, now have a formal warning. Thanks for the Troll-By.

There are many members on PMF.org I have great respect and fondness for. However, the staff and a certain section of its membership (a small section I hope!), NEEDS TO START TAKING A VERY HARD LONG LOOK AT ITSELF! For YEARS, the PMF community has been condemning the 'troll culture' endemic amongst the FOAKers, as that 'Troll Culture' (ANY Troll culture) is unacceptable and unjustifiable. Yet, in the last week, LED BY A PMF.ORG ADMIN NO LESS (and as such, it was sanctioned by the other Admins over there also), PMF.net has been trolled by multiple .ORG persons, people who should, and have for years been publicly declaring, they know better. There are some people I thought I knew, I am now realising I don't know at all. After all these years spent condemning trolling, some of those condemning it, people like FBN, his Admin mates, and people like YOU Bucket, actually were never anti-trolling, they just didn't like BEING trolled. It would appear .ORG is now waging a campaign of trolling as POLICY and are trying to OUT-FOAKer the FOAKers at it. All that high-minded claimed integrity, nobility and grace by the .ORG establishment, it was all hypocrisy and PUFF.

All this considered, regarding Peggy Ganong's boasts that the .ORG community is closely followed by the Kerchers...I hope to GOD that isn't true! They must be feeling...I can't even begin to imagine what they must be feeling to see 'what lies beneath'!

You're right Bucket, you do belong over there. We really aren't your sort of people, at all.

Bye Bucket.
~




picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: Confirmation of your formal warning.
Top Profile 

Offline kathyh


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:01 pm

Posts: 25

Highscores: 22

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

O.T. Just been told that Whitney Huston (spelling probobly wrong, sorry) has died today in America. Not known why. A bit of a shock!

Cape, I expect I'm banned there as you say. That's fine by me.

No-one needs this kind of sh*t, least of all Michael. They know he's ill, yet they do this to him. DISGUSTING!!

And now they're doing it to you and our posters. Who the hell do they think they are?? DISGUSTING!!

He doesn't go on that site, yet they come to ours with their rubbish accusations, so disloyal!
I can't tell you how angry I am at their treatment of him and now all of you. None of you deserve this.

I think they are all brainwashed, especially FBN. Such a shame as he used to be so nice and I used to like reading his posts. Even bucketoftea! What has been going on over there?

It's so sad. I'm sure Michael must be rather depressed over the way they all are, so yes, I hope he gets lots of tea into himself and chocolate. They say chocolate lifts your spirits, thats why people turn to chocolate when they're feeling down.

It's very late for me now so I'm off to bed. A peaceful day for you all. Bye
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I think you all need to get over yourselves.

I'm banning myself from.net. Bye.

This is the only post BucketofTea has made on .net.
He/She is on .org now - typing on what was built by Michael.
Why don't they just leave it alone
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

OMG. RIP Whitney Houston. That is so sad and unexpected.

Yes, I would like a cup of tea as well. No, not a bucket but thanks for yet another insult. Respect!
Top Profile 

Offline MarkJones

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:43 am

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

bucketoftea wrote:
I think you all need to get over yourselves.

I'm banning myself from.net. Bye.



Hey Bucket - Why don't you have .org explain the entire story? SomeAlibi said a split was likely and then Michael acted. Why do you guys start the explanation when Michael acts instead of long before that when the trouble really started? You know, why don't you start back at the point where Ganong plotted to hijack PMF?

Are you afraid to tell the world what really happened?

Tell Ganong to get over herself! She is on a delusional power trip!


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Removed repetition of Moderator note and warning to quoted poster
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

MarkJones wrote:
You know, why don't you start back at the point where Ganong plotted to hijack PMF?


Welcome to the board MarkJones. I'm not really back posting at the moment, but this needed to be corrected, so I will be brief.

Before I acted, I was not aware of any active plot by Ganong to hijack PMF, neither have I been made aware of any such plot since that time. Neither was there a plot, as far as I was aware, by anyone else. Neither was there any such plot by myself. In short, there was no plot, by anyone. Although, Ganong certainly had 'desires'...but, desires are very different to an actual plot. There may be issues between Ganong and I, but I'm not going to say things about her that aren't true, or at least, things I don't believe to be true. There was a very serious issue, but the issue was not a 'plot'.

I "acted". I will explain further, when I return to posting after my break.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
It's been, and is a pleasure to know and be on board with Michael. He's just a very special person, in so many ways.

I hope Michael is having a good weekend, and nice cups of tea.

My Mum believes a cup of tea, is the answer to everything. We took her to a party in L.A., and someone mentioned they had found a body by the pool that morning. Mum said: Did you have a cup of tea, Dear ? :)


Hi Cape

Another great post from you to start my morning. cl-) tt-) cl-)

My thoughts:
1) ME TOO on the Michael part.
People like him epitomize everything that I respect sooooo very much in others.
No one on this earth is perfect, but some are so very superior in their moral fiber and character.
Rest well, Michael, my friend.

2) Your Mum is a great testament to the old saying about "apples do not fall far from the tree".
Being able to keep your head when all around you are losing theirs is such an admirable skill.
(especially nice to see in Airline Pilots)

a) She reminds me of the character traits and skills I always admired so in those grey haired savvy Airline Captains I was so awed by about a half century ago.
Men who I will never, ever forget.
Men, who I was ever so privileged to be able to savor their every word of sage advice and to try to soak up every one of their long practiced magnificent flying skills.

b) Also reminds me of the brave Captain of the Titantic,
His calm ever so poignant last thoughts delivered to his crew when disaster is inevitable and imminent.
As the last lifeboats are now successfully being launched, the ship is listing so badly that the band has to hold their music holders while playing "Nearer My God To Thee/Abide With Me", Captain Edward Smith's words to his crew"...remember in all that you do....Be British"


c) From yesterday's rare scan OF IIP, I could not help laughing at the attempt of the latest in the long line of sockpuppets there to try and...errrr... "B_Real"... making snarky (close to home) comments about old men flying.
s-(( ar-))

Perfect example of yet another IIP dumb dipshit sockpuppet displaying his/her ignorance to world.
Sure, 'not real'...next dark stormy nightime red eye airline flight over water, be sure to look for a very young Captain with no grey in his hair.
Be sure to select a flight with a "not old" Captain that has not a speck of grey at the temples.
Your pick to sit behind would probably be a spikey, gelled, perfumed 100 buck hair do, phoney diamond earlobe stud, and tramp stamp forearm tattoo "not old" guy that the chicks like.
:roll:

A *young* Captain like Schettino perhaps is more to your liking???
Definitely more your type.
You deserve such, since you now wallow with so many similar sickening examples of humanity at that pathetic, anemic IIP.
A Forum started as a simpleton copycat Board by a documented LIAR, and polluted presently by lying sockpuppets and treacherous traitors.
'not_4_real' you are little other than another run of the mill phoney baloney dimwitted arrogant ignoramus.
tu-)) tu-)) tu-))


BTW:
Absolutely great read about dramatic actions of several during last moments of Titantic:
A Night to Remember, Walter Lord, Penguin, 1956.
Titanic, Leo Merriott, PRC, 1997.
http://www.biblical-counsel.org/ga-01.htm


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

That's so sad about Whitney. I thought her beautiful, with a voice that was like liquid gold. Rest in peace,Whitney. r-((

Sorry to see you go, Bucket..but, then..errm..you were NEVER here. So, not exactly a loss. Thanks for stopping by. Now you can add Troll to your username. ss) angel-) Feel good.

Morning, Stint. Yes, Captain Schettino will always be shamed. And, in Italy, where La Bella Figura ( to make a ggod impression) is so important, his life, in many ways, is over.

Michael, I'm so glad to see you keep the record straight. To stand up for what's not correct. rul-)

Enjoy your little break. For those of us, who have been banned, and are not afforded the chance, to say anything on.ORG, how nice for them to be able to come trolling.

Oh, well, whatever we would have posted, would have been deleted. Such is just one of the differences in the 2 sites. eee-)

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

As the Appeal docs are coming out in the next couple of days, am I right that they can only appeal what was in the 2nd trial? That the Prosecution cannot re-visit what was in the First Trial?

The appeals, at first, seemed to me to be along drawn out process, but, in reality, appeals take much longer here, in the U.S.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I meant to add, Stint. When they played the music, even as the ship slowly sank...it was gut wrenching. Whenever the Titanic is mentioned, it's just so sad. In part, because of the many personal stories, and recollections.

Such a direct contrast in the 2 Captains. Be British. Indeed. Not to say anything about The Italians, because one only has to remember, during the Second World War, there were small CHILDREN, in Naples, especially, who were braver than anyone could imagine.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

They just mentioned Whitney's death. She was found in bed, at The Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel. No foul play suspected. She was only 48 years old.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Massei has been promoted to the Court of Appeals.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks C. Is this old news or new news? I found this article dated 08/08/2011 on the web.

Google trans:

"Two other new judges are expected to debate after the departure of Rosaria Monaco (Rome), Cecilia Bellucci (Ancona) and the upcoming departure of President Giancarlo Massei (Court of Appeal). The place as president will be advertised in the coming weeks. Although Perugia is no longer as attractive at it once was. The magistrate who will win the competition, will stay for two or three years and then request a transfer. However, among the new judges should be Giuseppe Noviello, committed as pm in the investigation of waste in Campania and that has prompted a shift from judicial investigating. Transfer to the Court of Appeal of judges Battistacci, Matteini, Ricciarelli and Massei produce a lethal effect on incompatibility. The judges in question, including hearings and GIP-GUP, have been involved in conducting many criminal trials. Once they arrive in the Court of Appeal, criminal trials can not be treated by the judges themselves. According to a first estimate, it is about 80 percent of criminal cases. The transfer of these judges also paralyzes the field of collegiate debate. According to the colleges should be two tables, but it is difficult to establish one without the application of the judges of the Civil court. Almost a year, finally, has passed since the retirement of the chief judge Giovanni Villani. The position is vacant. Four out of district judges have applied, but two working in Perugia: Aldo Criscuolo and the acting president of the Assize Court of Appeal of the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann. After the summer [2011], Judge Giovanni Galati will take possession of the office of public prosecutor at the Court of Appeals. These movements and news, however, leave the criminal field greatly underpowered compared to the needs of justice of the Court of Appeals."
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Also found the following pdf document faxed on Jan 26, 2012.

Camera Penale di Perugia

DOCUMENTO
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

G, I only learned of it recently. If it was mentioned before, I missed it.

I've been watching National Geographic, before I go out. The Mafia have been featured. Mentioned the original Strawman, Glick, who was put in charge of one of the casinos.

Tonight, NG will have a show on The Italian Cruise ship disaster. Depending on the time, I'll watch that. However, Downton Abbey is my must watch :)

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

G, It's taking forever to download. And, I have to leave. But, I have to say..I'm a bit confused, as to who's going where :)

or, if it means anything,re: the Knox Appeal for Calunnia, etc.

Good find, though. Ta.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

My son just arrived, to pick me up, and I told him I was banned from .ORG.

He laughed. :)

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

True or false?

Amanda Knox shops a memoir

The American, who was freed from an Italian prison four months ago, could get a seven-figure payday for her story.

By Matthew Flamm
February 12, 2012 5:59 a.m.

Amanda Knox, freed from an Italian prison just four months ago, may be one step closer to paying off her family's massive legal bills.

An auction for her memoir about her long ordeal following the murder of her roommate in 2007 started Friday, according to an industry source. Ms. Knox visited publishers several weeks ago with her agent, Washington, D.C., power lawyer Robert Barnett.


Crain's New York Business.com


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Meredith Murder: Prosecutor is going to appeal to the Supreme Court

12 February 2012

Perugia - A matter of days if not hours. The Attorney General of Perugia is to deposit the appeal to the Supreme Court for judgment of acquittal against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. In recent weeks, the judges have proceeded with the drafting of the document where the Attorney General asked to overturn the verdict of acquittal issued by the Appellate Court of Assizes of Perugia.

This past week though Amanda Knox, the American student acquitted on appeal from the charge of killing her roommate Meredith Kercher, had appealed in cassation against conviction for slander confirmed for her even in the second degree. Knox was convicted to an extra year in prison in the first degree, unlike Raffaele Sollecito. And the court of second instance upheld the conviction which, after three years' imprisonment, already discounted. The appeal against conviction for slander will find its denouement when it passes to the consideration of Supreme Court justices.


PERUGIA ogginotizie
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Unfortunately, the link doesn't seem to be working. Here is the full-text version of the article that appeared in the February 12 online issue of Crain's New York Business.

Amanda Knox, freed from an Italian prison just four months ago, may be one step closer to paying off her family's massive legal bills.

An auction for her memoir about her long ordeal following the murder of her roommate in 2007 started Friday, according to an industry source. Ms. Knox visited publishers several weeks ago with her agent, Washington, D.C., power lawyer Robert Barnett.

She'll tell her side of the story of her wrongful conviction in the killing, and her acquittal in October. The 24-year-old Seattle native impressed editors as being bright and articulate, which was fortunate, considering that the pitch for the book did not include a formal proposal.

Mr. Barnett, who has brokered book deals for Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin, is expected to push for a seven-figure payday. He declined to comment.

Ms. Knox is not the only American who suffered abroad and is trying to sell a book. The three American hikers who were accused of spying by Iranian authorities and were imprisoned in Tehran began meeting with publishers last week.

The book, to be written by Shane Bauer, Josh Fattal and Sarah Shourd, will provide a portrait of friendship, love and “a prison-level glimpse into a country in upheaval,” wrote their agent, Bill Clegg of WME, in his pitch to publishers. A WME spokesman declined to comment.


A version of this article appeared in the February 13, 2012 print issue of Crain's New York Business.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

If National Geographic is playing the same documentary on the Costa Concordia that appeared on CBC's The Fifth Estate a week ago Friday, capealadin, then it's a very good one.

The captain clearly, fled the ship. It was Ghigli Island's deputy mayor who came to the ship on a lifeboat and supervised the evacuation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
G, that got a lot of press. i need Ergon's prediction :)



:) capealadin, but it's your standard Vatican plot and counter plot. David Yallop's book In God's Name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_ ... y_theories
plausibly pins the death of Pope John Paul I on a conspiracy to subvert criminal charges against corrupt vatican officials who almost caused the collapse of the Vatican Bank. The masonic lodge Propaganda P2 and Roberto Calvi was implicated, but nothing happened after Roberto Calvi's mysterious death in London.

Father Malachi Martin is even more interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malachi_Martin and he too states that Pope JP I was murdered. He also had a passionate interest in the visions of the Virgin Mary at Fatima, and that the church would enter a Great Schism.

So yes, there will be great changes in the Vatican this year. But the rumour in the Guardian is just typical smoke and mirrors. After Pope Benedict's death, whenever it happens, I believe there will be one, last, pope.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

In Amanda Knox Tale, a Delicate Bet for Publishers

New York Times - Feb 12th

And that brings some difficult questions: do book-buying Americans see Ms. Knox as a sympathetic figure? And if the book commands a seven-figure advance, as is widely expected, will it be worth it?

“I think it’s a huge gamble for somebody,” said one publisher who did not intend to bid on the book and declined to be named because the auction was taking place privately. “It’s not like she has been exonerated in a clear and definitive way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/business/media/in-amanda-knox-tale-a-delicate-bet-for-publishers.html
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

G, I thought for sure, Knox would have a book in the works. It stands to reason, that somehow she has to replenish the coffers.

I'm just not sure, if it's going to sell.

Ergon, I don't know. It's going to be on National geographic, which I like, very much. I adore animals, as prolly everyone knows, and I get so homesick, seeing shows about Africa. I will watch this one, because it's on at 4.oo oclock. It's so sad, because it seems that it was so avoidable.

Troon, you have obviously followed the story, and I think you have a good understanding of what happened. I love cruises, and have taken many. I have to say, the only problem I had, was keeping the Captain, out of my cabin. His name was Cesare :)

I think it's better that Knox does a book, rather than interviews, because there are too many things to be explained away.

That could be very, very tricky. I remember Scott Peterson, ( hardly any Dna, a very circumstantial case) on TV, with Diane Sawyer. Crikey. It was a disaster. In a lot of ways.

Better a book. No questions...no visuals. I wonder is she gets an advance? What would be new, I wonder. How many people are interested.

The advance, is the only money I can see being made. I remember seeing some books, By Laci Peterson's mom and sister, in the bargain book section. It just made me feel sad. Nobody really cared.

I imagine Knox feels she must do something, to pay back her family. But, it seems it's going to be written by other people? I thought she was this great writer?

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Aaah, Troon, I just read your post. Yes, that's the thing. Will Knox be seen as a sympathic person?

Unfortunately, no. Like it or not, Knox has been cast as an unempathetic person. The PR Machine was not able to change that. So, for her, it's Not the case, as in the Bambi Murder, where people were rooting for her.

The public make up their own minds. Overwhelmingly, Knox comes across as a very unlikeable person, murderer or not. The same as Casey Anthony. Does that affect book sales? Yes.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

And, exonerated by who? Public opinion rules. Not the verdict. The public buys. Decides. And, the Public just abhors her.

And, here's the thing. Knox is boring, very dull. Ordinary. I'm not so sure a book will ever be in the works.

We shall see. Is it a done deal ?

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Re: Book sale. Anyone notice the timing of these media releases always predates something, ie; 'the prosecutor general will be filing an appeal within days, if not hours'?

I thought there wouldn't be public interest, but when there might be war with Iran, and there's the US election in full swing, why not a big distraction to put up on our television screens?

There already is speculation the Italian Supreme Court will not allow the appeal, as though that is a done deal. I am going to step back and see what happens. There are no done deals, just choices the people of Italy will have to make.
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 13, 2012 1:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
In Amanda Knox Tale, a Delicate Bet for Publishers

New York Times - Feb 12th

And that brings some difficult questions: do book-buying Americans see Ms. Knox as a sympathetic figure? And if the book commands a seven-figure advance, as is widely expected, will it be worth it?

“I think it’s a huge gamble for somebody,” said one publisher who did not intend to bid on the book and declined to be named because the auction was taking place privately. “It’s not like she has been exonerated in a clear and definitive way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/business/media/in-amanda-knox-tale-a-delicate-bet-for-publishers.html


Thanks for posting the link to the article.

I am surprised "her story" sparks so much interest, because I don't see the appeal of it. Everything is already in public domain and as the article points out, other books about the case have sold only modestly. We already know her side of the story and her "new" story shouldn't deviate from her "old" one, otherwise it will raise more questions than it answers.


Quote:
Her low profile has only made her story more coveted. “The book will have very broad resonance,” said an executive whose publishing house is among the bidders. “The world has heard from everybody else, but the world has not actually heard from Amanda Knox.”

We've mostly heard from Amanda Knox, be it through her statements, her court testimony or through her parents. The only one we haven't heard of has been Meredith Kercher. Amanda's parents have visited every possible tv show to keep the viewers informed about Amanda's side of the story. Is there anything left to add?

If she is really allowed to write the book herself, they should make sure they have a good proofreader with lots of free time on his hands.


Quote:
Booksellers, who have a finely tuned sense of what will take off with their customers, said the success of the book will rest on how it is written and whether Ms. Knox comes across honestly to readers. “I think if it has an authenticity and reflective quality, it could be huge,” said Roxanne J. Coady, the owner of the R.J. Julia bookstore in Madison, Conn. “If it is a variation of a P.R. campaign to clean up her reputation, I think it will flop badly.”

I have trouble seeing Amanda Knox as an "articulate" writer whose story would be enjoyable to read, let alone inspiring, judging by the bits and pieces that have been published by her already. My guess is that the book will be about her childhood memories, her life and dreams and what she plans to do now with her life. She will spare out the murder and only touch on her prison experience. I don't expect her to explain her email, her false accusation and her lies. She and her publisher would be stupid if they tried to. She will leave her readers in the dark and not answer any remaining questions, instead she will refer to Hellmann's acquittal and through his motivations report, he will speak for her. I promise you it will be boring, like Amanda Knox.

Nonetheless, I expect glowing reviews on Amazon from her faithful supporters and ultimately the ones that "bring the message across", her PR firm. Whoever buys the book expecting it to be the next best revelation of the century: Stupid is who stupid does.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell, Your post says it all. I only wished I could have put it like you. You got everything perfectly, and so on point.

I can do nothing, but agree with you, on everything you've said. sur-)

Damn, and I had a post that I was going to do. wa-)) :)

Brava.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Last edited by capealadin on Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon, what do you mean, the Italian Supreme Court will not allow the appeals? it;s automatic, right?

Yeah, we'll see. We've been on the same page...I'll pm you, tomorrow. My thoughts............

_________________
"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 13, 2012 7:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael,

Please consider a subforum for the split. Anyone interested, can go there.

This board really wants to stay focused on the case.

We have had trolls, like Bucket of Tea, and Thoughtful, and Fly by Night and who knows who else, who want to come over here, and make fools of themselves. As we cannot answer on .ORG, let's make a place, where they can vent, without upsetting the membership.

Let's let them do it, but away from the main Board.

Thanks..........

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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 13, 2012 7:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Ergon, what do you mean, the Italian Supreme Court will not allow the appeals? it;s automatic, right?

Yeah, we'll see. We've been on the same page...I'll pm you, tomorrow. My thoughts............


Hi cape,

I assume what Ergon meant was that the Supreme Court will or could disagree with the prosecution and neither overturn Hellmann's verdict, nor send the case to retrial. So basically they would reject the prosecutions objections made against Hellmann's verdict. Then the acquittal would be final.


It will be interesting to observe, because in the end, the trial is not only about Amanda Knox, even though she captivated the US media. There is also Raffaele Sollecito, who I believe is at a much higher risk to re-offend than Amanda Knox.

If the case was only about Amanda Knox, I could see the Supreme Court rejecting the prosecutions acquittal, no matter guilt or innocence, because of the resources it would take to prosecute someone who is unlikely to come back and pay for her crimes anyway. But Raffaele Sollecito is Italian and lives in Italy. They have to co-exist with him. If the Supreme Court agrees with the prosecution that Hellmann's verdict was questionable and needs to be reviewed, there is a chance they will be ultimately convicted. I don't believe for a minute she will be back for a new trial. If he goes down, she goes down. Present in court or not.

The outcome depends also on Dr. Sollecito's ability to make water flow uphill. I absolutely underestimated his influence and power. Won't happen again.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
And, exonerated by who? Public opinion rules. Not the verdict. The public buys. Decides. And, the Public just abhors her.
And, here's the thing. Knox is boring, very dull. Ordinary. I'm not so sure a book will ever be in the works.


she also writes/rambles/spells like a third grader, and is quirky and stinky


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: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:20 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:


Hello Everyone -

I have created a new discussion thread that is reserved for the discussion of inter-PMF politics. You can access it here: INTER-PMF POLITICS THREAD.

Please use that thread for any public PMF politics discussion from this point.

Thank You

Michael

_________________
"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 13, 2012 2:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Nell. Got it, now. Papa did well by hiring Bongiorno, as well.

Thanks, Michael, for creating the thread..way to go...

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:03 pm   Post subject: Crime Pays   

Amanda Knox memoirs bidding war breaks out

Telegraph 13 Feb 2012

Image

In a meeting with potential publishers, Knox was said to be self-assured and intelligent, quoting her favourite novels and describing her dreams of becoming a writer as she promised to deliver the truth about the death of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, five years ago.

The book, she is said to have disclosed, would provide a faithful account of the events leading up to and following the murder of Kercher, who was 21 when she was found with her throat cut after what prosecutors described as a sex game that went wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9079508/Amanda-Knox-memoirs-bidding-war-breaks-out.html

Why doesn't she expand on her short story about the crime "My Love" (Marie Pace)? Her previous publication. Did she cite it as a reference?

Telegraph 07 Dec 2009

Image

Knox, who was jailed on Friday night for 26 years for the murder of the British student Meredith Kercher, was reported on Sunday to have won almost £100 for the short story, entitled My Love, which appeared to have some parallels with the attack on Miss Kercher two years ago.

In it, a young woman receives a letter from a young man who is in love with her in which he says he can imagine her stretched out on the floor, with some of her clothes removed, in a room full of people who are injecting themselves with drugs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6746604/Amanda-Knox-won-essay-competition-with-story-about-violent-sex-party.html


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:31 pm, edited 9 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Can Amanda Knox Save the Book Business?

by Marion Maneker
February 13th, 2012, 8:00AM

THE BIG PICTURE

Nonetheless, publicity is what will make or break the book. Buyers will make their purchasing decision based upon their encounter with Ms. Knox through various media outlets. How Amanda Knox comes off on 60 Minutes and the Today Show, in newspaper features and radio interviews will signal to readers whether they want to buy the book or not. No one will come upon her through her prose.

Buyers on this scale are not readers so much as participants. If her story resonates, you join Team Amanda. The price of admission is buying her book. The book is a talisman, not a vehicle.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:27 pm   Post subject: RE: Supreme Court Appeal   

Hi, capealadin. It is as Nell says, the Supreme Court can reject the prosecution appeal.

My comment was intended to prepare people for all the possibilities. I think it was wrongly presented in the past that it was a done deal that Knox and Sollecito would be found guilty.

The October 3 Hellmann decision was consequently, a horrible shock to many people at PMF, and it was that more than anything else that led to a decline in the group.

If, as some say, I go entirely by astrology, then the astrology says that Knox and Sollecito can get away with murder, they are 'lucky', they are fortunate to have friends in high places. They are fortunate to have political considerations take center stage at this point in time.

I say that the 'done deal' was Hellmann's decision, and all the signs were there but people just didn't want to see that.

There are deep spiritual aspects at play in this case, which is what drew me here in the first place.

There is human justice, and there is spiritual justice.

The Costa Concordia tragedy, snow in Rome, and the alleged plot to assassinate the Pope are signs for people, if they want to see.

I said this before, and certain literalists took me, er, literally. There are two Italies, as evidenced by its split dual Gemini nature. One side is true and brings justice.

The other side, as represented by masonic influences and deep corruption, can still muck things up. How this works out will depend on the people of Italy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

A publisher, quoted in the New York times says: It's not like she was exonerated in a clear and definitive way. Right.

There's no mention, Of Knox writing about the murder. Rather, it says she will talk about her time in Italy, and her journals.

Also, it says much depends on how she comes across in interviews, like 60 minutes. There's the rub. Knox is described as quiet, and softly spoken. Huh? A new persona, for the chameleon?

What happened to the in your face, loud, obnoxious Knox, who accosted strange men in the park ( according to best friend, Maddie).

The loud, annoying Knox, who interrupted conversations, who was aggressive.

They talk about the Dugard case, and that book selling 1.2 million copies. That's a whole different kind of crime, and who wouldn't sympathize with a young child, kidnapped and used as a sex slave.

It also mentions, that books so far, dealing with the murder, have not sold well.

Nina Burleigh's book, has only 20,000 books in print.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Last edited by capealadin on Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon, I couldn't agree more....re the shock of the verdict. Even though I knew which way it would go, I was gutted. I very much wanted to be wrong. Hellmann was just the messenger. I don't believe it was his decision. There we disagree. Now, we'll see just how high up this goes. Was the verdict a done deal, to the finish?

I would have expected the appeal docs to be submitted already. I know the deadline is Feb 17th, but....

It appears the book will be for sale, before the final verdict. I wonder how the money will be divvied up?

_________________
"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 13, 2012 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin, when I say it was 'Hellmann's decision' then I say he had a friendly word put in his ear by other interests. It still was his decision to arrive at the verdict he did.

It was a travesty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

You mean his decision, as to go with the word in his ear? Sure. I will say, corruption is rife in Italy. Or, perhaps it's just more transparent there. The favour for a favour, has been around for a long time.

There's a lot of shrugging there. I love Italy, just so that's understood. However, having grown up with Italians, and having spent a lot of time there, I understood things. My Italian boyfriend, from Rome, was perhaps the most instructive.

As well as friends, that I have here. When I discussed the verdict with an Italian friend..he shrugged, and said, basically :" Is normal. "

He's from Sicily, and told me how they hate authority. He told me what happened in Naples, when the law about seat belts was passed. What happened, very quickly? Everyone had a white T shirt made, with a seat belt printed on it. :)

_________________
"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 13, 2012 5:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

T shirts seem to be a normal occurence in Italy, to make a point. The T shirts with " VADA A BORDO" on them, were worn almost immediately, when they heard the recording of the Commander screaming at the Captain of the Cruise ship. an-))

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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 14, 2012 12:19 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Pays   

Quote:
In a meeting with potential publishers, Knox was said to be self-assured and intelligent, quoting her favourite novels and describing her dreams of becoming a writer as she promised to deliver the truth about the death of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, five years ago.

The book, she is said to have disclosed, would provide a faithful account of the events leading up to and following the murder of Kercher, who was 21 when she was found with her throat cut after what prosecutors described as a sex game that went wrong.


Amanda Knox memoirs bidding war breaks out - Telegraph

A convicted liar promising to deliver the truth about a murder she claims to know nothing about? Does this sound strange to someone else or is it just me?

Officially she doesn't know what happened to Meredith Kercher, so she cannot tell us what lead up to her murder. Everything she could remember was in blurs and flashbacks and she was unsure about the rest. More importantly, we've already read it. The original, without embellishment.

What does she claim to know others don't? She wasn't particularly close to Meredith, so what's the deal? I am also surprised that Amanda Knox is described as "cleared" from the murder of Meredith Kercher. Don't the bidders know there is still a Supreme Court appeal pending? What if they overturn the acquittal? Even if it is not likely, it is a possibility that they have to take into account before making an offer. There is also that tiny little detail about her parents being on trial for slander.

Who is going to be the target audience? Those who haven't read the paper? Edda already told us about her hair loss, that Amanda was getting blind, that she was sick of the pasta, that they called her bambi, because they knew she was innocent all along, latest claims include her accusation of sexual harassment from prison staff, blah blah blah. What's new? Nothing. She comes up with the murder again, because she seems to have realised that her persona is not going to sell anything. She isn't a sympathetic figure, as already pointed out by some publishers, so she tries to bait them with the "truth" of a murder she is supposed to know nothing about and for some strange reason she wants the deal to be tied up before the Supreme Court ruling. If truly innocent, wouldn't it have been a greater story to sell after the Supreme Court confirms Hellmann's acquittal?

What are your thoughts about this book deal?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Pays   

nell wrote:
A convicted liar promising to deliver the truth about a murder she claims to know nothing about? Does this sound strange to someone else or is it just me?

Officially she doesn't know what happened to Meredith Kercher, so she cannot tell us what lead up to her murder. Everything she could remember was in blurs and flashbacks and she was unsure about the rest. More importantly, we've already read it. The original, without embellishment.

"The book, she is said to have disclosed, would provide a faithful account of the events leading up to and following the murder of Kercher, who was 21 when she was found with her throat cut after what prosecutors described as a sex game that went wrong."

It's not "How I was unjustly imprisoned in Italy" because the publishers know that won't fly. They want to capitalize on her and the murder she committed. She's a ghoul/freakshow. A horror penname novel it will be ... "If I did it". The publishers seek to make money directly out of her and her act. That's the pitch. Maximal return, pulp.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:15 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Pays   

Nell wrote:
What are your thoughts about this book deal?


Nothing's been signed, and the supposed 'bidding war' looks like it's a press release fed to the NYTimes book editor who couldn't get anyone to confirm anything, but the Telegraph repeated it as done fact anyway.

Still, anyone can get a book deal these days. All you have to do is murder someone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Some new pictures of Knox and an article in the Sun:

Back on campus
Amanda Knox at university
as she plans £600,000 book


Exclusive
By CAROLINE GRANT

Published 14 Fberuary 2012

THE SUN

Check the Daily Mail link for a few more pictures if interested:

THE DAILY MAIL
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: Crime Pays   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
It's not "How I was unjustly imprisoned in Italy" because the publishers know that won't fly. They want to capitalize on her and the murder she committed. She's a ghoul/freakshow. A horror penname novel it will be ... "If I did it". The publishers seek to make money directly out of her and her act. That's the pitch. Maximal return, pulp.


Do you think she will just rehash her old statements that she was coerced by police and that she truly believed Patrick was the murderer, because police suggested it etc. etc.? If so, people reading her book are going to be convinced of her guilt before they even finish it.


Ergon wrote:
Nothing's been signed, and the supposed 'bidding war' looks like it's a press release fed to the NYTimes book editor who couldn't get anyone to confirm anything, but the Telegraph repeated it as done fact anyway.

Still, anyone can get a book deal these days. All you have to do is murder someone.


That's an interesting opinion. The description given about Knox in the article sounded more like something Edda Mellas would say. "Everybody fell in love with her". I wonder then why they are worried that their readers don't see her as a sympathetic character? That is not the first time the subject has come up.


Last edited by Nell on Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
Some new pictures of Knox and an article in the Sun:

THE SUN

Quote:
The American, 24, listened to music on her headphones as she visited the Washington University campus.

She was also seen cycling, chatting on the phone and shopping in her home city of Seattle.

She walks, she talks, she rides a bike, she eats, she takes a dump, she goes to sleep, she wakes up,... I bet this is going to be a very interesting book :roll: Oh, just one thing. She doesn't take showers in bloody bathrooms. Never has..never will...
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
Some new pictures of Knox and an article in the Sun:

THE SUN

Quote:


She walks, she talks, she rides a bike, she eats,

she takes a dump**,

she goes to sleep, she wakes up,...
I bet this is going to be a very interesting book :roll:
Oh, just one thing. She doesn't take showers in bloody bathrooms. Never has..never will...


** also never considers others and bothers to flush after taking her 'dump'
( quirky and does not notice/care about smells offensive to others)
:roll:


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

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Morning Michael

I only have a few short points.

michael wrote:
6. You'll find my account of the crime in one of the main discussion threads. I thought you were going to read back? 

I have not said I would read back. It would assist our discussion if you would please locate the relevant post.

Michael wrote:
As for the lamp being in the animation, there was nothing wrong with that, since firstly a) it WAS after the prosecution had already submitted the lamp as evidence to the court in the 10,000 page evidence file and b) the video was SUPPOSED to be a prosecution version of what THEY believed happened that night. There was no live witness that saw Guede attacking Meredith either, yet you've no problem with his being in the video. Here's news for you...it is not a requirement that there be a live witness to a piece of evidence or an event for it to feature in a prosecution reconstruction. If it's in the evidence file submitted to the court, then the prosecution have every right to include it. I should also remind you here, the court was well aware that it was a prosecution reconstruction and not a live event or a presentation by witnesses or a neutral party.

Please say which of the 10,000 pages you refer to as I dispute what you say here.

Finally, you said in an earlier post that the lamp was tested for DNA with negative results. Can you please cite a reference as I dispute this also. I have not located any test results for the lamp at all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
@ anglolawyer, my reply to  you is this: At no time did I say that Rudy Guede did NOT assault Meredith Kercher. I've said repeatedly his DNA was inside her.

And when I say he did NOT murder Meredith, then that is to say he was an accessory to murder, but the fatal wound was administered by Amanda, with some stabs by Rafaelle. Amanda and Rafaelle, guilty of murder in the second degree, Rudy Guede an accessory. Should have been Amanda and Rafaelle that got 30 years, and so should have Rudy. If the fast track trial resulted in a reduction, I accept the decision, because he wasn't the instigator.

As to the Supreme Court, it is up to them to grant justice. I'll wait for them to rule, but if they should not reverse Hellmann, then that will be a miscarriage of justice, as I'm sure you would feel if they find her guilty.

But your attempting to say I've sprung back in my positions seems pretty feeble to me. Please quote me accurately next time.

Thanks Ergon.   That clears things up quite a bit.   I don't think I misquoted you anywhere.

Although you are right that you did not say in so many words Guede was not a sex attacker, you gave an account in which there was no sex attack, which is kind of the same thing in my eyes.

What did you mean when you said Guede was 'a patsy'?   I hope you recall using that word in the post in which you said he was not a murderer and don't think I am misquoting you.      As I understand it, the term suggests a scapegoat or someone who is taken advantage of.   Given that Guede is a murderer whose crime was aggravated by a humiliating sexual assault on the helpless victim, do you still stand by that term?

Even if I thought the other two had participated and tried to put all the blame on him, I don't think I would use that term.   I go this far with you though: I agree he should have got 30 (at least).

I am not sure whether I was alone in my initial understanding of your post.   Stint said it was one of the most thoughtful he had seen for some time.   He can tell us whether he read the statement that Guede was not a murderer as actually meaning the opposite or that he understood you to be suggesting Guede was a sex attacker even though you did not mention a sex attack.

I am not misquoting you either when recalling that you referred to Guede as a 'peacemaker'.   I still don't know what you meant by that and am now more confused than before.

May I remind you of these two further points:

'You say Meredith was alone from 9 to 9.30 but my question was:  what might she have been doing during this time?   It is very hard to pinpoint any activity on her part, which leads me to think she was attacked soon after arriving home.  Further on in your timeline you have the assault extending over a 43 minute time frame.   That looks about 40 minutes too long to me.   Why do you think it took that long?   Do you suppose there was prolonged torture or something of that kind?

Also, I must say I am completely baffled by your theory that Guede returned to the crime scene to assist in the clean up and I also don't get why he took the phones only to throw them away?   Are you suggesting he was helping to stage something and if so what and why?'

I should be grateful if you would comment further and thank you again for replying to my questions.   I find your replies helpful in showing how a PGP sees the case.

If any 2nd appeal reverses the acquittal and I am persuaded by the appeal court's reasoning then I shall be swallowing my words.   I don't see this as at all likely.   Much more likely imho is not an out and out reversal of Hellmann but a remission for re-hearing of specific points (e.g. the crucial DNA evidence) and most likely of all is an affirmation of Hellmann. Indeed, from reading the discussion over on IIP I am not sure whether the appeal court has power to reinstatebthe conviction, but no doubt you or someone here can set me straight on that.

Congrats on your elevation to moderator rank btw.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Anglolawyer post on IIP.

The thing is, it's only about Half dozen saddos, a dog, and a couple of dead flies we're talking about. Why the fuss? Let them meltdown into interminable discussion of their unimportant and incestuous history.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
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 14, 2012 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Some new pictures of Knox and an article in the Sun:

THE SUN

Quote:


She walks, she talks, she rides a bike, she eats,

she takes a dump**,

she goes to sleep, she wakes up,...
I bet this is going to be a very interesting book :roll:
Oh, just one thing. She doesn't take showers in bloody bathrooms. Never has..never will...


** also never considers others and bothers to flush after taking her 'dump'
( quirky and does not notice/care about smells offensive to others)
:roll:



From Amanda's email home November 4th, 2007:
Quote:
after i got dressed i went to the other bathroom in my house, the one that filomena dn laura use, and used their hairdryer to obviously dry my hair and it was after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the shit that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower, and i returned to raffael's place.

...

i then went into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there, which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had been there.



It must have been quite a shock when she found out the poo was gone. She even had an animated chat with the police about the disappearance of the poo in the toilet.
Quote:
as it turns out the police told me later that the toilet was full and that the shit had just fallen to the bottom of the toilet, so i didnt see it.


What an absurd idea to include the poo in such detail in an email to your family and friends! Everything about the poo, how it floats, if it floats, ... everything except Amanda flushing it! She discovered it before she even "knew" someone had been entering the house, so it would have been only normal to get rid off it together with its unpleasant smell.


I wonder if Amanda feels embarrassed that people all over the world figured her out despite her many lies. Probably not. That's against her nature.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Anglolawyer post on IIP.

The thing is, it's only about Half dozen saddos, a dog, and a couple of dead flies we're talking about. Why the fuss? Let them meltdown into interminable discussion of their unimportant and incestuous history.

If you don't like what I write there, I suggest you stop reading it. When I'm here, I keep my opinions about the PMF posters to myself. I will post here unless and until I am banned, which I expect to result only from an infraction of board rules. I suggest you assign me to your foes list whereupon, so far as you are concerned, I shall cease to exist.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Anglolawyer post on IIP.

The thing is, it's only about Half dozen saddos, a dog, and a couple of dead flies we're talking about. Why the fuss? Let them meltdown into interminable discussion of their unimportant and incestuous history.

If you don't like what I write there, I suggest you stop reading it. When I'm here, I keep my opinions about the PMF posters to myself. I will post here unless and until I am banned, which I expect to result only from an infraction of board rules. I suggest you assign me to your foes list whereupon, so far as you are concerned, I shall cease to exist.


Just so everyone can see what a * debating in good faith* poster is like. What they REALLY think about us.

I;m sure you want it to be kept real. Almost 2,000 posts, on IIp alone, in a few months. And, you haven't figured it out yet?

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

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Anglolawyer post on IIP.

The thing is, it's only about Half dozen saddos, a dog, and a couple of dead flies we're talking about. Why the fuss? Let them meltdown into interminable discussion of their unimportant and incestuous history.

If you don't like what I write there, I suggest you stop reading it. When I'm here, I keep my opinions about the PMF posters to myself. I will post here unless and until I am banned, which I expect to result only from an infraction of board rules. I suggest you assign me to your foes list whereupon, so far as you are concerned, I shall cease to exist.


Just so everyone can see what a * debating in good faith* poster is like. What they REALLY think about us.

I;m sure you want it to be kept real. Almost 2,000 posts, on IIp alone, in a few months. And, you haven't figured it out yet?

Why does what I REALLY think about you matter? If you wish to discuss the case, go right ahead. Otherwise you are just derailing the discussion.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
capealadin wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Anglolawyer post on IIP.

The thing is, it's only about Half dozen saddos, a dog, and a couple of dead flies we're talking about. Why the fuss? Let them meltdown into interminable discussion of their unimportant and incestuous history.

If you don't like what I write there, I suggest you stop reading it. When I'm here, I keep my opinions about the PMF posters to myself. I will post here unless and until I am banned, which I expect to result only from an infraction of board rules. I suggest you assign me to your foes list whereupon, so far as you are concerned, I shall cease to exist.


Just so everyone can see what a * debating in good faith* poster is like. What they REALLY think about us.

I;m sure you want it to be kept real. Almost 2,000 posts, on IIp alone, in a few months. And, you haven't figured it out yet?

Why does what I REALLY think about you matter? If you wish to discuss the case, go right ahead. Otherwise you are just derailing the discussion.

what discussion? you are here to disrupt
Top Profile 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
what discussion? you are here to disrupt

Really? What is disruptive about my posts here today?
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 14, 2012 1:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
Please say which of the 10,000 pages you refer to as I dispute what you say here.


Knox was questioned about the lamp on the stand. If it hadn't been included in the evidence, then it wouldn't have been allowed to have been raised by the court or mentioned in the Motivations. Those are the rules. The defence have never raised any objections regarding the lamp, either in the trial or the appeal. That is because there was nothing to object TO. I take it, you've also seen the crime scene photos of the lamp? Why do you keep inventing smoke?

Why do you want the page number? You don't have the report, you can't read it anyway.

This doesn't appear an argument in good faith on your part.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
capealadin wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Anglolawyer post on IIP.

The thing is, it's only about Half dozen saddos, a dog, and a couple of dead flies we're talking about. Why the fuss? Let them meltdown into interminable discussion of their unimportant and incestuous history.

If you don't like what I write there, I suggest you stop reading it. When I'm here, I keep my opinions about the PMF posters to myself. I will post here unless and until I am banned, which I expect to result only from an infraction of board rules. I suggest you assign me to your foes list whereupon, so far as you are concerned, I shall cease to exist.


Just so everyone can see what a * debating in good faith* poster is like. What they REALLY think about us.

I;m sure you want it to be kept real. Almost 2,000 posts, on IIp alone, in a few months. And, you haven't figured it out yet?

Why does what I REALLY think about you matter? If you wish to discuss the case, go right ahead. Otherwise you are just derailing the discussion.

anglolawyer wrote:
Really? What is disruptive about my posts here today?



PUH>>>LEEEEZE

Since you are so dumb that:
1) you cannot even put up a post without putting an "inadvertent" "I'm Stupid" emoticon in the middle of what you write
2) You "inadvertently" hit a wrong button on another post while insulting Sharon Feinstein and broadcast your entire personal data to the cyber world
eee-)

Please be advised, I doubt that many people would trust you to handle a legal matter of any more importance than a dog shitting on the wrong lawn.
That is probably why you spend 24/6 insulting us here from 'elsewhere, and 24/1 trying to play nicey nice here and expect us to discuss the case with you.
You really are one stupid MFer....even for a fanatical FOAKer.
is)

Read this very slowly, and try not to move your lips..... you arrogant ignoramus.
1) Some us are repulsed and sickened when even being near you or your butt buddy, confirmed LIAR, brucie.
This after what you say about us when posting elsewhere.
Cape quotes just one example of your ever so many such crude despicable insults toward us.
2) Michael allows you here. We love and respect Michael.
That does not mean we have to curl up and tolerate your stupid shit just because it is tuesday.

Got it ???

Ask someone close by you from IIP to stop cheering you on long enough to explain that to you.
You dimwitted dolt.
m-))

We do not have to accept this kind of insults from a loser like you:
"The thing is, it's (PMF; US) only about Half dozen saddos, a dog, and a couple of dead flies we're talking about. Why the fuss? Let them meltdown into interminable discussion of their unimportant and incestuous history."

This type of discourse from a 'doctor of letters degree holder ??????
Really ??????????
Is that what one says about opponents when arguing in a Court of Law ???
huh-)
Ever so classy. tu-))

As an 'adios', may I again quote Cape......"as you were"


Last edited by stint7 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Stint. Just about what I would expect from you. I assume this is all I can expect by way of a response to my posts here today.
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 14, 2012 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawter wrote:
Finally, you said in an earlier post that the lamp was tested for DNA with negative results. Can you please cite a reference as I dispute this also. I have not located any test results for the lamp at all.


And you won't, since only actual 'evidence' is published. The test results for DNA on Meredith's body have never been published either, as no DNA was found. People are only interested in the evidence, not non-evidence. It is only you that is interested (obsessed) in things that don't exist.

If a tree falls down in the woods and you aren't there to see it, does it mean it hasn't fallen down?

_________________
"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 anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
Please say which of the 10,000 pages you refer to as I dispute what you say here.


Knox was questioned about the lamp on the stand. If it hadn't been included in the evidence, then it wouldn't have been allowed to have been raised by the court or mentioned in the Motivations. Those are the rules. The defence have never raised any objections regarding the lamp, either in the trial or the appeal. That is because there was nothing to object TO. I take it, you've also seen the crime scene photos of the lamp? Why do you keep inventing smoke?

Why do you want the page number? You don't have the report, you can't read it anyway.

This doesn't appear an argument in good faith on your part.

Michael

You will have to do better than that. You are in breach of your own board rules. I refer to rule 15: 'When you present something as a fact, be prepared to back it up or rectify the error.' and rule 8: 'Be intellectually honest. Don’t misrepresent other posters’ views or create a straw man to attack. Remember that the force of the better argument is what matters. In this particular case, remember: this isn’t about you; it’s about Meredith. '

You say evidence that the lamp was in the room when the door was broken open is in the 10,000 pages. Please say where. Your suggestion that this simply follows from the fact that Mignini put a question to Amanda about it does not follow and is not a substitute for the required information. If there is a page number, please identify it. I will be able to find the document itself elsewhere.

If you can't supply the reference (as I suspect) then board rules require that you rectify your error and agree that there was no evidence that the lamp was in the room at the material time.

I draw your attention to one final rule, rule 22:

'22. Moderators may be 'wrong'. Moderators and admins are not always right; they are human. However, if a moderator/administrator is wrong, either in fact or in your opinion, that is not a reason or an excuse to be abusive, argumentative or break any other rules of the site. Believing a moderator to be wrong is okay. Politely informing them of that opinion via PM is also okay. Arguing the toss and undermining them on the board is not okay. This of course applies to moderating issues rather than actual case debate, where constructive argument is perfectly fine and encouraged. '

I mention this one lest you retreat to your defensive position of moderator. We are engaged in case debate, where that role is irrelevant. Please obey board rules and let me have either a proper answer or a retraction.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglolawter wrote:
Finally, you said in an earlier post that the lamp was tested for DNA with negative results. Can you please cite a reference as I dispute this also. I have not located any test results for the lamp at all.


And you won't, since only actual 'evidence' is published. The test results for DNA on Meredith's body have never been published either, as no DNA was found. People are only interested in the evidence, only non-evidence. It is only you that is interested (obsessed) in things that don't exist.

If a tree falls down in the woods and you aren't there to see it, does it mean it hasn't fallen down?

You asserted the lamp had been tested with negative results. Now you say this is just an inference you draw from the non-publication of any results. So you didn't actually have any basis for your claim beyond inference. Board rules require a retraction but I am treating your post as the retraction so you don't need to provide one.

I am surprised that someone who has followed the case so closely should fling out random assertions like this one but, leaving that to one side, we can go back to my fist post on the subject. I draw inferences from the failure to publish the results of tests on the lamp and the principal inference is that nothing was published because either (a) all tests were negative (information which ought to have been released to the defence anyway) or (b) the prints of someone like Battistelli were on the plug.

Are we agreed?
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 14, 2012 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglowlayer wrote:
I have not said I would read back. It would assist our discussion if you would please locate the relevant post.


I'm not your secretary. You people read PMF religiously. I therefore find it tiresome, when we are asked to constantly repeat ourselves.

PMF has a 'search' feature, a very good one. Enter my name into it and relevant keywords, such as 'rape prank'. You will find it discussed many times.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
Thanks Stint. Just about what I would expect from you. I assume this is all I can expect by way of a response to my posts here today.


You are very welcome, Counselor.
Yes...you ASS-U-Me correctly.

And, BTW..........
Please whisper over your shoulder to your butt buddy brucie in between his coaching and atta-boying today, that I have seen his latest of about five (5) to date, 'invitations' for me to 'discuss things with him'
As well as his latest unbelievably naive invitation to me to join IIP.
wtf) eee-)
Tell him I am actually incredulous, flabbergasted, and almost speechless with laughter that even he could be that dumb also.

PS:
Glad I lived up to your "expectations".
That means ever so much to me
:roll: tu-))
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Italian prosecution has just launched its appeal!!!

_________________
"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 anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

stint7 wrote:
Yes...you ASS-U-Me correctly.

I saw what you did there.

stint7 wrote:
And, BTW..........
Please whisper over your shoulder to your butt buddy brucie in between his coaching and atta-boying today, that I have seen his latest of about five (5) to date, 'invitations' for me to 'discuss things with him'
As well as his latest unbelievably naive invitation to me to join IIP.
wtf) eee-)

I am sure Bruce can see your posts here for himself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglowlayer wrote:
I have not said I would read back. It would assist our discussion if you would please locate the relevant post.


I'm not your secretary. You people read PMF religiously. I therefore find it tiresome, when we are asked to constantly repeat ourselves.

PMF has a 'search' feature, a very good one. Enter my name into it and relevant keywords, such as 'rape prank'. You will find it discussed many times.

Well, I did as you suggested and this is all I came up with (from Jan 07 011)

Michael wrote:
Or maybe 'during' the attack. It has been speculated that perhaps the shock of the way things were going, or Meredith's reaction to his sexual assault went to his bowels, causing him to need to go to the toilet. This would have left only two people having to restrain a frantically struggling and perhaps violent girl. That would have meant they would have had to have exerted greater force and violence themselves to retain control and that combined with the panic from now struggling to control her may have led to 'extreme' force...the use of the knives. Perhaps the shallowest injury was made to warn her to pack it in but she continued, so the second deepest wound was inflicted to show they meant business, and because they were panicking but the result of that caused her loud scream, the one heard by Nara. That led to the fatal blow to silence her and because they knew, having stabbed her twice already, combined with the sexual and physical assault, there was no going back. Rudy then runs in having been alarmed by the scream. Amanda and Raffaele step back in shock and avoid the mess that is being made from Meredith's blood. Rudy, having been disassociated from the actual stabbing by being in the bathroom and not having signed on for that, steps forward and tries to aid Meredith with a towel, getting blood on himself in the process. Meanwhile, Raffaele and Amanda head for the little bathroom to clean up, but just as much as to separate themselves from the responsibility of what they had done and leaving it to Rudy. Shortly after, they all flee the cottage, Rudy being the first to go. In short, the scenario is of a dynamic that rapidly deteriorates and spirals out of control to its tragic but inevitable conclusion.

This is one plausible scenario that explains the dynamic and certain aspects of the evidence, plus the differing behaviour of the three (Rudy's attempt to help the victim while the other two abandon her) and why Rudy's visit to the large bathroom was blood free. It also fits in with the prank theory.


Is that it? That's just a theory of the attack. There's no time line, no explanation of how Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda came to be there at the same time, nothing about the clean up, the motivations of the parties, nor any attempt to relate your speculations to the evidence. I think you need more than just a secretary to find your crime theory. You need a magician. Very convenient, not to say prudent, for you not to have one, Michael but, that being so, I suggest we confine our discussion to the lamp only and I will exchange posts with Ergon on overall crime theory, as he at least has the intellectual honesty to offer one for examination.
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 14, 2012 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
You will have to do better than that. You are in breach of your own board rules. I refer to rule 15: 'When you present something as a fact, be prepared to back it up or rectify the error.'


Actually, I'm ENFORCING that very rule!

You seem to be coming here playiong a game of "Now, I'm going to invent something for which there is no evidence and which no primary party in the case has ever claimed, then demand you provide proof it isn't true."

The lamp is a case in point.

Your whole approach is in breech of PMF rules and if that approach continues I will ban you, especially as you are on your final strike. I don't know why you are here, you bring nothing of substance to the table to discuss. I certainly will not waste any of my time discussing a thing for which there is no evidence it even exists. My interest in this case resides with the facts of it, not the fiction and the fantasy. I'm certainly not interested in your fantasies.

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 2:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglowlayer wrote:
Is that it? That's just a theory of the attack.


Not very good at reseach and data mining, are you?

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Guys -

Can we stop the flames please.

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Hello, everyone. New member, first-time poster. What are the odds that I would click on here and read a post about the exact thing that I have questioned from the start of my readings: the downstairs key? It's my opinion, capealadin, this key to the downstairs is no small thing. Who would know Meredith had it, indeed? Who would know what was in the downstairs apartment? Who would know that the apartment would be empty? I wish the prosecutors would have persued this as a possible motive.
Meredith needed to be at home for someone to filch the key. Palm it quietly and Meredith wouldn't even know it was missing. Unless she caught them. Pure speculation on my part, I know. But, oh, so simple an explanation.


Welcome to PMF napia5. Actually, there was a theory raised here known as the 'hash theory'. You might try using the board's search feature using those key words. You may find that theory interesting.

_________________
"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 dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Italian prosecution has just launched its appeal!!!



YES! Now maybe things will be made right.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Italian prosecution has just launched its appeal!!!

http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/ ... esso.shtml
Indeed they have. It is 111 pages. Illogical acquittal. Verdict of first degree was complete and accurate.
Top Profile 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglowlayer wrote:
Is that it? That's just a theory of the attack.


Not very good at reseach and data mining, are you?

Evidently not. We'll have to park Michael's Grand Unified Theory for now until one of us lays his hands on it. It's not likely to be me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

max wrote:
Michael wrote:
Italian prosecution has just launched its appeal!!!

http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/ ... esso.shtml
Indeed they have. It is 111 pages. Illogical acquittal. Verdict of first degree was complete and accurate.


No mention of any of the grounds yet?

It's on the BBC news right now. No real details, general overview only.

_________________
"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 max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
max wrote:
Michael wrote:
Italian prosecution has just launched its appeal!!!

http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/ ... esso.shtml
Indeed they have. It is 111 pages. Illogical acquittal. Verdict of first degree was complete and accurate.


No mention of any of the grounds yet?

It's on the BBC news right now. No real details, general overview only.

Andrea Vogt already wrote an article with a bit about the contents of the appeal.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/ama ... -acquittal

Quote:
The 112-page document focuses on ten points of law, but mainly focuses on a perceived misapplication of reasonable doubt and the controversial decision by the appeals court to allow an independent review of just two contested pieces of forensic evidence.

"The knife and the bra clasp were just two scientific elements of many," Maresca said. "We believe that either everything should be re-evaluated, or you say the court is able to judge for itself. This was a huge contradiction."

They also maintain that the Court of Appeals mistakenly applied reasonable doubt to singular pieces of evidence, when it was intended to apply to the whole case.

"We believe reasonable doubt has to be applied globally, not singularly."


Last edited by max on Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell quoting Amanda Knox's email wrote:
after i got dressed i went to the other bathroom in my house, the one that filomena dn laura use, and used their hairdryer to obviously dry my hair and it was after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the shit that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower, and i returned to raffael's place.

...

i then went into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there, which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had been there.


And this girl wants to be a writer???

_________________
"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 anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
You will have to do better than that. You are in breach of your own board rules. I refer to rule 15: 'When you present something as a fact, be prepared to back it up or rectify the error.'


Actually, I'm ENFORCING that very rule!

You seem to be coming here playiong a game of "Now, I'm going to invent something for which there is no evidence and which no primary party in the case has ever claimed, then demand you provide proof it isn't true."

The lamp is a case in point.

Your whole approach is in breech of PMF rules and if that approach continues I will ban you, especially as you are on your final strike. I don't know why you are here, you bring nothing of substance to the table to discuss. I certainly will not waste any of my time discussing a thing for which there is no evidence it even exists. My interest in this case resides with the facts of it, not the fiction and the fantasy. I'm certainly not interested in your fantasies.

Well, I don't think you should be enforcing anything, whether in block capitals or otherwise. Your difficulty is in not understanding on whom the burden of proof falls. Aside from that, you have made two assertions which you have failed to back up. To repeat, you said:

1 evidence that the lamp was in the room at the material time was contained among the 10,000 pages of the trial file. When asked to identify which page, you declined to do so saying, in effect, 'it's obvious'.

2 the lamp was tested and yielded a negative result

I have asked you to refer me to the test results and this too turns out to be nothing other than an inference you have drawn. Your own rules require that you rectify your errors by correcting these erroneous statements. You should therefore be issuing warnings to yourself.

As I see the ban looming, I shall try to explain once more, for the benefit of your lurkers, if not for you, why the inferences all point away from the lamp being in the room when the door was broken open. They are:

a) no evidence was led to such effect by the prosecution;
b) it would have been easy to obtain and lead such evidence - by getting each of the very limited no. of individuals who might have moved the lamp between the two rooms to confirm that they did no such thing;
c) no test results for the lamp have been produced;
d) the lamp was not found where any of the perpetrators or Meredith would have placed it (on or beside the table)
e) Massei made no finding that the lamp was there.

(a) to (c) and (e) are far stronger than (d).

Given the lamp was seen by Mignini (as it is by you) as a key piece of evidence in the clean up theory it is astonishing that no such evidence was advanced. We know he did not forget the lamp, because he asked Amanda about it and he included it in the animation. It follows not merely that he had no evidence on the point but that he knew the truth of the matter, namely that the lamp was introduced after the door was opened.

To falsify this thesis, you need only find the missing evidence - then I shall withdraw it, in accordance with the requirement to be 'intellectually honest'.

Your point that the lamp was IN the room and the defence did not dispute that it was is no more than childish petulance exascerbated by incomprehension of the criminal process. Whether the lamp was in the room is a fact which needs to be proved and there was no reason for the defence to dispute something of which there was no evidence.
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 14, 2012 2:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Max -

From Andrea Vogt:

Quote:
They also maintain that the Court of Appeals mistakenly applied reasonable doubt to singular pieces of evidence, when it was intended to apply to the whole case.

"We believe reasonable doubt has to be applied globally, not singularly."


This is a crucial point. Reasonable doubt was blatantly misapplied, abused in fact, by Hellmann. It came right out of the FOAKer 'Handbook on How Reasonable Doubt Works'. Reasonable doubt applies to the case, not the evidence. The High Court can't ignore that. This can by itself force a retrial, in my view.

Great to see that the Kerchers are also petitioning!

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
Michael wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
You will have to do better than that. You are in breach of your own board rules. I refer to rule 15: 'When you present something as a fact, be prepared to back it up or rectify the error.'


Actually, I'm ENFORCING that very rule!

You seem to be coming here playiong a game of "Now, I'm going to invent something for which there is no evidence and which no primary party in the case has ever claimed, then demand you provide proof it isn't true."

The lamp is a case in point.

Your whole approach is in breech of PMF rules and if that approach continues I will ban you, especially as you are on your final strike. I don't know why you are here, you bring nothing of substance to the table to discuss. I certainly will not waste any of my time discussing a thing for which there is no evidence it even exists. My interest in this case resides with the facts of it, not the fiction and the fantasy. I'm certainly not interested in your fantasies.

Well, I don't think you should be enforcing anything, whether in block capitals or otherwise. Your difficulty is in not understanding on whom the burden of proof falls. Aside from that, you have made two assertions which you have failed to back up. To repeat, you said:

1 evidence that the lamp was in the room at the material time was contained among the 10,000 pages of the trial file. When asked to identify which page, you declined to do so saying, in effect, 'it's obvious'.

2 the lamp was tested and yielded a negative result

I have asked you to refer me to the test results and this too turns out to be nothing other than an inference you have drawn. Your own rules require that you rectify your errors by correcting these erroneous statements. You should therefore be issuing warnings to yourself.

As I see the ban looming, I shall try to explain once more, for the benefit of your lurkers, if not for you, why the inferences all point away from the lamp being in the room when the door was broken open. They are:

a) no evidence was led to such effect by the prosecution;
b) it would have been easy to obtain and lead such evidence - by getting each of the very limited no. of individuals who might have moved the lamp between the two rooms to confirm that they did no such thing;
c) no test results for the lamp have been produced;
d) the lamp was not found where any of the perpetrators or Meredith would have placed it (on or beside the table)
e) Massei made no finding that the lamp was there.

(a) to (c) and (e) are far stronger than (d).

Given the lamp was seen by Mignini (as it is by you) as a key piece of evidence in the clean up theory it is astonishing that no such evidence was advanced. We know he did not forget the lamp, because he asked Amanda about it and he included it in the animation. It follows not merely that he had no evidence on the point but that he knew the truth of the matter, namely that the lamp was introduced after the door was opened.

To falsify this thesis, you need only find the missing evidence - then I shall withdraw it, in accordance with the requirement to be 'intellectually honest'.

Your point that the lamp was IN the room and the defence did not dispute that it was is no more than childish petulance exascerbated by incomprehension of the criminal process. Whether the lamp was in the room is a fact which needs to be proved and there was no reason for the defence to dispute something of which there was no evidence.


No, the burden of proof does not require that we disprove that Battisteli put the lamp in the room, which is your assertion. The burden is on YOU, to submit some form of substantive support for your assertion that he did.

It lacks:

a) physical evidence that he did
b) witness evidence that he did
c) any other direct or circumstantial evidence that he did
d) any claim by the defence or accused that he did

Without any of the above, it has no substance and that makes it fantasy. There is no requirement to disprove fantasy.

You need to return to law school. Fortunately, you don't practice criminal law...and it does show.

_________________
"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 dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I think maybe the troll is trying to distract us from this appeal of that crap Hellmann ruling. n-((
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 14, 2012 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolayer wrote:
Your point that the lamp was IN the room and the defence did not dispute that it was is no more than childish petulance exascerbated by incomprehension of the criminal process. Whether the lamp was in the room is a fact which needs to be proved and there was no reason for the defence to dispute something of which there was no evidence.


It does not need to be 'proven', it only needs to be evidenced and a court weigh that evidence. The crime scene photos of the lamp in the room are the evidence that the lamp was in the room. No more is required, especially when there is no evidence to the contrary.

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
I think maybe the troll is trying to distract us from this appeal of that crap Hellmann ruling. n-((


I think so too. Don't worry, he won't be staying long.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi, anglolawyer, and thank you. Being a moderator has been quite a learning curve for me :)

Instead of pasting and quoting it, I'll reply to your salient question here. It relates to how and why Rudy Guede was in the cottage.

He didn't break in. The defense and the FOA haven't been able to recreate how he possibly could have entered through Filomena's window, yet are constrained by the staged break in; now they can't argue he broke in from elsewhere or was invited by Meredith.

I did consider Rudy's statement. He told his friends he was off to see a girl on a date. Why would he make it up? Yet Meredith clearly wasn't expecting him. She'd borrowed a book to study for the next day. So, was he going to meet Amanda? For drugs, or a party? This is where I start to believe she'd set him up, to harass, and not murder Meredith.

Motive: Anger, jealousy. She'd already been demoted by Patrick. Meredith had captivated her boss and was hired to mix drinks for the bar on ladies night. Amanda tried to invite herself with Meredith's friends on Halloween night but was rebuffed. Her anger took form over October 31.

Knox and Sollecito were there. Too many witnesses and forensic evidence to discount. The question is why, and why were they there at the same time as Guede? Knox had the evening off. She could have spent the night in Sollecito's comfortable flat, but, all her lies about turned out to be just that. Sollecito said she'd convinced him to tell a pack of lies, remember?

Meredith's alone in her flat. The three perpetrators arrived shortly after her, and start to smoke up. Rudy starts to come on to Meredith, egged on by Amanda. She rebuffs him, he goes off to the toilet (a common occurrence with Rudy, on drugs) He hears the confrontation with Amanda. "Drugged up tart" and next thing you know, there's a fight on. Amanda eggs Raffaele, Rudy charges in, and the attack is on. Rudy did assault Meredith in that time, and I hope you get the difference, he did not rape, there was no penetration.

Three attackers: Amply proven by the evidence, if not to the FOA or FOA judge Hellmann. Knives used to intimidate Meredith.

The Murder: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito wielding knives. Guede, accomplice. The fatal blow, administered by Knox.

The cover up: Rudy runs out, then comes back because like it or not, he's bound to the other two. Anything they say now will implicate themselves. So he intervenes when Amanda starts waving a knife at Kokomani, tries to rent his car, passes off the noises from the flat (Meredith, bleeding, in her death throes)

Patsy: Rudy doesn't know it yet, but he's already the patsy, scapegoat. Amanda starts planting clues pointing away from herself. The stage in, the missing money and cell phones. Trying to implicate the 'scary' Hicham Khiri (read Follain) then accusing Lumumba when Raffaele throws her under the bus. She never implicates Rudy, even though she's met him before, because that would prove her guilt. But the system, ready to believe it's the drifter, gives her every benefit of the doubt. And so, the white chick and her Mafia boyfriend (boasts of being a 'made' man) get off, and he gets 30 years reduced to 16. (Which is fine by me, 16 years is about right for an accomplice, 30 years for the actual murderers) So, since he's the only one found guilty, he's the patsy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:

No, the burden of proof does not require that we disprove that Battisteli put the lamp in the room, which is your assertion. The burden is on YOU, to submit some form of substantive support for your assertion that he did.

It lacks:

a) physical evidence that he did
b) witness evidence that he did
c) any other direct or circumstantial evidence that he did
d) any claim by the defence or accused that he did

Without any of the above, it has no substance and that makes it fantasy. There is no requirement to disprove fantasy.

I am not trying to prove any such thing Michael. The burden always remains on the prosecution, however unfair that may seem to the uninitiated. You can't get off the hook so easily. I hope everyone notices your resort to dishonesty and insults when cornered and your failure to deal properly with my points.

Let's try again: please either back up your claims that the 10,000 page trial file contained relevant evidence about the lamp and that the lamp was tested or withdraw them, in accordance with board rules to which even you are subject.

Michael wrote:
You need to return to law school. Fortunately, you don't practice criminal law...and it does show.

Well, at least I have been to law school. Your exhortations to Stint and others to refrain from flaming seem not to apply to you. You are now in breach of rule 7, which reads:

'7. Respect others. Personal attacks, the use of profanity just for the hell of it, and any threatening/abusive/offensive posts are not acceptable. If you disagree with someone, do so in a spirited manner but respectfully.

It is not respectful to tell a lawyer to go back to law school, especially when he is trying to educate you about something for your own benefit. I await your apology.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglolayer wrote:
Your point that the lamp was IN the room and the defence did not dispute that it was is no more than childish petulance exascerbated by incomprehension of the criminal process. Whether the lamp was in the room is a fact which needs to be proved and there was no reason for the defence to dispute something of which there was no evidence.


It does not need to be 'proven', it only needs to be evidenced and a court weigh that evidence. The crime scene photos of the lamp in the room are the evidence that the lamp was in the room. No more is required, especially when there is no evidence to the contrary.

The crime scene photo proves the lamp was there when the photo was taken and nothing more. This should be obvious to you but, whether it is or not, I note for the record that the photo is the only evidence you can think of which deals with the lamp. As it cannot exclude the possibility that someone brought the lamp in after the door was broken down and before the photo was taken, it is not sufficient by itself. I have explained above how the evidence could have been obtained and put before the court and have no doubt both Mignini (who led no evidence) and Massei (who made no finding) understood the point perfectly well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon

Once more, thank you for your reply which I will take some time to consider and digest.

Anglo
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 14, 2012 3:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
Michael wrote:
anglolayer wrote:
Your point that the lamp was IN the room and the defence did not dispute that it was is no more than childish petulance exascerbated by incomprehension of the criminal process. Whether the lamp was in the room is a fact which needs to be proved and there was no reason for the defence to dispute something of which there was no evidence.


It does not need to be 'proven', it only needs to be evidenced and a court weigh that evidence. The crime scene photos of the lamp in the room are the evidence that the lamp was in the room. No more is required, especially when there is no evidence to the contrary.

The crime scene photo proves the lamp was there when the photo was taken and nothing more. This should be obvious to you but, whether it is or not, I note for the record that the photo is the only evidence you can think of which deals with the lamp. As it cannot exclude the possibility that someone brought the lamp in after the door was broken down and before the photo was taken, it is not sufficient by itself. I have explained above how the evidence could have been obtained and put before the court and have no doubt both Mignini (who led no evidence) and Massei (who made no finding) understood the point perfectly well.


The evidence that it was there before, is that the door was locked. Battistelli in his statement, which is evidence, does not say he put the lamp in the room or that he went in Knox's room or that he ever did anything with the lamp.

This therefore, constitutes as evidence that the lamp was in the room before the door was locked. No contrary evidence has ever been submitted. Without any contrary evidence, there is nothing to debate.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

In other news, Dr. Rocco Galati has filed a very strong appeal document with the court today (per TJMK) He argues that Hellmann overreached himself and retried the case without calling witnesses who'd testified before.

A very nice valentine's day gift for the lovebirds!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
Michael wrote:
anglolayer wrote:
Your point that the lamp was IN the room and the defence did not dispute that it was is no more than childish petulance exascerbated by incomprehension of the criminal process. Whether the lamp was in the room is a fact which needs to be proved and there was no reason for the defence to dispute something of which there was no evidence.


It does not need to be 'proven', it only needs to be evidenced and a court weigh that evidence. The crime scene photos of the lamp in the room are the evidence that the lamp was in the room. No more is required, especially when there is no evidence to the contrary.

The crime scene photo proves the lamp was there when the photo was taken and nothing more. This should be obvious to you but, whether it is or not, I note for the record that the photo is the only evidence you can think of which deals with the lamp. As it cannot exclude the possibility that someone brought the lamp in after the door was broken down and before the photo was taken, it is not sufficient by itself. I have explained above how the evidence could have been obtained and put before the court and have no doubt both Mignini (who led no evidence) and Massei (who made no finding) understood the point perfectly well.


The evidence that it was there before, is that the door was locked. Battistelli in his statement, which is evidence, does not say he put the lamp in the room or that he went in Knox's room or that he ever did anything with the lamp.

This therefore, constitutes as evidence that the lamp was in the room before the door was locked. No contrary evidence has ever been submitted. Without any contrary evidence, there is nothing to debate.

If his evidence says he did not put the lamp there (I gather from what you say that it doesn't) and if every other candidate who had access to the apartment between the two points in time (the breaking open of the door and the crime scene photo) said the same thing, then you have me. Only a very incompetent lawyer indeed would have failed to elicit this very simple and straightforward evidence from the small no. of witnesses who could possibly have been responsible.

And ask yourself this: if it's so clear, why is there no finding in Massei? We agree, it's a big point, don't we? So what on earth is Massei doing overlooking it in his 400+ page judgment? Should we send him back to law school?
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 14, 2012 3:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

They don't NEED to say the same thing. There is no requirement, in ANY court, for every police officer to take the stand or provide a statement to provide an inventory of the contents of the crime scene and state they did not put any of those items in there. End of.

I'm bored with this now (repetition). Please provide some substance for your arguments, make a different argument (on some other case matter), or leave.

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
And ask yourself this: if it's so clear, why is there no finding in Massei? We agree, it's a big point, don't we? So what on earth is Massei doing overlooking it in his 400+ page judgment? Should we send him back to law school?


He didn't overlook it. It is mentioned in the report. It is not required that he explain every single piece of evidence. It is required only, that he explain the guilt of the accused.

And since, you claim, Massei hardly mentions the lamp and does not figure it in his reasoning for handing down his verdict, I fail to understand why you are making such a fuss about said lamp.

_________________
"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 anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
They don't NEED to say the same thing. There is no requirement, in ANY court, for every police officer to take the stand or provide a statement to provide an inventory of the contents and say they did not put any of those items in there. End of.

I'm bored with now (repetition). Please provide some substance for your arguments, make a difference argument, or leave.

As I am still in discussion with Ergon, I don't plan to leave unless you ban me, which is your privilege, of course.

However, I think we should recap. You could not back up either of your claims about the 10,000 pages or the lamp testing and you must be deemed to have withdrawn both and transferred to a new position which reverses the burden of proof and purports to make assertions about what sort of evidence would need to be advanced re: the lamp.

Of course there is no such rule as you mention. That would be silly. But if the presence of the lamp at a particular place and point in time is relevant (as it is here) then relevant evidence is required. It does not need to take the form of an inventory, though. All that is required is for each relevant witness to be asked one simple question: did you bring that lamp into the room after the door was broken open? When they all answer 'no' the point is proved. It would have taken about 15 minutes of court time to run through that.

Mignini did not do this. Fact. Massei made no finding. Fact.

QED - the treatment of the lamp was improper, the court showed bias in allowing the film to be run, Mignini was unethical in putting his question to Amanda knowing he had no evidence to back it up. I suspect he knew who moved the lamp all along.

That concludes our discussion of the lamp. Thank you very much Michael. I am sorry you became bored towards the end there.

I would like to discuss the moving of the body next, not necessarily with you, but you raised it a few weeks ago so why not? At the risk of being referred to some earlier post, may I ask you to say very briefly why you think the body was moved and when this occurred (at approximately what time)?
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 14, 2012 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I have withdrawn nothing.

It is you that is manipulating the burden of proof. It is you, that is asserting that Battistelli put the lamp in the room without providing counter evidence to his statement evidence. The burden of proof falls on you to provide counter evidence to existing evidence.

The lamp was submitted as evidence, end of. It was fully entitled to be in a video animation of the prosecution's reconstruction of the crime, end of. There is no counter evidence for the lamp, end of.

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
I would like to discuss the moving of the body next, not necessarily with you, but you raised it a few weeks ago so why not? At the risk of being referred to some earlier post, may I ask you to say very briefly why you think the body was moved and when this occurred (at approximately what time)?


Read the Micheli Report, where he details the moving of the body and the evidence for 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 anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
And ask yourself this: if it's so clear, why is there no finding in Massei? We agree, it's a big point, don't we? So what on earth is Massei doing overlooking it in his 400+ page judgment? Should we send him back to law school?


He didn't overlook it. It is mentioned in the report. It is not required that he explain every single piece of evidence. It is required only, that he explain the guilt of the accused.

And since, you claim, Massei hardly mentions the lamp and does not figure it in his reasoning for handing down his verdict, I fail to understand why you are making such a fuss about said lamp.

Sorry Michael. I had assumed that boredom had got the better of you, but since it hasn't ... All he mentioned was Mignini's question to Amanda and her answer. He makes no finding. Do you think judges are free to ignore important points of evidence like this? If so, I have to disabuse you. Massei made no finding because the point was not before him. Otherwise he would have been obliged to do so.

I am making a fuss about it for a number of reasons, all of which are explained in my introductory post to which, as I am not your secretary, you are respectfully referred. This is another disingenuous post as you clearly consider the lamp to be important. This is from a post of yours of 14th April 2010:


Michael wrote:
I do also believe they through the keys in a place they couldn't retrieve them and so tried to break down the door to retrieve the lamp, but changed their minds before seeing it fully through. I don't believe it was an attempt to make it appear they were trying to rescue Meredith, since first of all they weren't to know the door would crack as evidence of their attempt and also they would have mentioned it to the Postal Police and Filomena when they arrived instead of trying to pretend her locked door was normal (otherwise, what was the point?). I think it was over the next couple of days after Meredith's discovery they decided to capitalise on their attempt and invented the story of attempting to break down the door to bolster their story.


I am sure there are many other examples. So, you swallowed Mignini's theory despite the lack of any evidence to support it. Maybe the Perugia jury thought the same way. If so, they, like you, were biased and irrational.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
The lamp was submiied as evidence, end of.

Fine. Where's the citation?

Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Sophistry. Warned ya.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I did some research into the question of whether Raffaele being unable to break in to Meredith's room is implausible, which is here http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Force-Door

The main point is that Massei says

"as is evidenced by the fact that Luca Altieri, a little later, had been able to force it with a kick and a blow from his shoulder"

but Follain in his book says

"Luca bent down to look through the keyhole but all he could glimpse was part of a bed and a wall. He first tried ramming his shoulder against the door. He tried again, several times. It didn't budge. He then started kicking it, aiming at the door handle, again and again, half a dozen kicks in all."

and Burleigh's book says

"Luca Altieri, a friend of Romanelli’s boyfriend, who had arrived on the scene with him, agreed to break down the door. Luca was a big young man. Six hard kicks and a shoulder, he estimated later, broke it down."

Is anyone able to settle this either way? Was it a single kick or six?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
I would like to discuss the moving of the body next, not necessarily with you, but you raised it a few weeks ago so why not? At the risk of being referred to some earlier post, may I ask you to say very briefly why you think the body was moved and when this occurred (at approximately what time)?


Read the Micheli Report, where he details the moving of the body and the evidence for it.

OK, I will. Thanks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I always heard it took 3 kicks.
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 14, 2012 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:
Sorry Michael. I had assumed that boredom had got the better of you, but since it hasn't ... All he mentioned was Mignini's question to Amanda and her answer. He makes no finding. Do you think judges are free to ignore important points of evidence like this? If so, I have to disabuse you. Massei made no finding because the point was not before him. Otherwise he would have been obliged to do so.


Sorry, I was being 'subtle'. It was a hint that you were breaking PMF rules regarding 'repetition'. He acknowledges the lamp. There is no requirement that he explain it or work it into the narrative. Just like he didn't with the stolen money, just like he didn't with the stolen credit cards. Not required. So yes, I do believe he's free to do so.

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

geebee2 wrote:
Is anyone able to settle this either way? Was it a single kick or six?


Since he's the judge, I believe Massei settles it, don't you?

_________________
"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 dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hey Michael,

How about a new thread for the appeal being filed?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
Sorry Michael. I had assumed that boredom had got the better of you, but since it hasn't ... All he mentioned was Mignini's question to Amanda and her answer. He makes no finding. Do you think judges are free to ignore important points of evidence like this? If so, I have to disabuse you. Massei made no finding because the point was not before him. Otherwise he would have been obliged to do so.


Sorry, I was being 'subtle'. It was a hint that you were breaking PMF rules regarding 'repetition'. He acknowledges the lamp. There is no requirement that he explain it or work it into the narrative. Just like he didn't with the stolen money, just like he didn't with the stolen credit cards. Not required. So yes, I do believe he's free to do so.


Sorry, but the subtly went clean over my head. I thought you were really bored by our discussion. I am glad you are not.

I have been no more repetitious than you Michael. I repeatedly ask you to back up your claims and you repeatedly refuse to do so, in breach of board rules. Maybe we should refer this to Ergon for moderation. I assume you agree it would not be appropriate for you to moderate debate in which you yourself are involved?

Now you've slid over to yet another new position - because Massei made no finding on other things, it follows he did not need to make any finding on the lamp. With respect, Michael - BS. You will need to explain that. What, specifically, was alleged re: the money and credit cards? Were Amanda and Raffaele charged with their theft? If so, it would be surprising, to put it mildly, if Massei had ignored that. What evidence did Mignini lead about them and tending to show what exactly?

Judges are required to decide relevant, disputed questions of fact once they are raised. This is fundamental. Otherwise, justice cannot be seen to be done, there being no way of knowing what part, if any, the point played in their decision or, if none at all, why not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Massei Report, page 74:

"As for the black lamp discovered in Meredith’s room, she couldn’t give an explanation. She remembered that she had an identical lamp, but she didn’t know if it was still there, since she didn’t pay attention to it"

Massei takes note of the lamp 'discovered in Meredith's room'. Why would he say that if it wasn't already entered in evidence? He is NOT required to 'make a finding' on specific evidence, unless it's disputed by the defense or it forms part of his reasoning. Amanda can't provide an explanation, and that is how it stands.

While you're here, do you have an explanation for page 75, "She recalled that she had told her mother that she was worried ‚because there’s a knife at Raffaele’s"?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
Hey Michael,

How about a new thread for the appeal being filed?


Good idea, after FOA day.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

OK but the trolling one or two crapshooters shouldn't matter... he/they don't to me anyway.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline anglolawyer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 am

Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
Massei Report, page 74:

"As for the black lamp discovered in Meredith’s room, she couldn’t give an explanation. She remembered that she had an identical lamp, but she didn’t know if it was still there, since she didn’t pay attention to it"

Massei takes note of the lamp 'discovered in Meredith's room'. Why would he say that if it wasn't already entered in evidence? He is NOT required to 'make a finding' on specific evidence, unless it's disputed by the defense or it forms part of his reasoning. Amanda can't provide an explanation, and that is how it stands.

While you're here, do you have an explanation for page 75, "She recalled that she had told her mother that she was worried‚ because there’s a knife at Raffaele’s"?

Ergon

If that is directed to me, I am afraid I have been banned - apparently for 'sophistry'. If I get unbanned I shall of course be happy to reply. If not, I may reply on IIP.

Anglo
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's acquittal challenged by prosecutors

Italian prosecutors appeal against the verdict that cleared Knox and Sollecito of Meredith Kercher's murder in Perugia

Tom Kington in Rome
Tuesday 14 February 2012 16.30 GMT

The supreme court will not reconsider evidence and cannot convict but will examine whether correct legal procedures have been followed until now. Should it decide procedures have been violated, the court will order a retrial.

Prosecutors have previously questioned whether the appeal court was within its rights to order the review of DNA evidence that proved crucial to the acquittal.

"Hypothetically speaking, should there be a new hearing, it would be held in Florence," said Carlo dalla Vedova, a lawyer representing Knox, who moved back to her home town in Seattle after serving four years in jail in Perugia.

"But I doubt the supreme court will rule before the end of 2012. Then you would need months to fix a new hearing and neither the supreme court nor the court in Florence could order the defendants to be taken into custody before a final verdict, which would be three to four years from now," he said.

Asked if Knox could be extradited from the US should a new trial find her guilty, Dalla Vedova said: "There is an extradition treaty between Italy and the US which is automatic for Italian citizens, but in the case of US citizens you would need approval from the US government."


THE GUARDIAN
Top Profile 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
Is anyone able to settle this either way? Was it a single kick or six?


Since he's the judge, I believe Massei settles it, don't you?


Well the two books are very specific about Luca saying it was six kicks.

For that reason I'm inclined to believe the books. Possibly the evidence Luca gave in court was not as specific as statements he made to reporters, although that would be irregular.

What we need is a transcript of Luca's testimony, but I haven't been able to find that.

As it stands, it is a bit of a mystery.

Another question is how big was Luca? Demsey says he was "a big young man". Any idea if the man in the brown top in this picture is Luca? It seems logical, if speculative.


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

Offline Jstanz

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:58 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi Ergon - I just wanted to make a comment on one of your posts to anglolawyer, just a little thing that jumped out at me. This is the part of your post: "I did consider Rudy's statement. He told his friends he was off to see a girl on a date. Why would he make it up? Yet Meredith clearly wasn't expecting him. She'd borrowed a book to study for the next day. So, was he going to meet Amanda? For drugs, or a party? This is where I start to believe she'd set him up, to harass, and not murder Meredith."

Why would he lie and say he was meeting a girl for a date if he wasn’t? Because he couldn't very well tell his friends he was off to rob a house, now could he?

Michael – I’m disappointed, during the time I’ve watched the current discussions, I really thought the things I’ve heard about posting here weren’t true but you’ve just proven what many have long suspected. You don’t play fair. When you’re backed into a corner and can’t back up your claims, you resort to banning. How can you run a board if you ban anyone who insists that you back up your claims? That’s just as bad as what .org has just done to various posters. Can’t you see that?

Basically, anyone who posts here will get banned if they don’t back down from you. You’re holding your moderator status over everyone’s heads. I wonder how many other members of this board have had to back down from a discussion of evidence with you? That’s a very unfair way to run a board.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Meredith Kercher family launch appeal against Knox's acquittal

Amid book deal hoo-ha, lawyers in Florence launch legal bid to overturn Knox and Sollecito acquittal

By Andrea Vogt
Tue 14 Feb 2012

"We are petitioning against the decision of the Court of Appeals of Perugia and are optimistic it will be admitted to the Court of Cassation for review," said Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca in Florence. Prosecutor General Giovanni Galati filed the same appeal – or ‘recourse’, to be more accurate - in Perugia, amid a throng of reporters.

The 112-page document focuses on ten points of law, but mainly focuses on a perceived misapplication of reasonable doubt and the controversial decision by the appeals court to allow an independent review of just two contested pieces of forensic evidence.


Read more:

THE WEEK
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

J... That's bull. The argument (lamp) was ridiculous for all to see. Any banning poor-lawyer got was well deserved.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

anglolawyer wrote:

I repeatedly ask you to back up your claims and you repeatedly refuse to do so, in breach of board rules. Maybe we should refer this to Ergon for moderation. I assume you agree it would not be appropriate for you to moderate debate in which you yourself are involved?


My understanding of the rule is that it isn't a hard rule, it's a suggestion, and open to interpretation.

I don't agree with your interpretation, that every claim must be backed up by hard fact or page number of a 10,000 page reference file written in Italian. As long as it's been mentioned in Massei or Micheli, then that can stand without further argument.

You can dispute Micheli or Massei's actions, lack of, or omissions, but those are by definition opinions, and not claims, since neither you nor Michael are experts in Italian law. Therefore the board rules about 'claims' do not even apply here.

No one's required to reply to you if they feel you aren't debating in good faith.

I've referred to the specific page number in Massei regarding the lamp. You're welcome to move on to other topics if you like, but I consider the matter closed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I just found another account here, although I regard the Daily Mail as quite unreliable. But anyway,

Quote:
The officer [Michele Battistelli] decided it was time to break Meredith's locked door down.

'At this time Knox and Sollecito were not here. They were away from the scene. Romanelli's boyfriend (Luca Altieri) gave the door three kicks and it opened - I was behind him and heard a scream.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-fly.html

So here we have three kicks. Although I don't regard Battistelli as reliable, and Luca, considering he actually did the deed, would seem more reliable.
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 14, 2012 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz wrote:
Hi Ergon - I just wanted to make a comment on one of your posts to anglolawyer, just a little thing that jumped out at me. This is the part of your post: "I did consider Rudy's statement. He told his friends he was off to see a girl on a date. Why would he make it up? Yet Meredith clearly wasn't expecting him. She'd borrowed a book to study for the next day. So, was he going to meet Amanda? For drugs, or a party? This is where I start to believe she'd set him up, to harass, and not murder Meredith."


Actually, none of his friends supported his claim that he told them 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 guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon,

here is an interesting connection to what you've posted upthread about the death of Pope John Paul I. From Andrea Vogt's article:

Quote:
Galati, the prosecutor general leading the ‘recourse’, is also no stranger to high-profile cases, having worked in the 1980s on the case of Roberto Calvi, the Italian banker murdered and found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London in June, 1982.


This is fascinating ...
Top Profile 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

And here, four kicks

Quote:
Around 1:15 p.m.? Luca (Paola's boyfriend) gave the door four hard kicks and it flew opened. The room was dark but a foot could be seen protruding from the comforter covering Meredith‘s body. Filomena scream "a foot! a foot!".


http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=504236

I will try to see if there is anything in Micheli's report... [ Edit: No, nothing there ].


Last edited by geebee2 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz wrote:
Hi Ergon - I just wanted to make a comment on one of your posts to anglolawyer, just a little thing that jumped out at me. This is the part of your post: "I did consider Rudy's statement. He told his friends he was off to see a girl on a date. Why would he make it up? Yet Meredith clearly wasn't expecting him. She'd borrowed a book to study for the next day. So, was he going to meet Amanda? For drugs, or a party? This is where I start to believe she'd set him up, to harass, and not murder Meredith."

Why would he lie and say he was meeting a girl for a date if he wasn’t? Because he couldn't very well tell his friends he was off to rob a house, now could he?


Well, Jstanz, why say anything at all, if he was off to rob a house? A simple ciao! would suffice. It's the stuff he did say that fleshes out my opinion.
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 14, 2012 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jatanz wrote:
Michael – I’m disappointed, during the time I’ve watched the current discussions, I really thought the things I’ve heard about posting here weren’t true but you’ve just proven what many have long suspected. You don’t play fair. When you’re backed into a corner and can’t back up your claims, you resort to banning. How can you run a board if you ban anyone who insists that you back up your claims? That’s just as bad as what .org has just done to various posters. Can’t you see that?


Intellectual dishonesty, debating in bad faith and sophistry are very unfair Jstanz. That's why we have a hard rule against it. Anglolawyer was already on his final formal warning.

When you start demanding, for example, that you provide proof that the lamp was submitted to the court as evidence, when Knox was questioned on the stand about the lamp, Judge Massei wrote about the lamp, the prosecution have repeatedly mentioned the lamp...and when as a lawyer, you know fully dammed well that no evidence can be debated in court unless it is in the evidence file, the whole demand is inherently dishonest and in bad faith. That is only one example among a great many.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Jstanz wrote:
Hi Ergon - I just wanted to make a comment on one of your posts to anglolawyer, just a little thing that jumped out at me. This is the part of your post: "I did consider Rudy's statement. He told his friends he was off to see a girl on a date. Why would he make it up? Yet Meredith clearly wasn't expecting him. She'd borrowed a book to study for the next day. So, was he going to meet Amanda? For drugs, or a party? This is where I start to believe she'd set him up, to harass, and not murder Meredith."


Actually, none of his friends supported his claim that he told them that.


Yeah, one of the many interesting quotes that have floated around since the beginning. I have no firm opinion on that myself, since they, or Rudy might be lying or misremembering.

I just go back to the incontrovertible fact: All 3 were present there that night. This is based on the forensic evidence, and Massei. What he did or did not say is hearsay, but parsing Rudy to see what is self-serving and what is truth is still interesting.
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 14, 2012 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

geebee2 wrote:
Michael wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
Is anyone able to settle this either way? Was it a single kick or six?


Since he's the judge, I believe Massei settles it, don't you?


Well the two books are very specific about Luca saying it was six kicks.

For that reason I'm inclined to believe the books. Possibly the evidence Luca gave in court was not as specific as statements he made to reporters, although that would be irregular.

What we need is a transcript of Luca's testimony, but I haven't been able to find that.

As it stands, it is a bit of a mystery.

Another question is how big was Luca? Demsey says he was "a big young man". Any idea if the man in the brown top in this picture is Luca? It seems logical, if speculative.



Whatever floats your boat. It's your opinion. Personally, I'll go with the qualified experienced judge that has examined the whole case and all the witnesses.

_________________
"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 geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
Jstanz wrote:
Hi Ergon - I just wanted to make a comment on one of your posts to anglolawyer, just a little thing that jumped out at me. This is the part of your post: "I did consider Rudy's statement. He told his friends he was off to see a girl on a date. Why would he make it up? Yet Meredith clearly wasn't expecting him. She'd borrowed a book to study for the next day. So, was he going to meet Amanda? For drugs, or a party? This is where I start to believe she'd set him up, to harass, and not murder Meredith."

Why would he lie and say he was meeting a girl for a date if he wasn’t? Because he couldn't very well tell his friends he was off to rob a house, now could he?


Well, Jstanz, why say anything at all, if he was off to rob a house? A simple ciao! would suffice. It's the stuff he did say that fleshes out my opinion.


Ergon

I'm not clear here on the source for Rudy saying "he was off see a girl on a date".

Is this some witness who heard Rudy saying that ( what's your source ), or is it Rudy's own account of what happened?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I don't pretend to speak for everyone here, but I believe most of us want to discuss the filing of the prosecution's appeal today, not to talk to 'dimwits' from IIP who are here to disrupt.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Jatanz wrote:
Michael – I’m disappointed, during the time I’ve watched the current discussions, I really thought the things I’ve heard about posting here weren’t true but you’ve just proven what many have long suspected. You don’t play fair. When you’re backed into a corner and can’t back up your claims, you resort to banning. How can you run a board if you ban anyone who insists that you back up your claims? That’s just as bad as what .org has just done to various posters. Can’t you see that?


Intellectual dishonesty, debating in bad faith and sophistry are very unfair Jstanz. That's why we have a hard rule against it. Anglolawyer was already on his final formal warning.

When you start demanding, for example, that you provide proof that the lamp was submitted to the court as evidence, when Knox was questioned on the stand about the lamp, Judge Massei wrote about the lamp, the prosecution have repeatedly mentioned the lamp...and when as a lawyer, you know fully dammed well that no evidence can be debated in court unless it is in the evidence file, the whole demand is inherently dishonest and in bad faith. That is only one example among a great many.


I support Michael's decision for that same reason. No one has any reason to fear if they debate in good faith. Bogging down the flow of debate with arcane arguments about our own rules counts as bad faith, but as Michael says, it was the final straw.

Anglolawyer had been warned before, and Michael had every right to act as he did.
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 14, 2012 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
I don't pretend to speak for everyone here, but I believe most of us want to discuss the filing of the prosecution's appeal today, not to talk to 'dimwits' from IIP who are here to disrupt.


I'm with Guermantes on that one! :)

In fact, I think I'll put a halt to FOAKer day early today. In an hour from now.

_________________
"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 Jstanz

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:58 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
Jstanz wrote:
Hi Ergon - I just wanted to make a comment on one of your posts to anglolawyer, just a little thing that jumped out at me. This is the part of your post: "I did consider Rudy's statement. He told his friends he was off to see a girl on a date. Why would he make it up? Yet Meredith clearly wasn't expecting him. She'd borrowed a book to study for the next day. So, was he going to meet Amanda? For drugs, or a party? This is where I start to believe she'd set him up, to harass, and not murder Meredith."

Why would he lie and say he was meeting a girl for a date if he wasn’t? Because he couldn't very well tell his friends he was off to rob a house, now could he?


Well, Jstanz, why say anything at all, if he was off to rob a house? A simple ciao! would suffice. It's the stuff he did say that fleshes out my opinion.



That's a point. Unless they asked him where he was going. But neither of us can know that either way.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jstanz

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:58 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dg that is NOT bull. anglo and Michael both have theories about the lamp. They each need to back up those theories.

anglo presented a theory about the lamp and gave his reasons and backup for thinking so. Michael disputed him on the board in front of everyone but has declined to present the backup evidence for his claims despite his rule telling everyone they must do so and despite his countless instructions to other posters to do so. When anglo insisted on this evidence he was banned. That’s very unfair. He’s taking advantage of his position to get out of a corner.

If Michael had presented such evidence, it’s possible anglo would have said “OK, I suppose my theory is not possible then.” If Michael can’t come up with the evidence to back up his claims, then he should state on the board, that it’s possible anglo’s theory has some merit
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
I don't pretend to speak for everyone here, but I believe most of us want to discuss the filing of the prosecution's appeal today, not to talk to 'dimwits' from IIP who are here to disrupt.


And we can, guermantes. From what i've read so far, Dr. Galati presents a very strong argument. I'm waiting to see which judges are assigned to hear the argument, and what we know about them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jstanz

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:58 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
I don't pretend to speak for everyone here, but I believe most of us want to discuss the filing of the prosecution's appeal today, not to talk to 'dimwits' from IIP who are here to disrupt.


I am not here to disrupt - I enjoy seeing the reasons PGP believe what they believe.

We could always come back tomorrow if you like. hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael, I am also dissapointed. Already, I have read name calling and banning. It makes PMF look bad...
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Goodbye, Anglo. You came across as very pouty. ss) Oh noes. No-one fell for your silly attempts at derailing. Sooo many posts, thousands, in a few months, and you still don't get it. co-) Having so much time on your hands, to post 24/7, well, it's NOT PROOF, but one can come to the conclusion, that you do not a very busy practice. nw) Understanble. Very.

Well, back to IIP you go. To get some rah-rahs there. I'm sure they'll soothe your ruffled feelings. So, as you were. Which was never much. stup-)

You will, for ever more, be to me * The Lady with the Lamp*. Shining your light under a bushel. You've hidden your talents well :) They will never be found. Then, of course, you just may have none. You're just so unaware.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Last edited by capealadin on Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I actually LOVE when FOA are dissappointed in us... only a 'good' thing IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz wrote:
dg that is NOT bull. anglo and Michael both have theories about the lamp. They each need to back up those theories.



I think you missed my post about the difference between 'claims' and 'opinions'. Anglolawyer asked me for a ruling on the debate, and I gave it. You need to refer to that, but please, don't just re-argue what you just said. That has already been answered.

The lamp was presented in court. End of story.

He was banned by Michael for a cumulation of reasons, and not this particular one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Prosecutors seek to reinstate Knox conviction

By COLLEEN BARRY
Associated Press

Feb 14, 2012 9:01 AM EST

MILAN (AP) - Italian prosecutors asked the country's highest criminal court on Tuesday to reinstate the murder convictions of American Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend in the brutal slaying of a British student.

Perugia prosecutors filed the 112-page appeal, more than four months after an appeals court threw out the convictions against Knox, 24, and Raffaele Sollecito, 27.

Prosecutors Giovanni Galati said he is "very convinced" that Sollecito and Knox are responsible for the Nov. 1, 2007, stabbing death of Meredith Kercher, a 21-year-old British student who shared an apartment with Knox in the university town of Perugia.

Galati told reporters in Pergugia that the appeals sentence must be thrown out, saying it was full of "omissions and many errors," the news agency ANSA reported.
...
Luca Maori, Sollecito's lawyer, said the high court is expected to issue its decision toward the end of the year.

The prosecutors move was expected, and Maori said he would file his counter-arguments after going over the prosecutors' appeal.

"We will write our brief to say it's a mistake," Maori said.

The high court cannot hear new evidence, and will make its decision based on what has been submitted in earlier trials.


KATV
Top Profile 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
Michael wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
Is anyone able to settle this either way? Was it a single kick or six?


Since he's the judge, I believe Massei settles it, don't you?


Well the two books are very specific about Luca saying it was six kicks.

For that reason I'm inclined to believe the books. Possibly the evidence Luca gave in court was not as specific as statements he made to reporters, although that would be irregular.

What we need is a transcript of Luca's testimony, but I haven't been able to find that.

As it stands, it is a bit of a mystery.

Another question is how big was Luca? Demsey says he was "a big young man". Any idea if the man in the brown top in this picture is Luca? It seems logical, if speculative.



Whatever floats your boat. It's your opinion. Personally, I'll go with the qualified experienced judge that has examined the whole case and all the witnesses.


Michael

The other reason I would go with multiple kicks is simply that it makes the situation more believable.

As Massei states, one kick is "strange", I think the most likely explanation is that Massei was somehow mistaken in thinking it was a single kick. I don't have any definite explanation for why he might have been mistaken.

It seems hard to believe that the multiple other reports of more than one kick are all unfounded.

I certainly am not drawing any firm conclusion - for me it's still an unsolved mystery.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Great. Now we can didcuss the IMPORTANT thing today. The appeal Docs. Galati says the sentence was full of errors? I'll say. Giving that verdict was a HUGE one. ss)

I really think the * Book Deal * reporting is because of the Appeal was coming out. I checked the comment section. NOT ONE good thing to say about Knox. The publishers need to test the pulse of the public. You can't make a silk purse out of a cow's ear. pig-)

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

tamale wrote:
Michael, I am also dissapointed. Already, I have read name calling and banning. It makes PMF look bad...


Hi, tamale. Welcome back. If you haven't been following the board for some time you might have missed the reasons for this, but the FOA are here for as long as they argue in good faith. Do drop by again, things are always interesting here! ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

geebee2 wrote:
Michael wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
Michael wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
Is anyone able to settle this either way? Was it a single kick or six?


Since he's the judge, I believe Massei settles it, don't you?


Well the two books are very specific about Luca saying it was six kicks.

For that reason I'm inclined to believe the books. Possibly the evidence Luca gave in court was not as specific as statements he made to reporters, although that would be irregular.

What we need is a transcript of Luca's testimony, but I haven't been able to find that.

As it stands, it is a bit of a mystery.





Another question is how big was Luca? Demsey says he was "a big young man". Any idea if the man in the brown top in this picture is Luca? It seems logical, if speculative.



Whatever floats your boat. It's your opinion. Personally, I'll go with the qualified experienced judge that has examined the whole case and all the witnesses.


Michael

The other reason I would go with multiple kicks is simply that it makes the situation more believable.

As Massei states, one kick is "strange", I think the most likely explanation is that Massei was somehow mistaken in thinking it was a single kick. I don't have any definite explanation for why he might have been mistaken.

It seems hard to believe that the multiple other reports of more than one kick are all unfounded.

I certainly am not drawing any firm conclusion - for me it's still an unsolved mystery.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Italian prosecutors launch Rome appeal against Amanda Knox acquittal

By Nick Squires
Tuesday February 14 2012


Mr Sollecito said through his lawyer that the prosecutors’ decision to appeal his acquittal would ensure that the “living hell” he had experienced over the last four years would drag on.

“It’s a story that never finishes,” he told his lawyer, Luca Maori.


THE INDEPENDENT
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
Prosecutors seek to reinstate Knox conviction

By COLLEEN BARRY
Associated Press

Feb 14, 2012 9:01 AM EST

MILAN (AP) - Italian prosecutors asked the country's highest criminal court on Tuesday to reinstate the murder convictions of American Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend in the brutal slaying of a British student.

Perugia prosecutors filed the 112-page appeal, more than four months after an appeals court threw out the convictions against Knox, 24, and Raffaele Sollecito, 27.

Prosecutors Giovanni Galati said he is "very convinced" that Sollecito and Knox are responsible for the Nov. 1, 2007, stabbing death of Meredith Kercher, a 21-year-old British student who shared an apartment with Knox in the university town of Perugia.

Galati told reporters in Pergugia that the appeals sentence must be thrown out, saying it was full of "omissions and many errors," the news agency ANSA reported.
...
Luca Maori, Sollecito's lawyer, said the high court is expected to issue its decision toward the end of the year.

The prosecutors move was expected, and Maori said he would file his counter-arguments after going over the prosecutors' appeal.

"We will write our brief to say it's a mistake," Maori said.

The high court cannot hear new evidence, and will make its decision based on what has been submitted in earlier trials.


KATV


Thanks, guermantes. Whenever Michael starts a new thread and sees off the FOA please repost this. It will be a grand way to start off the discussion, and I'd hate to see it truncated!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Geebee..the mystery for you should be Raf giving ONLY ONE KICK. Knox was running around like a blue arsed fly, clambering dangerously to look in the window. Running downstairs. She WAS FRANTIC, according to her.

Raf, the kickboxer didn't try too hard, or changed his mind. That's the problem, when you've taken too many drugs, killed someone. You have to do some things, on the fly.

So, after one kick, he gives up. After a short interrogation, he says Knox told him a lot of crap. At best, this is one wishy washy guy.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
Italian prosecutors launch Rome appeal against Amanda Knox acquittal

By Nick Squires
Tuesday February 14 2012


Mr Sollecito said through his lawyer that the prosecutors’ decision to appeal his acquittal would ensure that the “living hell” he had experienced over the last four years would drag on.

“It’s a story that never finishes,” he told his lawyer, Luca Maori.


THE INDEPENDENT



Doesn't match what the Kerchers have had to go through, imho.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks so much for the news and updates, G. th-)

Well, what else would Raf say? However, it was MEREDITH who went through a living hell.

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

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
I don't pretend to speak for everyone here, but I believe most of us want to discuss the filing of the prosecution's appeal today, not to talk to 'dimwits' from IIP who are here to disrupt.


I hope you are not calling me a dimwit?!

Anyway, disregarding that, as regards the prosecution appeal, I think it is unlikely to succeed, because apparently

"The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence; rather, it corrects a lower court's interpretation or application of the law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation_(Italy)

Given Hellmann's interpretation of the evidence

Quote:
But the only circumstantial evidence which remains solid (consummation of the crime of calumny but without the alleged aggravating circumstance, not-totally-proven veracity of alibi, dubious reliability of witness Quintavalle) does not, even taken together, allow us to arrive at the conclusion that the culpability of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of the crime of murder (and of the other crimes instrumental thereto) has been proven in any way.


it's very hard to see how the prosecution appeal could succeed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

geebee2 wrote:


The other reason I would go with multiple kicks is simply that it makes the situation more believable.

As Massei states, one kick is "strange", I think the most likely explanation is that Massei was somehow mistaken in thinking it was a single kick. I don't have any definite explanation for why he might have been mistaken.

It seems hard to believe that the multiple other reports of more than one kick are all unfounded.

I certainly am not drawing any firm conclusion - for me it's still an unsolved mystery.


Massei referring to Sollecito's one kick, which barely caused a scratch. What he finds strange is that if what Knox says is true, that Meredith always locked the door, then why is he alarmed? And if he's alarmed by signs of a break in, why didn't he try harder to break down the door? Or call the police sooner?

When did Amanda get alarmed, and why didn't she and Raffaele call the police sooner?

Alarmed or not alarmed. Which is it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Italy prosecutors appeal against Amanda Knox

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:07pm GMT

Prosecutors Giovanni Galati and Giancarlo Costagliola said in their motion that acquitting Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito was "contradictory and illogical."

Italian law permits prosecutors to appeal against not guilty verdicts. Now the Court of Cassation must rule whether there were any procedural irregularities that give grounds for a retrial.


(Reporting by Maurizio Troccoli; Writing by Philip Pullella; Editing by Louise Ireland)

REUTERS
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Knox's reaction to the prosecution's appeal ;)

Attachment:
Knox's reaction.jpg


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

geebee2 wrote:


"The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence; rather, it corrects a lower court's interpretation or application of the law."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation_(Italy)

Given Hellmann's interpretation of the evidence

Quote:
But the only circumstantial evidence which remains solid (consummation of the crime of calumny but without the alleged aggravating circumstance, not-totally-proven veracity of alibi, dubious reliability of witness Quintavalle) does not, even taken together, allow us to arrive at the conclusion that the culpability of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of the crime of murder (and of the other crimes instrumental thereto) has been proven in any way.


it's very hard to see how the prosecution appeal could succeed.


I think you'll find Dr. Galati is arguing that very same point: a) Hellmann erred in the application of the law and b) while Cassazione might not overturn Hellmann's interpretation of the evidence (actually they have done so in the past; they do have quite a lot of leeway) it can correct it by resending it to another court at the Appeals level.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz wrote:
dg that is NOT bull. anglo and Michael both have theories about the lamp. They each need to back up those theories.

anglo presented a theory about the lamp and gave his reasons and backup for thinking so. Michael disputed him on the board in front of everyone but has declined to present the backup evidence for his claims despite his rule telling everyone they must do so and despite his countless instructions to other posters to do so. When anglo insisted on this evidence he was banned. That’s very unfair. He’s taking advantage of his position to get out of a corner.

If Michael had presented such evidence, it’s possible anglo would have said “OK, I suppose my theory is not possible then.” If Michael can’t come up with the evidence to back up his claims, then he should state on the board, that it’s possible anglo’s theory has some merit


Really?
Michael should have given evidence, that the police did not plant the lamp. Should we expand that to all other pieces of evidence and deem them all unreliable, because we haven`t proved, that they weren`t planted? Should we send some kind of grandmasters of sincerness alongside every crime-scene-investigator to look over their shoulders, so that they can prove, that the cops didn`t plant the evidence. The question would then arise, why don`t we replace the cops with these"grandmasters". Again we would have the same problem, we would need new "higher" grandmasters to look over the shoulders of the old grandmasters to make sure, they don`t plant evidence (to some lower degree) as well. As this endless process of a new better "controller" replacing the old controllers would in practice come to an inevitable end, you have to give some persons, i.e. the crime scene investigators, the confidence, that they are doing their job (processing a crime scene and collecting evidence) conscientiously and don`t purposely interfere with the crime scene.
In conclusion, if you ever want to solve a crime, you should accept the evidence, which the csi delivers you, unless there is a proof, that an investigator altered some pieces of it.
In the case of the lamp, there is no proof, that it was planted by a police officer.


Last edited by 00Sneider on Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Italian prosecutors appeal decision to overturn Amanda Knox conviction

From Livia Borghese, for CNN
Tue February 14, 2012

But Francesco Sollecito, father of Raffaele, told CNN in a phone interview that the family was "not happy about the decision. My son is trying to get back to normal life."

"We can do very little in this situation," he said, but as Italian citizens they would have to accept the court's decision. "We hope that the High Court will finally put the words 'The end' to this story," he added.

Knox's defense lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told CNN he had hoped the prosecutors would not appeal.

"This story was too much under the spotlight, and beside (that) there is suffering, there are two young people that unjustly spent nearly four years in prison," he said. "The best way of respecting this suffering would have been silence."

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who took part in previous court proceedings but is not directly involved in the latest move, told CNN that the prosecutors' appeal was based on 10 points, including questions over apparent contradictions in the ruling.

Mignini said the High Court would decide whether to accept or reject the attorney general's appeal.

It was possible the case would be combined with Knox's appeal against her conviction for slander, Mignini said. It would likely be five or six months before the case came to court, he added.


CNN
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I.D., just boke in with the latest news. Vinnie, one of the hosts..reports that the prosecutors have appealed the verdict.

Here's the spin though. He says : Know, who was found innocent last year, may face imprisonment..AGAIN.. Yes, he EMPHASIZED AGAIN.

No mention that Knox was found GUILTY the first time. wtf)

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amanda Knox Release Challenged By Italian Prosecutors

By NIKKI BATTISTE
Feb. 14, 2012

ABC
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I need clarification. The case would be combined with the slander? Can a finding of guilt on one, and not guilty on the other be found? As in the 2nd Trial?

Good way of putting it, OOOsneider. But, don't tell Anglo. He was REALLY into the lamp. You don't want to spoil his imagined * gotcha * moment, do you :) ?

The poor thing. He's just not a winner.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I cannot get over Hellmann's description, which is in the Nick Battiste artice, as * GOOD AND OPEN * to other people. Based on that rendering, as to one of the reason's found not guilty, no wonder Galati says it's illogical and full of errors.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Okay, I'm officially calling an end to FOAKer Day now, early this time as the recourse was released today. Thank you to all those who participated in good faith and spirit.


Image

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz wrote:
dg that is NOT bull. anglo and Michael both have theories about the lamp. They each need to back up those theories.

anglo presented a theory about the lamp and gave his reasons and backup for thinking so. Michael disputed him on the board in front of everyone but has declined to present the backup evidence for his claims despite his rule telling everyone they must do so and despite his countless instructions to other posters to do so. When anglo insisted on this evidence he was banned. That’s very unfair. He’s taking advantage of his position to get out of a corner.

If Michael had presented such evidence, it’s possible anglo would have said “OK, I suppose my theory is not possible then.” If Michael can’t come up with the evidence to back up his claims, then he should state on the board, that it’s possible anglo’s theory has some merit


The record of the discussion will stand and speak for itself.

Theories are fine, but they require evidence. None of Anglolawyer's 'reason's' for arguing his theory constituted as actual evidence (evidence: witness statements, physical evidence, forensic evidence, electronic evidence etc), whilst there was actual evidence that countered his theory. An unsupported theory has no validity.

People do not need to prove things that are already on record and have been long established. They do however, need to provide evidence when they propose a brand new theory that runs contrary to all the known facts.

_________________
"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 guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Mez murder, the prosecution appeal to the Supreme Court
"Acquittal wrong, review the process"

14.2.2012

13:47 - The prosecutor of Perugia this morning filed the appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of acquittal in the second degree of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Attorney General Giovanni Galati spoke of "judgment to be void."
The appeal, motivated in 111 pages, has been signed by the attorney general, Giovanni Galati and deputy prosecutor, Giancarlo Costagliola.

The judgment of conviction of first degree was "complete and accurate," said Galati, "we are still convinced that they (Amanda and Raffaele, ed) are the co-authors of the murder of Meredith Kercher." The prosecutors have also spoken of "inconsistency and illogicality of the reasons for the judgment on appeal."

Sollecito: "A four year long ordeal "
"It 's a story that never ends. For me, a real ordeal that had lasted four years." These are the first words of Raffaele Sollecito to the news that the attorney general has appealed to the Supreme Court against his acquittal and that of Amanda Knox of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Sollecito's lawyer Luca Maori added. "I agree with him - he said - and it seems almost a fury [madness, rage] on the part of judges."


tgcom24
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

You know that (about new theories) and I know that, Michael. I wonder why they don't know that?

I suggest a new rule: being obtuse is fine, being deliberately obtuse is a banning offense ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Well, YES, Luca Maori would say that. The only 8right* thing, would have been Galati not filing. Such indignation. La . :)

Now, there are apparantly 10 points in the appeal, that Dr. Galati mentions. I like that number. It shows how many ( appellate points there are) And, of course, that's only 10 points, that are allowed.

A long 4 years? Knox and Raf walk free, at the mo. Busy as little bees, doing book deals.

The Kerchers have to go through a lifetime of an ordeal. Why is the victim always forgotten, pushed aside?

The BIG word for me, at the moment, is the ILLOGICALITY * of the 2nd verdict. It was illogical, it was absolute nonsense.

The casual way of waving away evidence. The rulings. Mind boggling.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

00Sneider wrote:
Jstanz wrote:
dg that is NOT bull. anglo and Michael both have theories about the lamp. They each need to back up those theories.

anglo presented a theory about the lamp and gave his reasons and backup for thinking so. Michael disputed him on the board in front of everyone but has declined to present the backup evidence for his claims despite his rule telling everyone they must do so and despite his countless instructions to other posters to do so. When anglo insisted on this evidence he was banned. That’s very unfair. He’s taking advantage of his position to get out of a corner.

If Michael had presented such evidence, it’s possible anglo would have said “OK, I suppose my theory is not possible then.” If Michael can’t come up with the evidence to back up his claims, then he should state on the board, that it’s possible anglo’s theory has some merit


Really?
Michael should have given evidence, that the police did not plant the lamp. Should we expand that to all other pieces of evidence and deem them all unreliable, because we haven`t proved, that they weren`t planted? Should we send some kind of grandmasters of sincerness alongside every crime-scene-investigator to look over their shoulders, so that they can prove, that the cops didn`t plant the evidence. The question would then arise, why don`t we replace the cops with these"grandmasters". Again we would have the same problem, we would need new "higher" grandmasters to look over the shoulders of the old grandmasters to make sure, they don`t plant evidence (to some lower degree) as well. As this endless process of a new better "controller" replacing the old controllers would in practice come to an inevitable end, you have to give some persons, i.e. the crime scene investigators, the confidence, that they are doing their job (processing a crime scene and collecting evidence) conscientiously and don`t purposely interfere with the crime scene.
In conclusion, if you ever want to solve a crime, you should accept the evidence, which the csi delivers you, unless there is a proof, that an investigator altered some pieces of it.
In the case of the lamp, there is no proof, that it was planted by a police officer.



I couldn't agree more with this post and it highlights very well why the assertions regarding the lamp were completely ridiculous. How are the police supposed to prove the existence of evidence between time of entry to the crime scene and recording of evidence, if the only persons who could provide that evidence are the police via statements and the FOAKers have already imposed a rule saying we can't accept anything the police say to be true? That's called setting an impossible task and is a rather self-serving imposition in order to serve an agenda.

_________________
"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 Feb 14, 2012 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Cape wrote:
I need clarification. The case would be combined with the slander? Can a finding of guilt on one, and not guilty on the other be found? As in the 2nd Trial?


Absolutely Cape, she could be found guilty of any of the charges and innocent of others. And by default, the prosecution are appealing all the charges Knox and Sollecito were acquitted of, not only the murder itself.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Well, we're not surprised, as we Michael? THE LAMP, THE LAMP !! The lamp was left in the room. Period. And, the attempted breaking down of the door, was probably in order to retrieve same.

It's likely, that while Knox was running amok, checking to see if , in her words, the boys had come, had heard anyhting, that Knox heard Raf give a kick. She stops him, saying..No,No, we're going to say Meredith always kept her door locked. That's why I didn't call the police right away. When I found the door open, blood in the bathroom. Why, it was more important that I get the mop. Why, I have some brekkie with you, before mentioning..* something a bit odd.

And, that's the crunch. WHY THE POLICE WERE NOT CALLED RIGHT AWAY.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Thanks so much for the news and updates, G. th-)

Well, what else would Raf say? However, it was MEREDITH who went through a living hell.



Yes, thank you, Guermantes, you've been doing a wonderful job of keeping us up to date with the latest developments! :)

Meredith, I'm afraid, remains forgotten, as always. Knox and Sollecito are always the story as far as the media are concerned. It's the nature of the beast.

_________________
"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 guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amanda Knox's Family Slams 'Harassment' By Italian Prosecutor

The family of Amanda Knox said today that efforts by Italian prosecutors to put her back in prison is "an example of the harassment" by prosecutors who are intent on prolonging "this terrible, painful incident."

Knox's family put out the statement after prosecutor Giovanni Galati filed a 112-page appeal seeking to throw out a court ruling that found Knox innocent of her roommate's murder and set her free after four years in an Italian prison.
...
Knox's family said they knew the prosecution would challenge the court's ruling.

"We are not concerned about this appeal as Amanda's innocence was clearly and convincingly proven in her appeal trial," the statement said. "This is simply another example of harassment by the prosecution against Amanda and makes this terrible, painful incident continue to go on for Amanda, Raffaele and their families."


ABC
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Cape wrote:
I need clarification. The case would be combined with the slander? Can a finding of guilt on one, and not guilty on the other be found? As in the 2nd Trial?


Absolutely Cape, she could be found guilty of any of the charges and innocent of others. And by default, the prosecution are appealing all the charges Knox and Sollecito were acquitted of, not only the murder itself.


Gotcha. Thanks :) And, BIG thanks to G, with all the updates. That's a lot of work, and it's much appreciated.

I can't wait to read what the 10 points are. Going to be enlightening. I have a fair understanding of a few...

Tsk. Not much time for the Book Pedlars to bask in the limelight.

I've read about the FARM, in the Netherlands. A couple there, have had enormous success, retrieving minute dna fro articles.

That's where the knife and bra clasp should be sent to. I wonder if the Italians know about the great work done there?

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Harrassment? Never say so. I wonder what patrick called being falsely imprisoned, losing his business? huh-)

I wonder what the Kerchers call it, the loss of their daughter, the constant bleatings of the Mellas/Knox clan? em)

Oh, hang on..the PR continues. la_) is the victim. I hope the public are reminded often, who Knox really is.

The video, Of Knox, singing and swaying in the trial, would be good for starters. EXACTLY THE SAME as Diane Downs, on trial for murdering her child, crippling another, and causing nerve damage to the third. The song was * Hungry like a wolf*.

The impact was so shocking. No ;ess shocking, is Knox singing along...in a trial dealing with * her GOOD friend's murder*.

Yeah, let's start there. That's the real Knox.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Oh and Michael, you're welcome. I know you mean ME, when you say debated in with civility :) :) :)

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

:) Of course Cape!

_________________
"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 Jstanz

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:58 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

00Sneider wrote:
Jstanz wrote:
dg that is NOT bull. anglo and Michael both have theories about the lamp. They each need to back up those theories.

anglo presented a theory about the lamp and gave his reasons and backup for thinking so. Michael disputed him on the board in front of everyone but has declined to present the backup evidence for his claims despite his rule telling everyone they must do so and despite his countless instructions to other posters to do so. When anglo insisted on this evidence he was banned. That’s very unfair. He’s taking advantage of his position to get out of a corner.

If Michael had presented such evidence, it’s possible anglo would have said “OK, I suppose my theory is not possible then.” If Michael can’t come up with the evidence to back up his claims, then he should state on the board, that it’s possible anglo’s theory has some merit


Really?
Michael should have given evidence, that the police did not plant the lamp. Should we expand that to all other pieces of evidence and deem them all unreliable, because we haven`t proved, that they weren`t planted? Should we send some kind of grandmasters of sincerness alongside every crime-scene-investigator to look over their shoulders, so that they can prove, that the cops didn`t plant the evidence. The question would then arise, why don`t we replace the cops with these"grandmasters". Again we would have the same problem, we would need new "higher" grandmasters to look over the shoulders of the old grandmasters to make sure, they don`t plant evidence (to some lower degree) as well. As this endless process of a new better "controller" replacing the old controllers would in practice come to an inevitable end, you have to give some persons, i.e. the crime scene investigators, the confidence, that they are doing their job (processing a crime scene and collecting evidence) conscientiously and don`t purposely interfere with the crime scene.
In conclusion, if you ever want to solve a crime, you should accept the evidence, which the csi delivers you, unless there is a proof, that an investigator altered some pieces of it.
In the case of the lamp, there is no proof, that it was planted by a police officer.


I think you're twisting the situation around a bit. I don't have time right now for a detailed response and explanation since you obviously need one but I will post one. If not today then next week.
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 14, 2012 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz -

I'm sorry, but we've ended FOAKer Day for today (see upthread). Please save it for next week.

Thank you.

_________________
"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 Jstanz

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:58 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael, Ergon - I know the day is over, I'll not post again. Perhaps just think over the next week that we all see plenty of strange, new, unsupported theories here just about every day. I don't see any challenges to them. Why the double standard?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz, sorry for butting in here, and OOOsneider is more than capable of responding. Already, though , you've made a huge error. I don't believe OOOsneider NEEDS any explanation from you. nw)

Read his post again. If necessary, read it again. It's the only explanation YOU need.

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

There are 85 COMMENTS already, the Daily Mail article, re Knox's book deal. OVERWHELMINGLY anti Lnox.

Just a couple. Everyone's in love with Knox. let the SPIN, BEGIN.

Another. " Oh, it's a work of fiction, then"..

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 22 of 24 [ 5798 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next


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

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

  

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


29,448,258 Views