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: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:51 am
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:51 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
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.


The quote from Massei is

"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"

See http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Force-Door for the complete paragraph and my full analysis.

Ergon: I think (my memory could be faulty) you said 2 weeks ago that you were going to respond to my page at http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Empty-Duodenum

I will look forward to that next week.

By the way: I decided I would only post on Tuesday evenings, as I do have to work during the day. If Michael is going to call time early, this means I can only post for about 1 hour a week, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm after which I cycle to circuit training, which to be honest is quite restrictive. I'm quite happy with just a 6 hour slot from 6pm UK time to midnight.

I will leave you this week with a link that explains why I post here (since I think someone asked) :

http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz ... wrong.html


Last edited by geebee2 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz wrote:
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?


Jstanz - you will also note, that when regular members propose theories, those theories are critiqued by the other members and if there are holes in them, they are usually pointed out.

Now please, hats and coats on, that really is it for FOAKer posts for today.

_________________
"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 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

geebee2 wrote:
By the way: I decided I would only post on Tuesday evenings, as I do have to work during the day. If Michael is going to call time early, this means I can only post for about 1 hour a week, from 5:30pm to 6:30pm after which I cycle to circuit training, which to be honest is quite restrictive. I'm quite happy with just a 6 hour slot from 6pm UK time to midnight.


I know, I'm sorry, normally I wouldn't call an end early, it just happend that the filing of the prosecution recourse clashed with FOAKer Day this week.

_________________
"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 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

geebee2 quoting Massei wrote:
"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"


It would make sense that it took nothing more then that, as it should be remembered, the door was already damaged, cracked and so weakened from Raffaele's attempt.

_________________
"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: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

More on the contents of the prosecution's appeal document (Google translation):


PERUGIA-For the two judges [Giovanni Galati and Giancarlo Costagliola] the appeal process has been characterized by 'anomaly' of the first words of the Judge that the only fact that was "very certain and undisputed" was the discovery of Kercher's body. "Affirmation serious for a 'third judge'," "baffling in itself," reads the appeal. "A resounding anticipation of judgment", for the Prosecutor General Galati. According to the Prosecutor General, the Court has set itself not as an appellate body, "but as a sort of alternate Judge of First Instance, whose job was to make a decision on the facts, without even having to consider the judgment of first instance". "As if it were to decide - emphasizes Costagliola - scratch murder. A total flattening of prosecution's position."

"The appeal ruling reads more like a second sentence of the first degree" - agrees Galati - "the total failure of the appeal ruling". [...] They speak of "errors of method" and "substantial misunderstanding of the acquired data that influenced decisively the correctness of the decision." The action is brought in the 'failure' of the principles of law dictated by the Supreme Court for trial on circumstantial evidence, the violation of the principle of usability for the irrevocable judgments, one against Guede, and the motivations that have led to consider two unreliable witnesses.

According to the Prosecutor General, a 'decisive proof', genetic analysis by the experts appointed by the court of appeal of the sample taken from the knife, the alleged murder weapon, is missing. [?] 'Examining [of the tiny DNA sample on the knife] was possible with current modern techniques", said Galati. And regardless of the time of death of British student (who was killed in Perugia on the night of 1 November 2007), he spoke of the judges' lack of motivation or obvious lack of logic in contrast with other pieces of evidence. For PG, in the judgment of appeal "are valued almost exclusively the opinions of consultants or reconstructive assumptions of the defense than the thesis of the prosecution." In line with a "kind of injury" related - we read in the appeal document - with the statement that "nothing was certain save the death of Meredith Kercher." While - according to PG - the judgment of first instance that Sollecito and Knox were guilty of murder was "complete and accurate." [...]

LEGGO
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

In other words, guermantes, Hellmann made a complete cock up of it. I hope to find out which panel of judges will be appointed to hear the case.
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 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Guermantes.

The Knox family, for all their claims of harrassment, can't blame Mignini this time. It is Galati and Costagliola, his superiors. So, what does that mean...three evil insane prosecutors, instead of one?

Yes, it's right too that they should raise Hellmann's statement at the start of the trial, it displayed a bias towards dismissing the evidence. And they are also right that he completely ignored the first trial and the evidence presented there, like it never even happened...and yet he only gave close attention to a very few pieces of the evidence, instead of all the evidence. It is also absolutely correct, that he seemed to dismiss circumstantial evidence, almost with contempt, rewriting the rules that only forensic evidence counts (and not even applying close scrutiny to all the forensice evidence, just focusing on clasp and knife).

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


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

LByronK5 (Linda Byron) tweets:

~ According to her attorney, Amanda Knox is "sad" about prosecution appealing her acquittal ~

46 minutes ago
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

So far, EXCELLENT. Yes, that was shocking. From the get go, saying the only thing we know, is that Meredith is dead.

Dr. Galati, is obviously an astute Prosecutor, with a fine understanding of the Law.

Hallmann made a mockery of Justice.

_________________
"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 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

As usual, Knox is sad, FOR HERSELF. Well, as when she's been * sad * before, when Her frind was murdered, she can make herself feel better, bu murdering a pizza, and hitting the lingerie store.

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

Those evil prosecutors. How dare they do their job, which is to see Justice done? Disgraceful.

Now lookit what they've done. They've made Mandy sad, wa-)) and Raf's no happy either. Cry me a river...

_________________
"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 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

As I understand it, the SC can reject the Appeal Docs. Anyone know how long before we know when this would happen?

Certainly, the attorneys for Knox and Raf are rather glum, which leads me to believe that the Docs will be accepted.

_________________
"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: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

From Umbria24:

Ten points

The ten points are ten points or grounds of the appeal judgment on which the appeal to the Supreme Court was filed today by the Attorney General of Perugia against the acquittal of Amanda and Raffaele. The first is the lack of motivation in accepting the order of 18 December 2010, re: the scientific expertise in the judgment on appeal. The second concerns a negative decision: not to grant a new scientific report requested by the prosecution after hearing the discussion. From rejection by the Court of Assizes of Appeal emerges, it is written in the application, the "contradictory and illogical reasoning that is manifest in the ruling". The other points of concern are the decision of the Appeal Court of Assizes not to hear the witness Aviello, define as "unreliable" witness statements by Marco Quintavalle and Antonio Curatolo, time of death of Meredith Kercher, and forensic investigations [genetic analysis]. As well as the analysis of footprints and other traces that prove the presence of Knox and Sollecito at Via della Pergola, the simulation of crime, and exclusion of aggravating circumstances of the crime of slander.

Failure to deliver decisive proof

The document also emphasizes the "failure to take a 'litmus test', consisting in the ''completion of genetic analysis on the sample on the knife by the experts appointed by the Court of Appeal, who didn’t carry out the analysis of that sample. It violates a specific rule contained in the appointment of the expert." "In the judgment of second instance - said the prosecutors - the judges tried to sway the opinion to their way of thinking about this thing of 'experimental technique' by which these findings could be made. But not so, Novelli (the prosecution expert, ed), who spoke of cutting-edge experimental techniques" - pointed out Deputy Prosecutor Giancarlo Costagliola.

UMBRIA24
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 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Guermantes. There's quite a bit more detail in that one. I knew the failure to extract a profile from the DNA would form a major part of the appeal...and so it should! That was a travesty, it was their primary task assigned by the court. Instead, they messed about with potato starch!

_________________
"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 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I'm liking it, G. Every point is very pertinent. 112 pages...and Hellmann's whole report was only 145.

_________________
"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: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amanda Knox family not worried about appeal

From correspondents in Seattle
...
Her US lawyer, Theodore Simon, also was not surprised by the appeal.

"While the prosecution, as expected, has appealed, very little has changed. The appellate jurors conducted a thorough, painstaking, searching inquiry into the true facts and determined in a lengthy, logical and comprehensive decision, that Amanda Knox was not guilty of the tragic loss of Meredith Kercher," Simon said in a statement.


THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

WOW. So much BS in one paragraph.

_________________
"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 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I don't want to cynical, but I watched the vid. The link G, The Daily Telegraph, where Knox is being escorted out of Court, after the verdict.

AND..I realized something. Nope, not Knox, being all dramatic, as it sunk in, that she got away with it.


What riveted me were the very cool blue berets, with the silver badge, worn by the police. sun-) I'm going to get one of those. I'll check out Ebay.it. co-)

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

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
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! ;)


thanks
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I just saw a report on Anderson Cooper (CNN) that the appeal has been filed. Amanda's Family has made a statement the Italian legal system is just5 harassing the la_)

I don't know about the legal stuff, but it seems to me this recent la_) Family statement is not very wise in light of the other legal troubles of making slanderous/libelous statements about the Prosecutor.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi Emerald.........

Yes, but who has ever been able to shut the Mellas/Knox clan up? :) They just spin, and yap.I'm not sure whether it's because they're so unsophisticated, ( unable to understand different cultures, needing Hamburger Helper in Italy ) or just plain stupid. Their judgements are so unsound..i.e. Allowing their children to be photographed outside the cottage. huh-)

Knox and her family seem to feel that it's unnecessary to follow the niceties of acceptable behaviour. hb-))

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks to everybody for posting all the links and articles.

Judging by the comments made by Dr. Sollecito and also Carlo Dalla Vedova, it seems they hoped the prosecution wouldn't appeal. I also noted how the Knox/Mellas family adapted their story to fit the latest cast of characters. Now it is not Mignini who is after them, the prosecutors in Perugia are all crazy and apparently hold a grudge against them. Duly noted.

I hope Galati succeeds with his appeal and the pair is ultimately convicted for the murder they committed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

guermantes wrote:
Italian prosecutors appeal decision to overturn Amanda Knox conviction

From Livia Borghese, for CNN
Tue February 14, 2012

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

I find this an extremely smart remark by mr Mignini. It is difficult to see the accusation of Patrick separate from the murder but apparently judge Hellmann did. Now the appeal of the defense for the calunnia charge carries the risk that the SC doesn't see the 2 cases separately and combine them. In other words, if they will allow a retrial for the calunnia case they might be more inclined to allow a retrial for the murder case as well. I think the combination of the 2 appeals would be a positive thing for the prosecution.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi Emerald.........

Yes, but who has ever been able to shut the Mellas/Knox clan up? :) They just spin, and yap.I'm not sure whether it's because they're so unsophisticated, ( unable to understand different cultures, needing Hamburger Helper in Italy ) or just plain stupid. Their judgements are so unsound..i.e. Allowing their children to be photographed outside the cottage. huh-)

Knox and her family seem to feel that it's unnecessary to follow the niceties of acceptable behaviour. hb-))


I missed the hamburger helper story. Did they take HbH to Italy? It's embarrassing. The K/Ms kind of validated every bad stereotype of Americans abroad. I could understand longing for fresh fruits or vegetables indigenous to US, but HbH? It's just instant pasta with spice.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz wrote:
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?


Really? Just the other day I said I thought it was a mistake for Knox to file an appeal against the calunnia charges as it might rebound against her. MIchael disagreed and said she had nothing to lose. PM Mignini just said on CNN that Cassazione might bundle the two cases together :)

So we do disagree with each other. Do appreciate it's a privilege for you to be allowed here and debate with people that disagree with you. You might not be made fully welcome by everyone, but as long as you stick to the point instead of using tendentious argument or not debating in good faith then most will come around. That's the style of this board.

Why, I'm even willing to debate a stomach content based TOD with geebee2, even though some might think the matter is already resolved. I do keep my promises, even if somewhat delayed by recent events.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

geebee2 wrote:
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?


I believe that was his own statement, and brought up in his trial. This was his whole story, that he had met Meredith before and made a date to see her, that he attempted consensual sex, but had to stop because he didn't have a condom.

You just have to guess what is self-serving lie, and what is skirting close to the truth? I believe he was enticed there by Amanda. There is no other way the three could have been there together, and the break in theory has been proven not to have happened.

At least, I think so.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

@guermantes, I saw your reference to Dr. Galati's involvement in investigation of the Calvi death. Calvi was closely connected to the death of Pope John Paul I, to Propaganda Lodge P2's role in Aldo Moro's murder, to his protege Berlusconi. Italy's horoscope clearly shows its dual nature.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

FWIW

I always found fascinating the death of Pope John Paul I. That's one of those things which will be erased like the female Pope Joan. It's not quite as easy to omit Pope John Paul I from history because of the modern electronic media records, but there's not a lot left to investigate.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hello!
I've had no time at all to read and post lately and seem to have missed quite a few things/storms...just catching up.
Anyway, here is Barbie Nadeau's take on the latest events:

Amanda Knox Verdict Appealed: Will She Go Back to Italy?
Feb 15, 2012 7:46 AM EST
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... italy.html

from the above:

"Perugia prosecutors have also asked the high court to uphold Knox’s remaining conviction for slander, for which she was sentenced to three years in prison. That conviction was upheld in last October’s appellate ruling, and Knox’s attorneys launched their own appeal against that ruling last week."

and:

"It is no coincidence that Knox’s handlers in Seattle and her literary agent in New York have put her memoirs on the auction block at the exact moment the deadline to appeal came due in Italy. By riding a new wave of interest in the case, they are sure to up ante for her yet-to-be written book, which is reported to start only with her arrest and imprisonment for Kercher’s murder. She is not expected to write about the night of the crime or the morning after."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hello Ava. Thanks for the Barbie Nadeau link.

Quote:
She is not expected to write about the night of the crime or the morning after.


So, what's so interesting about Amanda's life otherwise?
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi all

Well what an interesting week! Other than the bleeding obvious, we also get the Knox book deal then, less than 24 hours later, Galati files the appeal. I’m willing to bet that the book deal announcement was issued as Knox was convinced that the prosecution wouldn’t appeal. Her supporters are so convinced of the verdict by Hellman that the very fact that there might be another appeal blows their minds. I’m also chuckling a little as I’m willing to bet that the second Knox announced her deal, Galati told the person who was typing the appeal up to type faster so he could rain on the Foxy parade. I mean, if Knox brings out a book THEN gets reconvicted, well that’s not a great look for Knox or the publisher especially if there were plans to release the book in Europe (and the advance was conditional on that). A comment elsewhere reminded me of the Proceeds of Crime act and whether the USA has an equivalent? If Knox is reconvicted, she won’t be allowed to print her book in Europe and profit from it. I love the fact that Galati took the appeal filing to the wire which will have given Knox and Sollecito a false sense of security. I can see the appeal being agreed to and a retrial ordered in Milan. I foresee the trial being carried out with new prosecutors and I also predict that Bongiorno will be nowhere near the new trial due to her being the lead in the Costa Concordia case. Bongiorno was the big link to Berlusconi so the new trial might actually be the fairest trial yet for all concerned.

FWIW, my personal jury is still out on the involvement of Sollecito (a fact I can post now as a person on the "other place" couldn’t stand the fact that I’m still only 80% on Sollecito being there on the murder night but fully on board for the clean up out of a misguided sense of loyalty to Amanda. This was the motivation for his “pack of lies” quote to police. Guede and Knox are the killers to my mind. There’s a whole post in these three sentences, sorry!!) so I hope he gets a lawyer who will present his side fairly and doesn’t align his fate with Amanda’s.

Just reading the Barbie article and she is even more cynical than I am! Her comments about the publishers are great. I do love that woman for her ability to present the facts. And she winds the JLOLers up so she's worth whatever the Daily Beast pay her and more!
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

RoseMontague found it necessary to lower herself to the level of the slimeballs at pathetic IIP to join in their childish cheering for angleheadunemployedlawyer's tuesday tirades to add this bit of snark:

Rose wrote:(about anglehead's whining about how Michael made a fool of him, again)

Lord have mercy, beautiful post and you have captured the essence of Michael's debating style to a tee.

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/ ... 13400.html

Gee, Rose, why don't you spend your time on something more productive than six shooting blanks at Fulcanelli. ff)

Why not "capture the essence" of:

1) how Loonie Johnnie posts:

Like:
a) Snarky opening insults to Guilter he is answering

b) Long winded arrogant egotistical Epistle about a subject he has ZERO qualifications, e.g
b1) Meredith's TOD
b2) AF 447 Crash, etccccccccc)
( If you want to save time, type the tag in Google yourself and read first couple hits.)

c) concluding snark, insults, impolite incivility, all cleverly camoflauged enough to slip under Mods

OR

2) how brucie posts:

Like
a) Blatant lie stated authoritatively as fact but ever sooooo easily exposed as deliberate lie.
e.g:
a1) Amazon BS about how guilter stalking caused him to change his name,
a2) JREF BS about how he singlehandedly saved Sfarzo, and Sfarzo never called him a confused individual, etcccccccccc

b) much less cleverly camoflaged snark and insults (thus even more Mod action than L J's deep six suspension)

c) Attack dog style reactions especially when cornered about any falsehoods or other phoney stuff he specializes in

But then again like Ronnie Raegan said about never speaking ill of fellow Republicans...Rose, you only very, very rarely speak ill of fellow FOAKers.

(Yes, I remember and do definitely still admire when brucie on one occasion got so horridly 'over the top with his drivel, that even you, to your credit, did suggest that he 'cool it')
Significantly in accord with what I write above, to this day, ...he did not/does not take your sage and courteous advice.
ss)
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

daisysteiner wrote:

FWIW, my personal jury is still out on the involvement of Sollecito (a fact I can post now as a person on the "other place" couldn’t stand the fact that I’m still only 80% on Sollecito being there on the murder night but fully on board for the clean up out of a misguided sense of loyalty to Amanda. This was the motivation for his “pack of lies” quote to police. Guede and Knox are the killers to my mind. There’s a whole post in these three sentences, sorry!!) so I hope he gets a lawyer who will present his side fairly and doesn’t align his fate with Amanda’s.



I'm not convinced of Sollecito's guilt either.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
Hello Ava. Thanks for the Barbie Nadeau link.

Quote:
She is not expected to write about the night of the crime or the morning after.


So, what's so interesting about Amanda's life otherwise?


Hi Emerald,

nothing, maybe that's the mystery. Mysteries = interesting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Good Morning :)

Emerald, YES !! The Mellas's took along Hamburger Helper to Italy. eee-) Chis mellas was * sick * of pasta. They brought other quickie foods as well, I just don't remember. And, yes, what else is interesting about Knox's life? ( Love the way, Emerald, you're always spot on, in your succint way :)

Well, let's see. She wakes up, doesn't shower much, begs other inmates for the pizza, reads, and writes self serving journals. p-(((

Doesn't sound like a block buster to me. I think the Publishers should check out the comment sections. Doesn't look good. At all. an-))

Thanks for the link, Ava. Ahh, a gold nugget jumps out, when Comodi says there is MUCH MORE evidence. Yah.

Daisy, interesting what you say. Because, the big question for me was always the amount of participation of Raf. I know I've posted about this before, and, don't think it was accepted by most.

I'd love to do another post on that. I could repeat what I posted before, and my reasoning.

Stint...Our reporter on the ground . co-) Well, in view of Anglo's other disgrace ful posts about us at PMF, what else could we expect? And, the rah-rahs from the bleachers. Colour me * shrugged *. tou-)

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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

@Emerald - I agree with you that Sollecito has more chance of being innocent based on the evidence than Knox. Knox and Guede are toasted no matter which way you look at it. I think it’s important to look at the evidence against Raffaele in contrast to Knox. In Massei’s verdict, it was accepted that Knox’s mobile phone was picked up on more than cell mast before it was switched off (I think without looking, am at work so hard to do the best possible research!). During the same period, Sollecito’s phone was static. This suggests to me that Knox was out of the apartment and Sollecito was inside. The caveat to this is the timings of the switch off. If they were both on the same cell then Knox must have come back to the apartment. In one of Sollecito’s early statements, he said that he was at home, Amanda went off to work and received the text from Patrick when en route. He told this story on more than one occasion and I’m sure his final shift to “we were together all night” was after Marriot got involved and after Vanessa was busted for leaking stuff to the TV people. My opinion, working from a POV that Sollecito is innocent of murder but guilty of the cover up, is that Knox came back to share the good news that she didn’t have to work then off she went to meet up with Guede to score some more green for the night. G & K go back to the cottage, borrow some rent money, get caught, battle ensues and Knox goes home pinning the blame on Guede yet roping in Sollecito for the clean up as “she will get blamed if they don’t”. I also can’t shake the feeling that Guede’s decision to go to Germany was somehow influenced by Knox, I mean, what are the odds of him heading to the place she has connections off his own back? Much better to head off to somewhere in Eastern Europe where it’s easier to disappear or head over to Africa where he really could disappear. The notion of Sollecito being guilty of murder has never quite sat right with me and the notion of Guede breaking in randomly has never sat right with me, leaving only one way to go.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
In Massei’s verdict, it was accepted that Knox’s mobile phone was picked up on more than cell mast before it was switched off (I think without looking, am at work so hard to do the best possible research!). During the same period, Sollecito’s phone was static.


Hmmm...it wasn't static Daisy...it was 'off'. His phone could have been anywhere during that time.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

But Daisy,
Would he chance going to jail for 30 years on just being involved in the clean up?

Why would he make up the 'pricking' Meredith story to explain away her dna on his knife?

Why would he be 'worried' what the Ivorian would say upon RG's arrest when speaking to his dad on that taped call? He should be thrilled that the murderer was caught for the crime that he has been accused of.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Yes. Their turning off their phones is a 'red flag' that SOMETHING was going on where they did not want their phones ringing at an inopportune moment... exactly how it is seen in almost ALL other cases but not this one FOR SOME REASON.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Daisy, forst of all, love * score some more green for the night *. :lol:

The way I've thought about it, is this. Knox gets the text not to cme to work. She sees Rudy, arranges to meet him a little later, to score. Now, my feeling is that Knox stole Meredith's money, when she left for Sophie's place. Why? Because it makes sense to me, why Raf's and Knox's phones were switched off at the same time. They knew Mez would discover the missing money, and they planned to be unavailable for any questions about that. They would be in Gubbio, and Mez was leaving soon to visit her Mum. So, back Knox goes to Raf's. Finds out that Raf doesn't have to drive a friend that night to the station.

She tells Raf she's going to go back to the cottage, to get more clothes. She has arranged to pick up the dope from Rudy there. Tells him she's left the door open for him, she'll be along shortly. ( Money dicovered gone...well, Rudy was there, alone.) Blaming Rudy for theft is small potatoes, then, blaming Rudy for the missing money.

Rudy arrives at the cottage. Door open, goes inside, and pours himself some juice. Mez arrives, before Knox. She discovers the money missing, and tells Rudy that Knox is a drugged up tart, etc. Knox arrives, and Rudy goes to the bathroom. He's been around for previous arguments betwen the two ( His skype conversation). He hears a loud argument. He comes running out. Meredith's going to call the police. This Knox cannot allow. Meredith must be stopped. Rudy is also worried. He's been caught stealing before. He was in the cottage alone, for awhile. The fight escalates, and Rudy is holding Mez down. Knox takes the phones. Goes into the kitchen, grabs a knife. ( I never understood how anyone could tell whether or not a knife was missing from the drawer. 4 roomates, and, later, Knox's EXTREME re-action, when the drawer was opened. Knox stabs Mez, while Rudy is holding Mez. Knox runs to get Raf, ( it's not far ) . He comes to the cottage with her, ( or Raf came to the cottage, because we know he didn't trust her ( his words) because she was taking too long. At this stage, Raf, Knox and Rudy, know that things have gone too far. Meredith is not yet dead, and the coup de grace must be inflicted. Rudy may have been trying to staunch the blood with the towels, at this stage. The final cut is made. Rudy goes running out. The cleanup begins.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

But Cape. AK knew about the canceled ride because she answered the door.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi dg.

Well, as posted above, I believe the phones were switched off, because of the stealing of mez's money. They planned on being * absent *, unavailable. Hence, Knox's returning to get more clothes.

It's possible Raf brought the knife with him. Knox could have put in her bag, when leaving Raf's place.

Raf was supposed to be Knox's alibi. Rudy saw him there * that cursed night *, so whether he arrived, checking up on Knox, couldn't wait for the green, he was there, before Rudy ran.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Right. She met up with Rudy, told him theyd meet later. She went to Raf, told him she didn't have to work. Popviv, (sp) arrives, Knox talks to her. And, then Knox leaves for the cottage and the rendez-vous with Rudy.

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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
Hi all

Well what an interesting week! Other than the bleeding obvious, we also get the Knox book deal then, less than 24 hours later, Galati files the appeal. I’m willing to bet that the book deal announcement was issued as Knox was convinced that the prosecution wouldn’t appeal. Her supporters are so convinced of the verdict by Hellman that the very fact that there might be another appeal blows their minds.

...

Just reading the Barbie article and she is even more cynical than I am! Her comments about the publishers are great. I do love that woman for her ability to present the facts. And she winds the JLOLers up so she's worth whatever the Daily Beast pay her and more!


Daisy, I think that Barbie got it right here. Amanda and her family did expect the prosecution to appeal (I read it in an article that I think is posted somewhere above), and maybe they were hoping to somehow drown out the news. But I think for the publishers it means publicity, a new wave of interest, even if it turns Mandy into a more controversial character. After all she doesn't have much more to offer, does she, as other posters have stated already.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

OK... gotcha now.

IMO RS wouldn't have let AK out of his sight once they were free for the evening.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

And, dg, I don't think he thought about the risk. In his words, he calls the police stupid. Who would suspect the foreign college girl? She told him she'd handle it. They'd done the cleanup, staged the break in. Things went wonky, when the phones were discovered. Raf was shaky on the details, and spooked. He was already screwing up, when he said nothing was missing.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Also, why would he be worried about the Ivorian? Because Rudy saw thim there. Rudy must've been worried, even then. It's perfectly possible, that Raf threatened him to be quiet. Said to Rudy..you have no alibi. Knox and I will alibi each other. Sort of * Black man found, Black man guilty *.

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Until several months after the appeal verdict, Raff thought Amanda was the love of his life. Amanda led him to believe they would be together 'forever'.

I could be wrong, but if this newest appeal actually goes through the trial process, we will hear a different version (from Raff) about what happened that night. She left him for several hours.

Amanda was in a party mode that night, believing she would be working (which she treated like a party instead of a job). Raff was in the frame of mind to spend the evening alone. It is my understanding he liked to spend lots of time alone which he had not done since aggressive Amanda had usurped his time for the past week. The call comes from Patrick she was not needed at Le Chic. What guy in Raff's position would turn down the festivities Amanda was offering instead?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

That's right, Emerald. He was besotted, a man who's just had his life changed. Everything would have come out, but papa and Sis stepped in. Got a lawyer, made the * phone calls *. Raf was told to be quiet, damge control started to take place.

Raf folded very quickly in the Police Station. He never thought that it would get this far, in a few days. He found out that the Police were very suspicious of Knox. Now, at this stage, the police may very well have thought that Knox was covering up for someone. The BF? They started questioning Raf, asking for more details. He must've been very nervous, because he knew then, that things weren't going in the glib way that Knox had assured him of. We know, from his words, that he didn't trust Knox at that stage. And, let's not forget. Knox, stunned at Raf's * betrayal *, quickly blames HIM. Says, he must have pressed the knife into my hand *, etc.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Will Raf spill the beans, if the ruling is reversed? I don't know, ...but, the bloom is off the rose, so to speak. Knox moving in with the new BF, so quickly. Who knows what he fantasized about, whilst in prison? Them getting back together, making lots of money together? Papa is making the decisions. Raf will do as directed by Papa, who blames this whole thing on La Strega, Knox.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

He still has his 'cousin' ;) .
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Both verify they were apart for a while that night. Raff said Amanda left his apartment for a few hours. Amanda admitted they were apart when she told that story of Raff putting the knife in her hand as she slept.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Rudy told a detailed story of the argument between Meredith and Amanda. It was about the rent money which was due that day. He said Meredith yelled at Amanda something about never having the rent money on time without being asked. Or something like that.

November 1 would have been the 2nd month Amanda would have owed rent since moving in. The only other time Amanda could have been late with rent, needing to be asked, would have been October 1.

The only way Rudy could have overheard an argument with that context would have been that night, Nov 1.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

It was the best truth's that she can remember. Oh, well, no shockers then in her book. As she won't be talking about the murder, and her journals are probably fiction..or life as Knox * sees it *...why on earth would anyone want to shell out any dollars for this?

It's been reported that Knox seemed * scholarly *. LOL. Must've worn glasses. Didn't Mom say she was just about blind?

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Good recall, Emerald. Knox said she hadn't been paid by Patrick. And yet, Charlie Wilkes has averred, and he says he has the records of Knox's bank statements, That she withdrew $320.oo, and then DEPOSITED over $500.00. Still had more than 200 EURO's on her. I know, dg :) the money issue........

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Well, and here we have it folks. Bruce Fis(c)her, over at IIP says, that Italy didn't want to have this dragged on any longer. THEY JUST WANTED IT TO GO AWAY.

That's RIGHT. That's why Hellmann ruled the way he did. DUH......

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I've enjoyed all the posts. I've got to do some things, and will check in later.

Lovely to see you, Emerald. I can't tell you how many times I've repeated your words: Knox said she was there, and I BELIEVE HER. :)

Daisy, great post. Very thought provoking. Ava, Nell, dg, Stint. Lots of nuggets......thanks........

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Rudy has seen Amanda/Raff out of prison, running free. His recall of events may become clearer if there is a retrial, too.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

John Follain wrote a book about this case. I have not read it. What did he say about the jail house conversation between Curt/Amanda when he cut her off after she said she was there?
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
John Follain wrote a book about this case. I have not read it. What did he say about the jail house conversation between Curt/Amanda when he cut her off after she said she was there?


In that taped conversation she starts 'explaining' about RG... even though she doesnt' really 'know' him angel-) . Her deflection is obvious IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thank you, Retired Pilot.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

So, not true when Hellmann ruled not guilty. True when the SC gets the Appeal docs. The 2nd trial was also routine business.

The BS was Candace Dempsey, btw..just ao we can straighten that out.

Italy wanted this to go away. That's why Hellmann created the traversty that he did.

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Well, part of Italy wanted this to go away. Hopefully, just a very small group not including the SC. I wonder if the SC has something to say about the 'independent experts'. No longer any need for prosecution and defense experts. Just get a few of those 'independents'. It is weird if you think about it.

About Raf. He is so busted. No alibi, a bunch of lies, turned his phone off, DNA on bra clasp, bloody footprint, seen by Curatolo, the knife print on the bed, always carried a knife, indicated by Rudy as the killer, etc...
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Note
Just a Note.
~ Edited to remove troll content ~Ergon~



Assuming you are new here, and not returning under another name, please be advised:

1) Your parsing of what Cape said is absurd.
This trashy tactic is a favorite from FOAKer Groupies at JREF.
Over there, parsing, psycho-babble, and telling others what they meant to say is an entire cottage industry.
Cape said exactly what she meant to say.
Your attempt to defend brucie by hair splitting semantics is simply silly

2) Furthermore, we really do not care what brucie says.
Nor do we need newbies correcting cape primarily to:
2a) stupidly try to defend an indefensible brucie
2b) take advantage of the opportunity to wave brucie's dumb statements at us in its ignorant entirety

3) We do not care what brucie says because:
a) He is a confirmed, documented, deliberate, repetitive LIAR
b) Most of what he says is simply stupid.
c) Even Sfarzo says brucie is confused

Consider a quick example:
In your quote he tells you: "The appeal is routine business and we all expected the process to continue as it has"
huh-)
Although your *name* is new, surely you can remember brucie acting like a schoolyard sore winner, endlessly repeating, regurgitating and childishly crowing...Its Over, Its Over, Its Over months ago after Hellmann's tv extravaganza verdict reading.
And even before that when C&V reported to Appeal

One more time boys.....It ain't over til its over
Eh ????


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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I was a bit surprised to see Aviello mentioned in the appeal but it makes sense in context. It shows how Hellmann accepted defense requests and denied prosecution requests. How he simply wiped out witnesses for no clear reason. It was the defense who requested to hear Aviello and Hellmann accepted it, it was the prosecutions request to hear Aviello again after he retracted and changed his story and Hellmann denied it. Curatolo had nothing new to say and Hellmann dismissed him. The store owner witness wasn't accepted because he came forward too late. What is too late? I have no idea. Hellmann clearly doesn't believe in cold case teams who try to solve old cases, and request anyone who remembers anything to come forward because it might be important. No matter how long ago it was.

Anyway, it was announced that Aviello will be prosecuted for slander. I know the man is crazy but I can't help being a bit curious to see what he has to say this time and if he had his sex change already ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
John Follain wrote a book about this case. I have not read it. What did he say about the jail house conversation between Curt/Amanda when he cut her off after she said she was there?


I haven't read any book about the case, but I am thinking about getting the one from John Follain. He seems to have some information that I couldn't find anywhere else.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell wrote:
Emerald wrote:
John Follain wrote a book about this case. I have not read it. What did he say about the jail house conversation between Curt/Amanda when he cut her off after she said she was there?


I haven't read any book about the case, but I am thinking about getting the one from John Follain. He seems to have some information that I couldn't find anywhere else.


Just my opinion, Nell.
I thought the Follain book although not perfect, was by far the best of the 4 that I have read.
The fact that all the FOAKer Groupies are frantically falling all over themselves telling each other how horrid it is, backs up my above opinion.

One numbskull FOAKer brags, and thinks it means something, that he was *supposedly* able to buy the book for a penny plus shipping. (*no cite of course)
wtf)
Probably too naive and dense to realize how E-Bayers and other sellers routinely add a few bucks to what it actually costs to ship and get price they want that way from suckers.
Also too naive to realize that his used copy will come with some pages stuck together from stray boogers or other bodily discharges
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks stint.

I saw that John Follain is going to offer an updated version once the Supreme Court has made a decision, but I probably won't wait that long.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thank you, Stint...You manage to always call it as it is.

Yes, Max, Raf is in deep..not least because he's in Italy..so if found guilty, back to prison he goes. That may well be the time that he he sings like a canary. Aviello? For slander? Incrimiating Boungiorno? Ooh la la.

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


Last edited by capealadin on Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:17 am, 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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

deleted.

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


Last edited by capealadin on Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Note
Just a Note.
~ edited to remove troll content~ Ergon~


The only thing that "makes sense is that with so little 'suckering in', you have just proven hook line and sinker that you are nothing more than another sorry sack of s--- in a long line of FOAKer phonies. ;)
Phoney Baloneys who who lie, cheat, and prostitute any honor they ever had to take advantage of Michael's sense of fairness and shamelessly post here other than tuesdays.

Cape was once again first to sniff you out so early on.
Now, like a three year old, your simpleton tantrum above proves her to be absolutely correct (again). dis-)) wa-))

Where do they find such men. tu-))

BTW
Did you ever serve your country and/or have a successful career....errrrr...a career as a "retired pilot" perhaps.
fc-))
Or Just maybe you will not be lucky enough in this life to have the opportunity to ever become 'elderly'.
Then you could ridicule yourself ???

Like the rest of *your* "3 friends" who spend all day arguing with no opposition on IIP/JLOL and telling each other how great they are.
That is when you/they take time out from respecting the victim by:
1) ignorantly making up things about how many bottles of wine she consumed on her 'date' before she was senselessly slaughtered.
2) using avatars showing a young girl with a knife impaled in her throat.
Then being so arrogantly shameless (and disrespectful) as to finally admit (after of course previously lying about it), that this was indeed a deliberate action

Do not ever talk to me about respect. m-))
You who has nothing documented anywhere in any of your days on earth to earn r-e-s-p-e-c-t
You do not have an iota of the right to use such terminology to ridicule us here.
Especially on wednesday, you lying phoney baloney.
s-((


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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

8-)
MarkJones wrote:
I love the emoticon that is jerking off. That shows great respect for Meredith.


Get as many insults in as you can before you are disposed from here (again)
Then use the simple sneak trick and change your IP addy to re-surface (again)

PS
One need not skim much of brucie's dimwitted drivel to see how quickly he also *similarly* loses his temper so quickly when called out in another lie or in any way shown to be the fool that he indeed is.
Loses it sufficiently to get himself repeatedly warned and put on probation 'elsewhere'

just sayin', of course 8-)

BTW
Since you seem to have all the very intimate details of just how much brucie and sfarzo are *supposedly* all 'lovey dovey' now...... might one surmise that you are 'somehow' closely and intimately connected to brucie ???
Or were you just 'suckered in' and too far 'off the rails' in your reactionary temper tantrum to realize just exactly what you were in effect telling the world by saying what you did ???

just sayin' (again) 8-)
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

MarkJones - I was on your side til your last paragraph. I'm not a huge fan of emoticons but I choose to live and let live. Coming over here to tell the mods how to run their board is a well worn tactic hun, think about that when you're setting up your new account and pseudonym. I actually thought you were genuine until you starting saying how the case is over etc. If you thought that it really was over, you wouldn't be posting here for any other reason than to troll. So don't let the door hit you on the arse on your way back to IIP. Banhammer time Ergon.

Back on topic....

Hey guys

Thanks for the replies.

I wish I could find the source of the story re the roaming profile of Amanda’s phone. I was sure it was in Massei but I’ve skim read it this morning and I still cannot bloody find it! The phones went off together and were on the same cell when they were BUT AK’s went to another cell in the evening suggesting that she left the apartment for a time. I will find it if it kills me by the end of the day! If it’s an erroneous newspaper report that’s swapped itself for Massei in my tiny brain, I apologise now!

@Ava – I agree having read Barbie again that you’re probably right. For once I was actually less cynical than Barbie who sees it as a publicity stunt. Foxy really doesn’t have anything else to offer other than be a curiosity ala OJ when he wrote his book. Look what happened to OJ, karma really is a bitch.

I agree with the other comments below that Knox and Sollecito actually had much more to lose from Meredith talking to the police than Guede. I mean, one more petty theft accusation won’t break Rudy’s world but to be arrested by the foreign police isn’t a great look for Knox and Sollecito was already on his last warning with Papa who was threatening to cut off his already meagre cash supply. I still don’t think Sollecito turned up until after Meredith had been fatally wounded. He was love blind enough to have dug a grave and flown to Brazil if Knox had asked him to. Knox went to get the weed, it was only 5 mins to where Guede hung out at the piazza so no biggie for her. Just like I sometimes go to the shop instead of my bloke on the basis I still have my shoes on when we realise that one of us has to go out. Sollecito had had a few smokes, was in that zone where a nuclear attack couldn't shift you from the PC screen so Knox decided she would go out. I agree that the money could have been taken any time after Meredith left to meet the girls, Sollecito would have been there for that and involved.

@cape I’m not sure that Raffaele will sing. It very much depends upon for me what Knox is offering him to keep quiet, if Sollecito feels he owes Knox anything or what the legal penalties are for speaking up now. To be fair to Sollecito, he seems in possession of a set of balls which he didn’t have before the trial. Perhaps now Knox is shacked up with her guitar man, Sollecito will feel less inclined to help. Did he say anything huge at his recent TV appearance? Life got in the way for me there and I haven’t got around to seeing it yet.

One thing that I find interesting about all of this now is that Knox and Sollecito can read this and all the newspaper reports about themselves unlike the last two trials. They can see how the world is split and really understand that half the world think they are nasty little sex killers. I wonder what that does to your head in those dark moments before you sleep?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

MarkJones wrote:
You post cut and paste comments like a 12 year old on facebook. I feel bad seeing an elderly man acting like you do. How does a man that served his country, then had a successful career, end up becoming an angry washed up loser like you? I am sad for you. I am sad for your family. I am sad for your dog.

You love to post that Sfarzo thinks Brucie is confused. Does that mean that you agree with Sfarzo? Do you have any idea what Sfarzo thinks about you and your 3 friends here? Are you aware that Sfarzo and Fis(c)her are on good terms? You make yourself look like a complete fool every time you post. I guess it doesn't matter anyway because you hide behind a screen name. You are bold enough to stalk people yet too much of a coward to reveal yourself. I guess we could go around looking for a senile flight instructor with an angry scowl on his face if we really cared to know who you were. Wait, that's right, only PMF stalks people, so your identity will remain secure.



MarkJones, enough of the personal abuse please, this is not acceptable!

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Stint7 -

I understand you were provoked. But, please don't rise to it. Please ignore the poster in question from now on. If the board gets overtaken with flames, then 'they' get what 'they' want. Let's not give 'them' the satisfaction.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Stint7 -

I understand you were provoked. But, please don't rise to it. Please ignore the poster in question from now on. If the board gets overtaken with flames, then 'they' get what 'they' want. Let's not give 'them' the satisfaction.


Michael, I understand and fully accept your courteous and correct admonition.
Yes, indeed lets not.
I will not respond to anything else Jones, (aka, aka, aka ??) posts here.

(unless, of course I quickly change my IP addy and moniker and re-register)
;) :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline Jstanz

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:58 pm

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
MarkJones wrote:
You post cut and paste comments like a 12 year old on facebook. I feel bad seeing an elderly man acting like you do. How does a man that served his country, then had a successful career, end up becoming an angry washed up loser like you? I am sad for you. I am sad for your family. I am sad for your dog.

You love to post that Sfarzo thinks Brucie is confused. Does that mean that you agree with Sfarzo? Do you have any idea what Sfarzo thinks about you and your 3 friends here? Are you aware that Sfarzo and Fis(c)her are on good terms? You make yourself look like a complete fool every time you post. I guess it doesn't matter anyway because you hide behind a screen name. You are bold enough to stalk people yet too much of a coward to reveal yourself. I guess we could go around looking for a senile flight instructor with an angry scowl on his face if we really cared to know who you were. Wait, that's right, only PMF stalks people, so your identity will remain secure.



MarkJones, enough of the personal abuse please, this is not acceptable!


Excuse me, Michael? And stint's REGULAR personal abuse and foul-mouthed rants ARE acceptable? You've just proven the point I tried to make yesterday.

And yes, the entire conversation you had with anglolawyer will DEFINITELY speak for itself.


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: You have received a temporary ban of ONE MONTH for refusing to adhere to the Tuesday Rule
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Haha... these turds just don't give up. ham-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Edited to remove content from people who like being banned, it excites them :)

Jstanz, you might not see the difference, but we, do.

And since you've been identified as a FOA, please confine your comments and complaints to Tuesday.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Huffington Post, more of the same http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/1 ... 75830.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Good Morning :)

Actually, Daisy, I always thought it would be Rudy who would tell about what happened. However, when he was beaten up in prison, I thought, no, certainly not yet. I'm sure surviving is his main goal.

However, that said, Rudy DID accuse Knox and Raf as being the murderers. And YET, they have NEVER accused him. Very, very telling, imo.

With respect, I have added no emoticons for you.....( smile )

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Since they both turned off their phones... I believe they were together at all times except the morning trip back to the cottage.

Plus if she was gone all that time... wouldn't there probably be some kind of computer use? He wouldn't have just sat there twidling his thumbs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon, I do hope that C&V are scrutinized by the SC. The choice, in the first instance, is highly suspect.

And, it set the tone, for the way out. I'm really looking forward to reading what Dr. Galati writes about that.

It was, in a way, the lynchpin of the 2nd trial.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dg, that's a very good point. Thinking on it, though, it wasn't all that much time. Knox leaves close to nine pm. I believe Mez died around 10.pm. If he left, or Knox came to get him, around 9.45 pm, then he didn't spend much time, alone.

Obviously, I'm not asserting anything. Just theorizing, as no-one ever really knows what happens in a murder, 99% of the time. Only the killer/s. I appreciate all theories, and, if my theory is shot down, like a good point made like yours, that's all good.

I always want to know the WHY.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thank you, Daisy, for your great post.

We all understood perfectly well where you were coming from, re what you posted. However, there's always the Village Idiot.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hey Cape,
Also I believe AK's lie about eating dinner as late as 1130pm is for a reason... she knew about what time Meredith was murdered.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Let somebody else take the kids... you are a weak role model.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

When one's cover is blown, what are you going to do? Beat a hasty retreat, is what. One sandwich short of a picnic, if you ask me. Pleanty of snow where you are, MJ. Just look at the SNOW JOB you tried here. Sheesh.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hmmm, dg...yes, indeed. Another good point. So MANY lies. How about, 11pm or so, ( I forget what she said about the time, she could have said around 11.00, that she didn't wear a watch? Time to cook, clean up the spill......

She hedged her bets, though. She never knew the time. The memory loss happened from 9,00 pm until the morning. How convenient. Raf's memory failed as well.

It must have happened when they both switched off their phones. Memory was switched off at the same time. Were they ever questioned about that, byw?

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
It must have happened when they both switched off their phones. Memory was switched off at the same time. Were they ever questioned about that, byw?



Okay, last one, promise. You did it again Cape. You spoke complete nonsense. Knox and Sollecito did not turn off their phones at the same time. Where's the proof for that?

You just ramble on to make yourself feel good about your position. Try using real facts. Okay Bye.


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Trolling. Here, let me help you out the door.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

At least give us some crap excuses of yours why the phones were turned off.

Wonder why his dad's call wouldn't go thru until the next morning?
Wonder why neither used their phones THAT ONE NIGHT?
Wonder why neither can remember exactly what they did... and have no alibi with computer or phone records?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

MarkJones wrote:
capealadin wrote:
When one's cover is blown, what are you going to do? Beat a hasty retreat, is what. One sandwich short of a picnic, if you ask me. Pleanty of snow where you are, MJ. Just look at the SNOW JOB you tried here. Sheesh.


I really planned on being finished here but your comment completely lacks any intelligent thought.

"When one's cover is blown"

When did I have a cover? Your are a wildly misguided person. I find you entertaining. Keep up the delusional rants. they are fantastic.

Oh, one last thing, name one thing that you have personally done for Meredith or her family. I will hang up and listen to your response.



wg-))

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
At least give us some crap excuses of yours why the phones were turned off.

Wonder why his dad's call wouldn't go thru until the next morning?
Wonder why neither used their phones THAT ONE NIGHT?
Wonder why neither can remember exactly what they did... and have no alibi with computer or phone records?


Yah, dg. You've NAILED it, Pal.....

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Same stuff they do on websleuths... claim your interpretation of AK's behavior/odd actions are wrong. No matter that there are 100s of examples (all illogical or inappropriate) each one they dig up some ridiculous excuse for why it was that way. Then change the subject.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Dg, you know what was also ridic? Here's Raf, finally lost his virginity. AND, he CAN'T REMEMBER if they had sex that night.

Memory loss was ESSENTIAL. They had no idea what the police were finding. Hmmmm. Raf, the chronic pot user..what did he say..80% of his waking day, and then, Bam. A couple of joints, and he's done.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

There are certain behaviours that always point to being a psycopath. You can put a check mark on just about all of them with Knox.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

It's a full days job, trying to remember all the lies, and inconsistencies. The absolute bizarre reasoning.

And, to cap it all. Blaming an innocent person, when you've been interrrogated for a maximum of 2 hours. It makes sense, if you're guilty, in a bad spot, and your alibi has just thrown you under the bus..and, you need to have SOMEONE arrested, so you have time, to sort your alibi out.

Now, if there black eyes, a broken jaw..or let's say, the injuries Rodney King received...I would have to give credence.

I mean, torture , a severe beating even, well, I can see someone lying.

But, nary a scratch. Oh, and that reminds me. The mark on Knox's neck. The HICKEY, according to the groupies.

I've had plenty of hickeys. I can't imagine someone putting enough pressure on my WINDPIPE, to cause a mark like that.

Can you imagine? That's a vulnerable spot, y'all.

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

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

MarkJones wrote:
Knox and Sollecito did not turn off their phones at the same time. Where's the proof for that?

Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Trolling. Here, let me help you out the door.



Actually, it was worse than that. Knox turned her phone off first - 7 minutes before Sollecito turned his off!

This according to Follain.

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi jhansigirl,

7 minutes? Hmm, that's enough time to talk about WHY it was necessary to do so. Thanks for that nugget. I am going to have to buy his book today.

_________________
"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: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

What do we do to help the Kerchers?

Create a community that fights on their behalf.

Translate original documents from the Italian to counteract PR talking points and make the case for guilt.

Analyze the lies, behaviour and psychology of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

And make sure that Meredith is never forgotten.

Speaking of which, the most horrible thing ever said by 'the other side' was "How come the Kerchers never put up a head stone for their daughter" along with nasty chiming on "yeah, why don't the guilters put up the money?"

I try to be polite, but these people are slime. The Kerchers have refused offers of help, which only makes one respect them more. And, I believe they chose not to do so until they have closure, and justice.

That is a silent statement, more profound than any other.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Anyone who believes that pratt Hellmann's ruling is 'excellent' is either stupid or delusional or both. His reasoning is totally illogical, racist and unlawful (IMO).

BTW it is Thursday.


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Edited to remove the quoted post by the TROLL

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi jhansigirl,

7 minutes? Hmm, that's enough time to talk about WHY it was necessary to do so. Thanks for that nugget. I am going to have to buy his book today.


Exactly.

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Canitbereal

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:19 pm

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Fights on her behalf? In what way do you 'fight' on her behalf? Be sympathising with her killer?

Meredith will never be forgotten regardless of this hate.

Politeness is not something I would ever associate with PMF. You are a diluded bunch of creeps who are more obsessed with Amanda Knox than Meredith's memory. Justice has been served, her killer is in jail, unfortunately he will walk out of prison a young man at the expense of two innocent people being imprisoned for four years.

You have done nothing for the Kerchers, and you never will so stop pushing this myth. It's transparent


Note
Just a Note.
~ Tell us....do you hate Rudy Guede?~
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Beautifully stated, Ergon. So far, only Patrick has seen some form of justice. The SC will hopefully overturn this travesty.

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


Last edited by capealadin on Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

^^^^^ seems the FAOkers are really shaken at the MO..

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

DoctorRadias wrote:
^^^^^ seems the FAOkers are really shaken at the MO..


So right, Doc. THAT'S transparent.

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

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Note
Just a Note.
~ Deleted content from troll canitbereal ~Ergon~



And what is it that you have done?

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

..

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


Last edited by capealadin on Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:45 pm, 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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Not even a MENTION.. dis-))

_________________
"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: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Please, everyone, don't reply to the trolls. This only creates a permanent record. I just deleted canitbereal's first two comments, warned him, banned him (though that doesn't seem to have taken yet) Till Michael returns, I will be deleting Jstanz's next posts as well, since he can't seem to respect the Tuesday rule.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Feel free to remove my posts too

:)

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

DoctorRadias wrote:
Feel free to remove my posts too

:)


You haven't done anything yet, have you?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
DoctorRadias wrote:
Feel free to remove my posts too

:)


You haven't done anything yet, have you?



I fed the trolls yer 'onor..

No, not done a thing wrong, other than quote the vitriol that was posted by the angry person.

These ugly words don't need to remain here, so feel free to delete.

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

DoctorRadias wrote:
Ergon wrote:
DoctorRadias wrote:
Feel free to remove my posts too

:)


You haven't done anything yet, have you?



I fed the trolls yer 'onor..

No, not done a thing wrong, other than quote the vitriol that was posted by the angry person.

These ugly words don't need to remain here, so feel free to delete.


Nah, but thanks. Michael might want to leave it up there, being impossibly 'fair' and all. Me, I'm a scorched earth type of guy ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
Please, everyone, don't reply to the trolls. This only creates a permanent record. I just deleted canitbereal's first two comments, warned him, banned him (though that doesn't seem to have taken yet) Till Michael returns, I will be deleting Jstanz's next posts as well, since he can't seem to respect the Tuesday rule.


Ergon sor-)

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amanda Knox Signs $4M Book Deal

Thursday, 16 Feb 2012, 1:39 PM CST

Amanda Knox has reportedly signed a nearly $4 million book deal with HarperCollins to tell the story of her conviction and subsequent acquittal in the stabbing death of her British roommate in Italy.

The deal for the 24-year-old American student's memoir followed a days-long heated auction among publishing houses, The New York Times reported, citing people familiar with the negotiations.

Robert B. Barnett, a Washington lawyer known for representing high-profile authors, brokered the deal.


MyFoxHouston
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
It's a full days job, trying to remember all the lies, and inconsistencies. The absolute bizarre reasoning.

And, to cap it all. Blaming an innocent person, when you've been interrrogated for a maximum of 2 hours. It makes sense, if you're guilty, in a bad spot, and your alibi has just thrown you under the bus..and, you need to have SOMEONE arrested, so you have time, to sort your alibi out.

Now, if there black eyes, a broken jaw..or let's say, the injuries Rodney King received...I would have to give credence.

I mean, torture , a severe beating even, well, I can see someone lying.

But, nary a scratch. Oh, and that reminds me. The mark on Knox's neck. The HICKEY, according to the groupies.

I've had plenty of hickeys. I can't imagine someone putting enough pressure on my WINDPIPE, to cause a mark like that.

Can you imagine? That's a vulnerable spot, y'all.



Hey Cape,
Were you able to try my ski-mask quick pull-off scratch-neck theory???
You may find it interesting. Remembering her using ski mask in her prior 'prank' at college.

dm-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

jhansigirl wrote:
MarkJones wrote:
Knox and Sollecito did not turn off their phones at the same time. Where's the proof for that?

Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Trolling. Here, let me help you out the door.



Actually, it was worse than that. Knox turned her phone off first - 7 minutes before Sollecito turned his off!

This according to Follain.


Well..... see? That makes 'them' right because they were not turned off at the SAME time. huh-) That's why debating (or trying to) is so difficult and frustrating to the point of ridiculous. Just a little tinkering to make a guilty point look debatable. Throw common sense out the window and you too can be GROUPIE. hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

:)

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

G,

I think there's a big downside, to inking such a deal. There will be a lot attention focused on her. Perhaps having your reputation smashed to smithereens is not important, when newly rich. For sure, the stories about her will be resurrected.

Basically, it's blood money.

_________________
"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: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amanda Knox has deal for memoir
(2 pages)

Feb. 16, 2012
by the Associated Press/New York Daily News

NEW YORK — Amanda Knox has a book deal.

The young exchange student whose conviction and eventual acquittal on murder charges made headlines worldwide has an agreement with HarperCollins to tell her story. [...]

"Knox will give a full and unflinching account of the events that led to her arrest in Perugia and her struggles with the complexities of the Italian judicial system," HarperCollins said in a statement Thursday.

"Aided by journals she kept during her imprisonment, Knox will talk about her harrowing experience at the hands of the Italian police and later prison guards and inmates. She will reveal never before-told details surrounding her case, and describe how she used her inner strength and strong family ties to cope with the most challenging time of her young life."

The book, currently untitled, is tentatively scheduled for early 2013.

Financial terms were not disclosed for what is surely a seven-figure deal, negotiated on Knox's behalf by Washington attorney Robert Barnett, whose other clients include President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush. Some 20 publishers were interested in the book and Knox met with seven, all of whom submitted bids during a recent auction.

HarperCollins publisher Jonathan Burnham said that Knox, who studied creative writing, would work with a collaborator. Her editor will be Claire Wachtel, whose other authors have included crime novelist Dennis Lehane, journalist Cokie Roberts and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

"Claire has a great track record of working with high-profile figures," Burnham said. "She's a very sensitive, responsive editor who I think can work with someone like Amanda, who's new to the experience."

"The experience of actually sitting down in a room and talking for an hour, an hour and a half with Amanda made me realize this was a very mature, intelligent woman who had been through an extraordinary experience," Burnham said.

"She'll write a very thoughtful, reflective and serious book about what happened. And that moves this book away from the world of tabloids, the lurid side, to something more compelling and, in a way, more longstanding."

[...]


THE DELAWARE NEWS JOURNAL
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

France 24:

"The [New York Times] newspaper, citing people familiar with the negotiations, said that HarperCollins acquired the rights after a "heated auction among publishing houses that stretched for days."

The Times said several publishers had submitted bids for the book, including Crown, part of Random House; St. Martin's Press, a Macmillan unit; Simon & Schuster's Atria; and Penguin Group USA's Dutton.


Original story / blog article online in The New York Times:

NEW YORK TIMES
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Foxy Knoxy, the future 'fiction' writer ;)

Attachment:
Foxy Knoxy, the writer.jpg


Attachment:
Amanda Knox July 2011.jpg


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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
G,

I think there's a big downside, to inking such a deal. There will be a lot attention focused on her. Perhaps having your reputation smashed to smithereens is not important, when newly rich. For sure, the stories about her will be resurrected.

Basically, it's blood money.



If the Supreme Court makes the right decision, any moneys she gets may go to the perfect place- Meredith Kercher's family.

I believe this 'book deal' may be a huge liability to the book company.

Also a supposed book by OJ... didn't come off so well with the public. pro-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

It is quite sickening, even if it was foreseeable. But maybe it will backfire on her in some way or other. Let's wait and see...
In any case the book will probably be out after the SC has decided on the case (which is supposed to happen by the end of this year, iirc).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

G, those photos. Yikes !

It's never a good feeling, when hearing about blood money. Yes, we know that's what happens. However, I foresee regrets. There always must be. This is not an heroic tale. QUITE the opposite.

Money doesn't buy happiness, nor peace of mind. It may feel good for a short while, but, it cannot erase memories, of a death at your hands. Karma, Knox, Karma.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dg, It's the publishers who will take the money loss. I see lots of hands out. Some may even think that by osmosis, their books will see the light of day. NOPE.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
G,

I think there's a big downside, to inking such a deal. There will be a lot attention focused on her. Perhaps having your reputation smashed to smithereens is not important, when newly rich. For sure, the stories about her will be resurrected.

Basically, it's blood money.


Exactly. Well said, cape.

I believe they wanted to close a book deal before the matter goes to court again. They will handle that money like they handled the donations: hide, hide, hide.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
If the Supreme Court makes the right decision, any moneys she gets may go to the perfect place- Meredith Kercher's family.

I believe this 'book deal' may be a huge liability to the book company.

Also a supposed book by OJ... didn't come off so well with the public. pro-)


O.J. Simpson's book "If I did it" had already sold I don't know how many copies before it even hit the shelves through pre-orders alone. So unfortunately, I believe it was a success financially.

I don't have any doubt that Amanda's book will be a success in the United States. For them, Amanda Knox has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. They will buy the book just to support her. Whoever bought the rights knows exactly what they are doing. I would be very surprised if this book became an absolute flop. They will promote it "the right way". Amanda's parents have gotten away with lies for the past four years and nobody has done shit about it. The book will work the exact same way. She says whatever she wants. She cannot be challenged, same as her parents who only answer pre-agreed questions on tv shows.

This book adds insult to injury. Amanda Knox hasn't been fully cleared from any involvement like Patrick Lumumba was for example and her appeals are still ongoing. No doubt they want to cash in while people are still interested.

I can only hope the verdict will be overruled and people take a second look at it. The Kerchers will have to find a way to deal with it one way or the other. Amanda and her family will never fully understand the damage they have caused.


Last edited by Nell on Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:39 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: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell, It's a strange thing. I've noticed something in the U.S. The Media will promote it's latest darling, but then, pull it down. I have no idea why this is so.

Unfortunately, the Kerchers will never see any $$$ from Knox, should they be successful in their lawsuit. The money will have been disbursed, and hidden, as you say. Patrick probably won't see a penny either. When have we seen one decent thing come from the Knox/Mellas clan? Nada, zip, zero.

Will they ever understand the damage they've done? They don't want to. They're like Ostriches. They have a mantra..we're good, they're bad. It would be sad, if it wasn't so despicable.

All the money in the World will never give them any class.

_________________
"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: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

At this point in time I don't care about a book I will not read anyway. What I hope is that the Supreme Court will send the case back for retrial.

Though I still expect surprises.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
The Knox family, for all their claims of harrassment, can't blame Mignini this time. It is Galati and Costagliola, his superiors. So, what does that mean...three evil insane prosecutors, instead of one?

*Snipped*. I thought of this post when I browsed by Perugiashock. I am afraid you got it all 'wrong' Michael. It is still Mignini who appealed and who is the evil one. He just got Galati and Costagliola to sign HIS appeal. Some things will never change :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
Same stuff they do on websleuths... claim your interpretation of AK's behavior/odd actions are wrong. No matter that there are 100s of examples (all illogical or inappropriate) each one they dig up some ridiculous excuse for why it was that way. Then change the subject.

If AK is standing right in front of them, making a full confession, she will be excused for 'having a bad hair day' or better 'internet pressure made her all confused'. I don't even think all of them really believe AK to be innocent. Some just like blaming LE, or make up fantasy theories, or get all excited by supporting a murderer. It is weird.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Wasn't it HarperCollins that was going to publish OJ Simpsons book 'If I did it' but then they changed their minds and didn't publish? Anyone remember that?

ETA: Found an article on it :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/busin ... oncnd.html
Quote:
“I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project,” Mr. Murdoch said. “We are sorry for any pain this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown-Simpson.”

Mr. Murdoch hasn't learned a thing!
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 17, 2012 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

DoctorRadias wrote:
^^^^^ seems the FAOkers are really shaken at the MO..



Shaken, stirred...and banned ;)

_________________
"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 17, 2012 9:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Jstanz -

Has received a temporary ban of one month for refusing to respect the Tuesday Rule.

_________________
"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 17, 2012 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
At this point in time I don't care about a book I will not read anyway. What I hope is that the Supreme Court will send the case back for retrial.

Though I still expect surprises.



What I hope, is that America wakes up and remembers it has Son of Sam laws!

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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Is there any information when this book is scheduled for release?

What of John Kercher's book? This is the book I'm most anticipating.
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 17, 2012 9:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

No, they won't release that sort of date yet Emerald. I doubt they even have a date penciled in. It depends on what happens in the courts and we don't even have dates for those yet.

As for John Kercher's book, no date for that yet as far as I'm aware. I suspect the plan is to release that after all the court hearings have finished.

_________________
"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 17, 2012 9:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Guermantes quoting AP wrote:
HarperCollins publisher Jonathan Burnham said that Knox, who studied creative writing, would work with a collaborator. Her editor will be Claire Wachtel, whose other authors have included crime novelist Dennis Lehane, journalist Cokie Roberts and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.



That's code for saying it will be ghost written.

We've seen her writing...there's no way they'll let Amanda write it!

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Have the Knox's contacted the Kerchers yet, like they pomised they would?

I don't think so!

And Sollecito's promise to help the Kerchers find the 'real' killer? Nada. Too busy making media deals, like Knox.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
At this point in time I don't care about a book I will not read anyway. What I hope is that the Supreme Court will send the case back for retrial.

Though I still expect surprises.



What I hope, is that America wakes up and remembers it has Son of Sam laws!


You may just have just 'broken the code' as to why smelly Knoxy's handlers made the very strange decision to come out with a book before the Final Appeal is heard.

Not sure her present, guilty so far only on falsely accusing Patrick, is enough to use Son of Sam statutes to prevent her greedy shameless handlers from getting their grubby hands on that bloody money.

Obviously the 'Marriott managed Mellox menagerie' has no trace of common decency or any iota of christian judaic ethics nor moral values to suggest to themselves just how despicably disgusting their greedy money grubbing really is.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=105


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: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
..........
As for John Kercher's book, no date for that yet as far as I'm aware. I suspect the plan is to release that after all the court hearings have finished.


TJMK had reported earlier, an April 2012 release date:

Editorial director Fenella Bates bought world English rights from Ben Mason at Fox Mason.

The book will be published in hardback in April 2012.

Billed as a “celebration of Meredith’s life”, the title is also a father’s story of losing his daughter, and will be the first account of the lives of the Kercher family since her murder four years ago.

Bates said: “Here at Hodder we feel this is an important story that needs to be told. We are privileged that John Kercher has entrusted us with his book, in which he’ll talk for the first time about the case and Meredith’s life.”


TJMK 14oct2011
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... gest_publ/


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: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Stint, that's good to know! :)

_________________
"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 jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

max wrote:
Wasn't it HarperCollins that was going to publish OJ Simpsons book 'If I did it' but then they changed their minds and didn't publish? Anyone remember that?

ETA: Found an article on it :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/busin ... oncnd.html
Quote:
“I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project,” Mr. Murdoch said. “We are sorry for any pain this has caused the families of Ron Goldmand Nicole Brown-Simpson.”

Mr. Murdoch hasn't learned a thing!



Excellent find!

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
G, those photos. Yikes !
It's never a good feeling, when hearing about blood money. Yes, we know that's what happens. However, I foresee regrets. There always must be. This is not an heroic tale. QUITE the opposite.
Money doesn't buy happiness, nor peace of mind. It may feel good for a short while, but, it cannot erase memories, of a death at your hands. Karma, Knox, Karma.


Me too on the pics.
Wonder why Marriott prefers showing her with puppy dogs, snowmen, or playing guitar (only one chord, endlessly) for toddlers.

Couple more eye pics


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: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

If anyone ever wonders why I hold most FOAKers in such low regard, it is droppings like this floating on top of the Cesspool scum that is the pathetic IIP Forum:

Gloating over the apparent millions of blood money sucked out of a dead girl's memory, Bill Williams slimes out this filth.
Lets the world see again just how scummy FOAKers can really be: eek-)

It's been a heady couple of months for those on this side of sweetness and light. It turns out that the haters (the PMF bunch) actually ARE haters! HarperCollins is just this very minute receiving 10s of hate-filled e-mails from intellectual giants with pseudos like Yummi, Machiavelli, Stint7, Brmull, Cape-what's-her-name, Fly By Night, Clander, and Kermit (who you've not yet met) is nowhere to be seen. Hugo (who?) has had apoplexy at today's announcement.
I do believe he actually pee'd himself with righteous indignation.
Welcome to the zoo, Lee! If someone had made this up in October 2007, they'd have been institutionalized.

huh-) wtf)

FACTS ????
Who needs facts about any one of us that he ridicules above as "intellectual giants".
Does Mary_H have all your "cites" documenting that we wrote publishers, Bill ??
Did any of the "intellectual giants" EVER bother to write publishers, Bill ?
Do you have any iota of proof of the dimwitted charges you make, Bill ??

Please do recall, Bill, that your IIP documented LIAR founder, could not even get a publisher and he was willing to prostitute himself for free...remember, Bill ??.
Did you find necessary to play schoolyard simpleton and bray about that too, Bill ???

Isn't what you write here today kinda hateful in itself, Bill??

You are an absolute disgusting disgrace, Bill.
*You* should be institutionalized, Bill[/b]

Hope the titters and grins you got from the fellow floating turds in that Cesspool that is IIP made it worth it for you to disgrace yourself so with that type of disgusting posting, Bill
You have lost any respect you ever had from anyone, Bill

Hope it was worth it, Bill
Keep up the great work, Bill
tu-)) tu-)) tu-))

BTW
Considering the fecal filled environment you now post this slime in, Bill, your statements about pee are appropriate and given all due recognition, Bill.
How much sweetness and light actually seeps into cesspools and sewage pipes, Bill ??
I have personally never spent much time inside one, Bill

Again; all you wrote today is ever so classy, Bill.
Maybe even someday you will have enough money that you screwed creditors out of via bankruptcy (twice) to publish *your* own 'book' about sweetness and light in cesspools and septic tanks, Bill.
fc-))


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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
Is there any information when this book is scheduled for release?




Emerald and Michael, this is from Guermantes' AP article above:
"The book, currently untitled, is tentatively scheduled for early 2013."

Tentatively. Dalla Vedova, I believe, said that the court might rule by the end of 2012.
But hey, are there any insurmountable problems for Mandy? If the SC decides on a retrial it would just prove again that she's a victim and bravely fights/fought the evil (prosecution, Italy, Europe, whatever).
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 17, 2012 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Well, Ava, Son of Sam laws should apply since she's a convicted criminal in connection to this case. Unless the High Court overturn her calunnia conviction, which is highly unlikely, then she remains so. In addition, she faces trial for yet a second calunnia charge in connection to the case, for which she's likely to be convicted. That's even without the possibility that the High Court may refer Knox and Sollecito back to the appeal court for retrial for murder (and other charges).

Therefore, no wonder the schedule for publication in early 2013 is 'tentative'. In fact, according to Son of Sam laws, there should be no agreed deal at all and CERTAINLY no blood money advance.

_________________
"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 17, 2012 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Stinr7 wrote:
If anyone ever wonders why I hold most FOAKers in such low regard, it is droppings like this floating on top of the Cesspool scum that is the pathetic IIP Forum:


Filth will praise filth. Filth loves filth.

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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I don't understand the SC would ask for a retrial. Why can't they just rule in favor of the initial finding of guilt or the appeal of ng?

Also, this current SC dredging of the rulings would actually be ruling on the findings of the SC of RG's case, too, since his SC found Rudy was one of several perps. Very confusing.
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 17, 2012 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

It's just the way it works Emerald...three courts (three degrees) have to find her guilty in order to make the verdict sound and therefore stand - the trial court, the appeal court and the High Court. It therefore has to go back to the appeal court stage if the High Court feels mistakes were made in dismissing the guilty verdict.

If the High Court were to uphold Hellmann, then Guede would have the right to seek leave to appeal himself and perhaps get a retrial in the appeal court.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Now I am getting confused
Jones, aka, aka, ak ???, may be right about how terrible it is to be a senior citizen.
Guess he is too stupid to know that someday he will get there himself, if he is lucky.
When he reaches his 'golden years', I sincerely hope dimwitted arrogant dolts insult him similarly

Anyway:
________________
IF THIS :
Michael wrote:
It's just the way it works Emerald...three courts (three degrees) have to find her guilty in order to make the verdict sound and therefore stand - the trial court, the appeal court and the High Court.


THEN HOW THIS:
Michael wrote:
Well, Ava, Son of Sam laws should apply since she's a convicted criminal in connection to this case.

____________________

As a senile senior, I only know what I read (and do not forget). ;)
But didn't all the know it alls on JREF keep echoing Marriott's talking point that even after an unanimous guilty verdict from Massei, smelly Knoxy was still not really guilty until *all 3 Courts had ruled ??

But then after Hellmann's abortion of judicial procedures, LIAR brucie kept crowing like the slow learner kindergarten reject that he is, "ITS OVER< ITS OVER< ItS OVER ???
huh-) wtf)

Finally,
my take would be Son of Sam Laws, which themselves have been/are being seriously diluted will have little effect on how much of judas's silver, sickening sinful blood money the Mellox Menagerie and their pathetic scum handlers can shamelessly squeeze out of a smelly, quirky moral less little twit.

A twit:
1) who cannot write a logical sentence herself
2) who really has nothing she can tell anyone yet except why she stinks so
(unless her inexperienced but very well connected legal team lets her hang herself to get her more M-o-n-e-y)

Time will tell
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

How Amanda Knox and a top attorney won a $4m book deal

BY Nigel Horne
Fri 17 Feb 2012

AMANDA KNOX needed to get a good publishing deal for her memoirs in order to help her family pay off the huge costs they incurred in their four-year battle to win her freedom – and she went about it the right way. [...]

The size of her deal with HarperCollins – those in the know say it was $4m – may have shocked many in the press, who had been expecting something in the region of $1m. But it will have come as no surprise to Barnett who managed to get seven top publishing houses to submit bids. [...]


THE FIRST POST
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Awful caption.
And he's still wearing his orange pants. Really.

Foxy's $4m smile: Ecstatic Amanda Knox celebrates lucrative book deal with her new man (and prepares for spending spree by donating old belongings to Salvation Army)
By Mark Duell
Last updated at 4:19 PM on 17th February 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s_rss_feed
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
At this point in time I don't care about a book I will not read anyway. What I hope is that the Supreme Court will send the case back for retrial.

Though I still expect surprises.



What I hope, is that America wakes up and remembers it has Son of Sam laws!



That might require the Kerchers to file a civil suit in US federal court to be enforced, Michael.

At present she's innocent and has every legal right to get her book published. And we might not like that, but a movie might follow the book. That's the culture, sorry.

What she has done will hang over her for the rest of her life. No amount of money will change that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Just for the record.
Pretty boring interview with Peter Van Sant.

Amanda Knox signs million-dollar book deal
February 17, 2012 5:41 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399109n
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks for the response, Michael. The US news outlet are 'reporting' the great deal AK got for her story since she was acquitted. She wasn't acquitted. At least not yet. I wish the news outlets would do proper research and reporting.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

But, isn't this perfect timing for a book? If she goes on a book tour, or an interview and someone asks a tough question, can't she say, "Sorry, I can't answer that, as the case is ongoing?". Color me a cynical golden-ager.
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 17, 2012 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I just want to say, for the benefit of new members. When you register an account here and then, with no introduction, start addressing members here as 'man', it is only one very small step up from calling them 'dude'. It is therefore, quite likely that other members here will regard you as a troll and I for one, am disposed to agree with them.

First and second impressions count for a lot.

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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I cannot comprehend how the first trial could have had a unanimous guilty, and the second a unanimous ng. The same arguments. I can understand if some of hte panelists had dissenting opinions, but both were UNANIMOUS for opposite conclusions.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Good Morning :)

Does anyone know how long before the SC decides to have a retrial, or reject the appeal? I assume that it will be after the SC receives the appeal of the appeal.

There are many twists and turns to come. What looks teriffic now, will be very different later. sun-)

_________________
"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: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi, all. WeasieGoddess has just earned a permanent ban. Reason: I identified this poster as "Mark Jones", who said he was leaving just before he was banned, then snuck back anyway.

All his posts are being deleted. It interrupts the flow of this board for people to have to read their little droppings, even after they've been banned. Unfortunately, when members reply to their posts in good faith, their original post remains part of the record, so please try not to reply to 'new' members directly, but as a new comment? I don't want to edit or delete your post, but may have to do just that when the offensive bits get left behind in your nested reply.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

He has SERIOUS issues, Ergon. I'll go back, and delete.

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

Offline Maria


Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I think I remember that the Goldman family sucsessfully sued for civil damages and so although OJ was not convicted in a criminal court he was through civil proceedings and my recollection is that the proceeds from - If I did it - went to the families. I hope I am correct because I bought the rotten book on that basis. It was a snooze fest.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Here's something else. What possible reason could Rudy have had, to accuse Knox and Raf? They hadn't accused him..not EVEN when he was found guilty, ffs. He'd be in the same boat, whether he did or not. He could have simply said he didn't recognize the perps.

Bongiorno states : We PURSUED Rudy for years. Really? Not WORRIED, were they? As Bongiorno allegedly offered, gave, Aviello a ton of money for the sex change, no biggie then, to offer money, or threats to Rudy.

_________________
"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 17, 2012 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hi Maria....The Goldman's received very little money from O.J. In fact, O.J. is in jail for life, because he was trying to take back items he had given someone to sell. The person he gave the items to , was doing so in order for O.J. to hide any proceeds.

Justice? I would say so. ( I believe his house in Brentwood is in foreclosure now ).

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

Offline Maria


Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

thanks for clarifying Cape
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Welcome, Maria :)

Btw, good catch Ergon. hoop-) Honestly, I wonder at the desperation of those, needing to be here. I guess their sites are so boring. Also, because they know Knox is guilty, and that they only post there to play devil's advocate.

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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Good Morning :)

Does anyone know how long before the SC decides to have a retrial, or reject the appeal? I assume that it will be after the SC receives the appeal of the appeal.

There are many twists and turns to come. What looks teriffic now, will be very different later. sun-)


Morning/Night! :)
According to Della Vedova end of 2012.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline amber2670


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:56 pm

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Came across this today, I know all of this has been seen. Just thought you all would enjoy knowing most of the comments are negative towards Amanda Knox. I was glad to see this on a American magazine article.

There are a few idiots like the one that says basically "Meredith wasn't American, just some girl murdered italy"
I replied saying this is a prime example of the attitude of people who support Amanda Knox.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... -442271003
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

A new topic opened in this sub forum: The Criminal Mind viewtopic.php?f=1&t=369

some of you may have seen this elsewhere, but posting it for .net.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nice work Ergon ff)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Sorry if it has already been posted (I didn't see it), but a translation (rough draft subject to revision) of the Hellmann motivations report is now available for download:

Translation Hellman Motivations Report


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

There is no other time but that night Rudy could have heard the argument between Meredith and Amanda regarding money. There is no other context in which it could have occurred.

Ergon, I hate to be a bother, but could you please consider and comment on this? TIA
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amber, I read your link. You did a really good job...

I can't help thinking that there's quite a few groupies who have had people close to them imprisoned. They become completely irrational in Knox's defense.

Thanks Nell......I will be going through the report over the weekend. There's a lot to cover.

And, Emerald..EXACTLY. I understand you've asked Ergon to respond, but I jumped in. sor-) And, the drugged up tart. How would Rudy have known about money. And, why did Meredith argue with Knox about it? I believe Meredith strongly suspected Knox. Knox says she didn't know Rudy. Did Rudy just make that up? How did he manage to describe Knox perfectly with those words?

Every time I see pics of Knox..with those EYES...I get chills. Something tells me Rudy is not going to be happy, hearing Knox is getting so much money. There's no question, he knows she did it.

I expected the $$$$'s to come her way. I'm sure we all did. But now, the money grubbing will start. Curt and Edda were not close, before their daughter was accused. Poor Chris. He had to go live in Italy, had to eat PASTA!! I wonder how high his bill will be for * the shithead *.

And, will Knox be fair game for others, who are just as manipulative as she is? Maybe even better at it? I think Knox is pretty tight fisted with money. Can I say cheap? Oh, yes, there will be bills to pay. From all sides. Maybe for the first time, these families are going to have to see each other as they really are. And, I don't think it's going to be pretty.

The pics of Knox giving to Salvation army? The box looked pretty light. Or, Knox is strong. Strong enough to kill.

_________________
"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 18, 2012 8:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Attention dg.

Stint is going to post something soon, and you are going to LOVE it........Stay tuned. If he's busy, I'll post it.

It's going to be the lesson of the day. Loose lips sink ships.........

_________________
"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 18, 2012 8:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Ava..but, is that right? The DECISION aout accepting or rejecting at the end of 2012? Even by Italian standards, that seems a very long time.......

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I don't think it's only Rudy who will chafe at the idea of Amanda getting all the $$$. Papa Sollecito invested a lot into her defense. I remember quite a few times in the initial trial Raff's attorney jumped in to protect Amanda from the Prosecution's questioning or to stop her own attorney from allowing a dangerous (to the defense) direction of Amanda's testimony.

I don't know the pay scale for defense attorneys in Italy, but it seemed very clear to me Amanda's personal attorney was not anywhere near the caliber of Raff's attorney.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

True, Emerald..however, perhaps Papa thinks Raf will also pull a rabbit out of the hat.

Papa may also think he got off cheap. He has his son home. By hook or by crook. And, papa is thanking Il Dio, that Knox is FAR away from his loser kid.

_________________
"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 18, 2012 8:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Remember also Emerald, that a lot of what goes on in Italy is behind the scenes. Bongiorno had clout.

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Thanks Ava..but, is that right? The DECISION aout accepting or rejecting at the end of 2012? Even by Italian standards, that seems a very long time.......

The appeal itself will be at the end of the year (I also read in 6 months or so). I read there is about a 1% chance that appeals won't even be considered but I think we don't have to worry about that here. That decision that they will consider the appeal will probably be in a few months after the defense has had a chance to put in their counter arguments.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Remember also Emerald, that a lot of what goes on in Italy is behind the scenes. Bongiorno had clout.


Papa paid quite a bit for that clout, too. Many times Bongiorno pulled Ghirga's client out of the muck, too.

If this goes to retrial, I think Raff and Rudy will see Amanda's lucrative notoriety as a betrayal.
Top Profile 

Offline FreeRudy

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:40 am

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Hello

I would like to start a project to help free Rudy Guede who has been wrongfullly convicted. I ask this boards help and support to start my project. Rudy is a wonderful young man often forgotten in this sorry saga.

Please. Let's discuss. With your support we can raise community awareness into overturning this wrongfull conviction so that the real killer or killers can be found guility. We need to raise money.

I thank you for your support


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Sock Puppetry
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Thanks Ava..but, is that right? The DECISION aout accepting or rejecting at the end of 2012? Even by Italian standards, that seems a very long time.......


It does seem very long. Here is the quote I was referring to:

"Carlo dalla Vedova, a lawyer representing Knox, said: "Hypothetically speaking, should there be a new hearing, it would be held in Florence. 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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... sfeed=true


ETA: Maybe I misunderstood your question. I see that Max answered it too, and maybe that's what you meant.


Last edited by Ava on Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FreeRudy

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:40 am

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ava wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Thanks Ava..but, is that right? The DECISION aout accepting or rejecting at the end of 2012? Even by Italian standards, that seems a very long time.......


It does seem very long. Here is the quote I was referring to:

"Carlo dalla Vedova, a lawyer representing Knox, said: "Hypothetically speaking, should there be a new hearing, it would be held in Florence. 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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... sfeed=true


Always the American girl and the other guy, what's his name? But nothing about Rudy. I seek support and together we help free Rudy like the others free the American girl and what's his name. Yes, please support like American girl got
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

trip-trap, trip-trap, trip-trap

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

IMO, Rudy Guede is guilty, and serving the time he deserve for the crime.

I do not believe he should be exonerated because any other guilty party is not incarcerated and held legally accountable YET!
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

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

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


"HarperCollins, meanwhile, will hope to recoup some of its huge advance in television deals and newspaper serialisations.

A positive balance sheet is far from guaranteed, however. “I think it’s very risky money,” says Ed Victor, the London-based literary agent whose clients range from Keith Richards to Alastair Campbell and Frederick Forsyth. “But all advances at that level are risky. A lot will depend on whom they hire as the collaborator. It has to be written well.”

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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I googled Amanda Knox poll to see what the general consensus was. On several links, found mostly guilty.

Why would the publishers bid so much if most people do not believe her?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

DoctorRadias wrote:
trip-trap, trip-trap, trip-trap


Not a troll as such (he actually really believes that Rudy is innocent, along with Knox and Sollecito), just the insane Harry Wilkens who has already been banned from here a very long time ago and has created a new sock. Hence, he is now banned...again.

_________________
"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 jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

And I was just about to write a cheque. Must be a bit lonely over in the innocent camp.

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
I googled Amanda Knox poll to see what the general consensus was. On several links, found mostly guilty.

Why would the publishers bid so much if most people do not believe her?


Maybe they set a minimum bid limit at the start. Like a reserve amount.
;)

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

My elderly landlord ask my help in installing some prefab shelves and cabinets in his workroom. I need to hire the PMF Translators for the instructions. They're in English, but damn........ As bad as the Barbie DreamHouse when my daughter was young.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
There is no other time but that night Rudy could have heard the argument between Meredith and Amanda regarding money. There is no other context in which it could have occurred.

Ergon, I hate to be a bother, but could you please consider and comment on this? TIA


Hi Emerald, I agree. It is one of the things that stuck to my mind, the argument about money."There is no other context in which it could have occurred". Elegant and succinctly put!

It also shows us it is Rudy who has told us the truth, except for the part where he says he didn't participate in the attack. We know he did.

I'm one of those people who agree more with the Micheli report than Massei. Micheli sees Amanda as the instigator, and the other two piling on. Massei admits 'there is no way anyone can know exactly what happened', but uses circumstantial evidence plus the forensics to come up with a scenario.

This is what draws us, the many things we can debate alternative scenarios, and hopefully, arrive at a better understanding.

So: why were all three perps, especially Rudy, at the cottage? I'm open to both 'take delivery of drugs and party', and, haze Meredith, without the knives or restraining. Amanda, lacking the social inhibitions that normal people have, could well have thought that what played well with her drugged up friends in an American University would be no big deal in Perugia.

So, egged on by Amanda, Rudy comes on to Meredith. Rebuffed, he goes to the toilet. Then, two scenarios: Meredith discovers rent money's missing. Or, Amanda says she can't pay the rent because Patrick's demoted her, etc. They argue. Meredith calls her a 'drugged up tart' and Amanda shrieks, attacks Meredith, who fights back. The murder progresses from there. The money and phones are stolen afterwards, to bolster the robbery theory. Funny how this is echoed by the Knoxii, a robbery gone wrong? Uh huh.

All of this could have taken place within a 45 minute time frame, and forms the central point of my murder scenario I outlined earlier (I am open to a later TOD, but no later than 11:00 pm)

So yes, a robbery played to cover the murder. One of the central things that always stick in the mind regarding this case.

The other? the toilet bomb hoax :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Amanda already had the money and forgot to put it back before the door was locked?
------------------------
Was the $4 million paid right away or is there a contingency involved?
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
I googled Amanda Knox poll to see what the general consensus was. On several links, found mostly guilty.

Why would the publishers bid so much if most people do not believe her?


Other people may buy the book to see what the fuss's about?

Keep in mind that Roger Barnett is the 'superagent' who got Tony Blair an actual GB 5 million pounds advance, and not 'book deal. But then, Blair's a war criminal who only got away with it because he pledged to donate all the proceeds, then when it turned out he was talking only about proceeds after the publishers got back their advance he hurriedly promised to donate the advance as well.

We don't know the details of the so-called book contract, since that hasn't been released, only the announcement.. I very much doubt Knox is getting $4 million up front, and think it's very similar to other contracts I've seen. It would be an initial payment of $500,000 approx, (still not chicken feed) the rest tied in with all sorts of restrictions. "$4 million" is publicity in itself...

This is very similar to pro athlete contracts, which announce $123 million 'deals', which on examination turn out to be spread out over 20 years and tied in with restrictive clauses. I honestly think this book deal has similar restrictions tied in to the outcome of the legal battle, and has a buy out clause in case the publisher changes their mind. What any publisher would do, though Murdoch's boys and girls have done, odder things.

Yes, there's a synergy created by PR agencies with defense industry contracts, a media that exists to distract us from real political, social and economic issues with spectacle, so yeah, that's why the 'deal' makes sense, whether we like it or not.

As far as I'm concerned, a book deal isn't proof she's innocent, just that some people will pay anything to see the bearded lady and elephant man; we haven't evolved since those times.

What we can do is support the Kerchers, argue the case for guilt, and not forget Meredith. And hope the Supreme Court will act properly, and not with political or other considerations in mind.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
Amanda already had the money and forgot to put it back before the door was locked?
------------------------
Was the $4 million paid right away or is there a contingency involved?


I tend towards Guede ran off with the money, which may well still have been stolen by Amanda to pay for the drugs. (Raffaele was on a tight leash by daddy) Which brings us to the other mystery. Who brought the drugs to the cottage? Kokomani or Guede?

I think the money deposited afterwards by Amanda might well been wired to her by her parents or, deposited to her bank account in the US and withdrawn from an ATM that dispensed dollars. Please refresh my memory, capealadin. Did she deposit 500 euros, or was that dollars, to the Perugian account? What I doubt very much is that she'd deposit the stolen money into her own account. Meredith's fingerprints and DNA might be all over.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Here is the full text, this time also unpublished:

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


[You can read the full post HERE]

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ergon wrote:
I think the money deposited afterwards by Amanda might well been wired to her by her parents or, deposited to her bank account in the US and withdrawn from an ATM that dispensed dollars. Please refresh my memory, capealadin. Did she deposit 500 euros, or was that dollars, to the Perugian account? What I doubt very much is that she'd deposit the stolen money into her own account. Meredith's fingerprints and DNA might be all over.


Ergon, out of respect for those like myself who use both boards, I try not to 'cross post'

But I was absolutely astounded by the stupid way Charlie Wilkes, aka Jim Loverling tried to answer fellow FOAKer, grinds-on-nerves, about the very question you address concerning the missing rent monies.
Stilicho also addressed the monies on .org, prompting my below reply.

Here is the exchange from Wilkes/Loverling:
Straight from the horses'... errrrr.............. mouth

_______________________________________
stilicho wrote:
.....
Amanda made a $562 deposit that posted on Nov. 5...

Can Jim/Charlie send us the evidence that this money was wired from Seattle? He sure seems to be holding back a lot of information for a guy who says he has nothing to hide.
______________________
stint wrote:

Oh Dear....
Cape you are going to luv this:

Grinds-on-nerves asked Wilkes to explain away the stolen money 'myth' because the guilters (like cape, and stilicho and others) were talking too much about it.
So secretive ol Charlie Wilkes, aka Jungle Jim Loverling, gives grinds-on-nerves the absolutely incredibly asinine BS spin that I copied in earlier post above. :this:

To recap, Wilkes says this: (with straight face):
1) Knoxy's parents sent her that sum???
Really, Charlie/Jim ???
They sent Knoxy that odd amount for some odd reason since she, according to you, already had 4,000 in the account.
Really, Charlie/Jim ??

OR

2) Knoxy made that rather substantial amount working for Patrick ???
Really, Charlie/Jim.
In the few night she worked (flirted) passing out circulars for probably less that a dozen hours total, she made that rather large amount.
Really Charlie/Jim??
la-) nw) wtf)

Understandably, even always loyal grinds-on-nerves apparently had trouble swallowing that whopper of spin doctoring/history re-writing from Wilkes/Loverling.
Because, he graciously replies after reading(with eyes wide, and jaw ajar):what Charlie/Jim posted. :shock:
But if you (Charlie/Jim) don't know, you don't know
drin-)

Hint, grinds-on-nerves: "Charlie/Jim really doesn't know" :thinking:

FYI:
Grinds-on-nerves full reply to Charlie/Jim's stupidly simpleton spin attempt is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost8035512
____

And remember that Charlie/Jim is the FOAKer founder/leader talking. :shock:
Where do they find such men????? :rolleyes:

YUP
Charlie/Jim, as Founding Father of the FOAKers, you 'done yourself' and all fellow FOAKers really proud with this latest in your long line of horse droppings.
Even brucie spins better tales that.
Maybe Marriott's professional peons can rescue you (again). :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

This is only my opinion, but if there is a retrial, the evidence will be presented much better by the prosecution. We will be surprised by the succinct timeline. So will Amanda be shocked that so much of the truth of what she did that night will be clearly outlined.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

For your jawdropping, eyes wide open, reading amusement. co-)

This posted by Charlie Wilkes, close family friend. Caps will be mine..not necessary, I'm sure, because everyone will be able to see the ridiculous excuses, and basic BS for themselves.

" It is true that AMANDA made a $562.00 DEPOSIT that posted on Nov.5th, but probably was made sometime in the preceding several days, which were not business days.

It was money either from work, or a monthly payment made by Amanda's family, who were holding about $9K for her.

She didn't want to hold the entire balance of her savings in her checking account for SECURITY REASONS.

It's also true that she withdrew $361.54 for her share of the rent , another transaction that posted on Nov 5.

Her checking balance after the deposit and withdrawal was about $4K. "

Now, let's look at this nonsense. Why would Knox's parents be sending money monthly? Knox had only been there 6 weeks. She had $8k when she arrived. We only have Charlie's word for it that Knox had savings in the U.S., but even if she did, she had been working. Why would she need her parents to be holding her money for her? C'mon.

Next. Knox said she had NOT been paid by Patrick. She bumped into him on Nov 5, after the deposit and withdrawal.

Now, let's say her parents had sent her money. It was AMANDA who deposited the money.

Lastly. Knox didn't want to keep more money in her account for SECURITY REASONS? huh-) She was fine with having $8k in there.

Charlie made a post about the money ages ago, on JLOL. ( I'm sure he wishes he had bitten his hand off :) oop-)

I caught it, and brought the news here, because it's important.

Why would she deposit the money, Ergon? Firstly, you can wash money. Second, how would they ever be able to test all money deposited?

Knox couldn't be found to have the money on her. Did she behave normally? I mean, someone who doesn't even flush her own, or other's business. Well, we won't go over her other strange behaviours.

Now, the amount that she withdrew. I'm not sure anymore, what the euro/dollar rate was. Let's say, it was the rent amount. Let's say, she said she didn't have the rent ( her assertion) because she wanted money for the weekend.

Raf was short, he only had 40 euros in his bank account. All of a sudden, she has money over that weekend.

Go figure. Literally .

_________________
"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 18, 2012 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Sorry, everyone. I didn't see Stint's post. Oh, well, the groupies will be doubly pouty, no doubt :)

G, I'm a voracious reader. I CANNOT read Knox's incoherent ramblings. One can read into the rubbish, some kind of insight

" This life,admired by the various ambitions of my mind........

Jesus Wept. I guess SHE thinks she's great. This woman is barmy.

_________________
"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 18, 2012 9:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Stint, the link to JLOL, says no thread specified.

_________________
"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 18, 2012 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald, if a retrial is ordered, I hope all evidence, even new evidence is allowed. And, yes, the Prosecution will do a masterful job.

Hellmann had their hands tied, in the 2nd trial.

_________________
"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 18, 2012 9:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Stint, the link to JLOL, says no thread specified.


Thx, cape
This one works
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost8035512
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

The girl FOA is presenting is not the same girl who needed underwear, so she goes into a specialty boutique and pays WAY more than a girl on a tight budget would pay. I mean, in US we can get a pkg of 3-4 pairs of cotton panties for less than $10. I'm not believing it cannot be done in Italy, too.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Yuppers. knox spent $82.00 on A camisole and pair of panties at the Bubbles Boutique.

_________________
"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 18, 2012 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Let me add. Knox had at least 200 Euros on her. So, that money was not deposited..

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

Offline RetiredFascist

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:30 pm

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Why would she deposit the money, Ergon? Firstly, you can wash money. Second, how would they ever be able to test all money deposited?

Knox couldn't be found to have the money on her. Did she behave normally? I mean, someone who doesn't even flush her own, or other's business. Well, we won't go over her other strange behaviours.

Now, the amount that she withdrew. I'm not sure anymore, what the euro/dollar rate was. Let's say, it was the rent amount. Let's say, she said she didn't have the rent ( her assertion) because she wanted money for the weekend.

Raf was short, he only had 40 euros in his bank account. All of a sudden, she has money over that weekend.

Go figure. Literally .



Hi, I'm new to the forum and admire your work, first time poster. I'm just trying to work out what it is you're saying. Knox stole Kercher's rent money and bought drugs but also deposited the same money in the bank? I don't quite get it, sorry for being a bit is)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
--- snip ---

Now, let's look at this nonsense. Why would Knox's parents be sending money monthly? Knox had only been there 6 weeks. She had $8k when she arrived. We only have Charlie's word for it that Knox had savings in the U.S., but even if she did, she had been working. Why would she need her parents to be holding her money for her? C'mon.

--- snap ---


Hi cape,

I've read often that Knox spent a lot of her money in the first weeks in Perugia and I've wondered where this information came from? Do we have a source for this information? That would mean she spent half of her money in only 6 weeks. That is crazy.

Charlie Wilkes posted Amanda's transactions to counter attack the rumors she was low on funds and needed money. That was what he intended and it backfired, because he inadvertently revealed that she had made a deposit which nobody can explain (except being Meredith's rent money). It could be the rent money. Given the fact that Charlie Wilkes, a close friend of Chris Mellas, cannot or will not explain the deposit, makes me believe it is the rent money and they know it.

Amanda Knox worked only for a few hours twice a week and she was paid 5 euros an hour. That is extremely low. When I remember my days as a student, we bought packs of 5 slips at the big chain stores, we didn't buy lingerie for more than 80 dollars a piece. She was in celebration mode.

What could she have paid for that would account for spending $4,000 in only six weeks? Maybe the flight, the rent and fees at the university? Or did she have the $8,000 when she landed in Italy?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

capealadin wrote:
Yuppers. knox spent $82.00 on A camisole and pair of panties at the Bubbles Boutique.


Haha... nice sleuthing you guys. Does sound like he knows he made a boo-boo. ih)

I believe I've seen elsewhere that that bloomer purchase was by credit card.

So we have:

No rent money when discussed between girls- 'Patrick hasn't paid me'
We have Patrick and AK not meeting until after the large deposit.
We have 215 E on AK upon arrest.

I don't know the exchange rate between Euros and Dollars at that time, but something is hinky here. It sure does seem that either she was sent the money maybe by wire... or she got a certain amount from somewhere else. Meredith's money sure looks like a candidate at the least.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline HenryWilcox

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:48 am

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

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

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

Offline HenryWilcox

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:48 am

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Emerald wrote:
The girl FOA is presenting is not the same girl who needed underwear, so she goes into a specialty boutique and pays WAY more than a girl on a tight budget would pay. I mean, in US we can get a pkg of 3-4 pairs of cotton panties for less than $10. I'm not believing it cannot be done in Italy, too.


This is what it confusing to me. If Knox had plenty of money, then why would she need to steal cash? Vargas said that store was like a Target in the USA. That must have been a lie then. I didn't know it was a specialty store.

Looks like this was a charge anyway. So she also had credit to work with. She appeared to be financially okay. So we need a motive to steal the money then.

Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Willfully ignoring the Tuesday Rule
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline RetiredFascist

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:30 pm

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

HenryWilcox wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The girl FOA is presenting is not the same girl who needed underwear, so she goes into a specialty boutique and pays WAY more than a girl on a tight budget would pay. I mean, in US we can get a pkg of 3-4 pairs of cotton panties for less than $10. I'm not believing it cannot be done in Italy, too.


This is what it confusing to me. If Knox had plenty of money, then why would she need to steal cash? Vargas said that store was like a Target in the USA. That must have been a lie then. I didn't know it was a specialty store.

Looks like this was a charge anyway. So she also had credit to work with. She appeared to be financially okay. So we need a motive to steal the money then.


Apparently she stole the money to buy drugs from Rudy. But then she put the money she used to buy drugs from Rudy into the bank later.

This just underlines what a great guy Rudy is. He just simply wouldn't take anyone's money. He also kept quiet about his friends Knox and Sollecito until they had been arrested and accused of committing the murder with him. Then he said they did it. But what else could he say? He did it himself?


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Willfully ignoring the Tuesday Rule


Last edited by RetiredFascist on Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Regarding Charlie Wilkes post about Amanda's transactions and the exchange rate, I have been able to locate the posts we've written about it, but it doesn't let me quote them, because the topic is locked.

This is stint's message (Click here to see the original post):

stint7 wrote:
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: XXII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JAN 22 -

Below is original post with Amanda's Bank Records that Cape mentions:

charlie_wilkes wrote on IIP:
________________________
Here are the facts:

Amanda's bank statement shows a number of transactions booked on Monday, Nov. 5, 2007, reflecting transactions from October 31 through the weekend. The entries are denominated in US dollars as it is a US bank statement.

Amanda made a cash withdrawal of $361.54 (250 Euro). She had most or all of this on her person when she was arrested.

She also used her bank card for the Bubble purchases, $62.18. And she made a deposit of $562.00. Her net balance after this activity was $4,465.89.

The bank statement also shows Amanda's spending pattern in the weeks preceding the murder. The pattern is consistent with normal living expenses, not an expensive drug habit. Nobody testified at the trial that Amanda was squandering money on a drug habit, or that she stole from them, or that they were concerned she might steal from them.

It is also worth noting that Amanda did not keep all of her savings in her checking account. Her family was holding approximately $9.000 for her, available any time she needed it. She had no need to steal Meredith's rent money. Guede did.


What was the deposit of $562 to do with, made that very weekend? Was it a paycheck? Did she meet up with Lumumba that same weekend and get paid?


I don't know. I asked Chris M. about this a long time ago and he's not sure.

end wilkes_____________________________

This is from IIP
27mar, at 4:14pm and again at 7:21pm

Pull up this page below and scroll down to times above for documentation

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/ ... -1500.html

BTW
Charlie also mentions Knox did not seem to have "expensive" drug habit

But other evidence shows fast dial for heroin dealer on Knox's cell ??

Also, the $562 deposit is 'spun' by the FOAKers as her wages from Patrick.

Considering what her duties were and the short number of hours she performed them at the bar.....that FOAKer explanation for the 562 is absurd
(like so many of the 'talking points that they just keep vomiting up while arguing in front of their mirrors and insulting opponents who long ago left their cesspool Forum 'idiots' :roll:



Here is my post regarding the exchange rate (Click here to see the original post):

Nell wrote:
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: XXII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JAN 22 -
capealadin wrote:
capealadin wrote:
--- snip ---
Now, it seems that the 562 was a dollar amount. On that date, was 300 euros equivalent to $562.00?
--- snap ---



Hi cape,

On the 1st of November 2007 562 US$ were equivalent to 389,69 €. (According to this currency converter.)


Now we got it all together on this thread and don't have to search for it over and over again.


Last edited by Nell on Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

HenryWilcox wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The girl FOA is presenting is not the same girl who needed underwear, so she goes into a specialty boutique and pays WAY more than a girl on a tight budget would pay. I mean, in US we can get a pkg of 3-4 pairs of cotton panties for less than $10. I'm not believing it cannot be done in Italy, too.


This is what it confusing to me. If Knox had plenty of money, then why would she need to steal cash? Vargas said that store was like a Target in the USA. That must have been a lie then. I didn't know it was a specialty store.

Looks like this was a charge anyway. So she also had credit to work with. She appeared to be financially okay. So we need a motive to steal the money then.


Hi Henry,

The Bubble store is more a boutique like store and not like Target. You can see a photo of its shopfront and other stores in the same street here.

EDIT: You have to chose via Calderini from the drop list (City Streets) and then a list of all shops in that street will be displayed.


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


Last edited by Nell on Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

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

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




Judges = Judges don't mention it because it's not enough to prove outright, in a COURT OF LAW, that Knox took Meredith's cash.

Motive = Is a 'motive' for taking money NEEDED? What was Bernie Madhof's motive? Who says no to free money? And if someone is willing to stab someone in the neck, I doubt they'd think twice about pocketing their cash (note, for the record, murder is a far more serious crime then theft).

Someone took the money. It was stolen. There's no evidence it was taken by Guede, no evidence that it was taken by Raffaele, but there are circumstances that are strongly suggestive that it was taken by Amanda.

By the way, your questions have been asked and answered MANY times before.

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

RetiredFascist wrote:
HenryWilcox wrote:
Emerald wrote:
The girl FOA is presenting is not the same girl who needed underwear, so she goes into a specialty boutique and pays WAY more than a girl on a tight budget would pay. I mean, in US we can get a pkg of 3-4 pairs of cotton panties for less than $10. I'm not believing it cannot be done in Italy, too.


This is what it confusing to me. If Knox had plenty of money, then why would she need to steal cash? Vargas said that store was like a Target in the USA. That must have been a lie then. I didn't know it was a specialty store.

Looks like this was a charge anyway. So she also had credit to work with. She appeared to be financially okay. So we need a motive to steal the money then.


Apparently she stole the money to buy drugs from Rudy. But then she put the money she used to buy drugs from Rudy into the bank later.

This just underlines what a great guy Rudy is. He just simply wouldn't take anyone's money. He also kept quiet about his friends Knox and Sollecito until they had been arrested and accused of committing the murder with him. Then he said they did it. But what else could he say? He did it himself?



Is it Tuesday already? Ergon? Michael?
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 19, 2012 1:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

RetiredFacist wrote:
Apparently she stole the money to buy drugs from Rudy. But then she put the money she used to buy drugs from Rudy into the bank later.


Perhaps, because Rudy did a runner right after the murder? I'm sure, after Meredith lay stabbed to death, drug deals were the last thing anyone was thinking about.

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

The above posted link to Charlie Wilkes original post about Amanda's bank statements (stint's quoted post) doesn't work for me, so here is another one: Charlie Wilkes about Amanda's transactions and purchases.



Image


Last edited by Nell on Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

HenryWilcox wrote:
Vargas said that store was like a Target in the USA. That must have been a lie then. I didn't know it was a specialty store.


That's what you get for listening to a FOAKer spin merchant like Vargas. Get your facts from a real source next time.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell wrote:
Is it Tuesday already? Ergon? Michael?


They've been dealt with. I just wanted to crush their pathetic talking points first.

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
Is it Tuesday already? Ergon? Michael?


They've been dealt with. I just wanted to crush their pathetic talking points first.


Thanks for that ;)

Michael, what do I have to do next time to get the screenshot fit on the page? Should I click on the "inline" button next time? I made the screenshot smaller, but I didn't want to go too small, so that it still would be readable. Now I see that if you click it, it opens up a new window where you can actually see it full size. Does it do that automatically or do I have to do something different next time? Thanks in advance.
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 19, 2012 2:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Upload it to the gallery, then hotlink to the image (copy image url) by pasting the url between 'rimg' tags (instead of just loading it up to your post as an attachment).


Like so:


Code:
[rimg]http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/gallery/image.php?album_id=23&image_id=2466[/rimg]

_________________
"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: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
Is it Tuesday already? Ergon? Michael?


They've been dealt with. I just wanted to crush their pathetic talking points first.


Does anyone remember how Luca Maori, Sollecito's defense lawyer, was taking jabs at the prosecution team during closing arguments and rebuttals back in September 2011, calling prosecution's approach to the case a "hydra monster"? He said something like, "Cut one head off and it grows a new head."

Well, these days, the FOA remind me of the many-headed hydra of Lerna; if you ban one head, two more grow back in its place, with all the new trolls trying to get on board. It really is a bit funny. :)


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: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

In my stumbling around the world via the web, I found these strange predictions (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

NUMEROLOGY FOR AMANDA KNOX

I wonder what Ergon would say to this ...
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Super job, Nell. co-)

The groupies can twist in the wind. The fact is, Knox said Patrick hadn't paid her. She only saw him on the 5th Nov.

And, It gives a motive, I believe. Mez was probably going to report the theft. Rudy heard the argument over money. Mez had called Knox a drugged up whore. The theft of the money was the last straw for Meredith.
Psycopaths don't like rejection, can't handle being caught out. Can't handle not being able to manipulate.

Events, like a terrible storm, led to this. Knox not having to work, going to the cottage to get clothes, set up Rudy for the robbery. Meredith coming home early.

Charlie Wilkes says he has seen, or has copies of the Bank statements. He specifically says Amanda deposited the money.

Yes, he wanted to show Knox had money, and didn't need to steal. Well, we only have his word, or the Knox Family word.( which doesn't mean the truth) that Knox had money in the U.S. She needed the job at Le Chic. She had gone through half her money in 6 weeks. I know that the groupies, ages ago, had stipulated she had $8K, when she arrived in Perugia.

What did she spend the money on? Drugs I should think. Remember, she had the coke dealer in her phone.

Btw, Hellmann, in talking about the phones, says theat Knox and Raf were very good at working phones, so they would have removed the sim card, etc.

EXCEPT, we have Knox saying she didn't know how to delete messages. wtf)

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

I am trying to read some parts of that Hellmann report.
Quote:
On the other hand, the statements made later by Rudy Guede (in the present trial,
however, not usable for the reasons argued) appear to be less credible, in that they were made in a different context from the first disclosures to a friend, when defensive strategies or even a mere desire for social retaliation [rivalsa sociale] could have induced him to represent the facts differently from those which actually took place.

So criminals are not reliable when they are questioned by police because of defensive strategies and social retaliation? Whatever. Hellmann doesn't even mention Rudy's contradictions in the Skype chat, and Rudy pointing out that Raf and Amanda came back to take the clothes of a dead Meredith and wash them, Rudy making up stories about meeting Meredith and getting 'romantic' with her. He just picks out a few elements that he can spin into something positive for RS and AK. It is a difficult read.

If you read the translation of the Skype chat then it is so obvious that Rudy is saying that Amanda and Raf were there with him, but he is still in the process of spinning a story that makes himself look better. He doesn't know his friend is in the police station, but he surely knows there is a lot of talk in Perugia about him and the murder, and that his friend will talk to other people about what Rudy told him.

So lets quote a few parts of that Skype conversation:
Quote:
R. So we went in, and I think it was about eight-thirty, or eight-twenty, they're saying that she told her
friends she was tired and wanted to go home. But in fact no, we were supposed to see each other, we had
made an appointment the evening before during the Halloween party, at the Spanish kids' house, and I can
also say, well I don't know the street but I can say where it was.
G. I understand.
R. If I were in Perugia I could say where that house is, and anyway those kids can confirm that I was at that
party.
G. Okay.
R. And then, we saw each other at Meredith's house and we started talking...we started talking, and I, well,
I tried, I mean I made a pass at her and she was willing [ci stava]. But in the end we didn't do anything
because...she didn't have any condoms and neither did I.
G. Like...in the newspapers it says that...well, you must have done something with

It is not totally clear what he means but it seems he is talking about getting into the cottage with Meredith at 8:20-8:30pm. He refers shortly back to where he met her before, but to me it seems he was already talking about the night of the murder. This already puts a whole different perspective on his 9, 9:20, 9:30pm when he heard the scream.

Quote:
R. I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this shit, but then I
heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was
passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...and then, then, I
got a bit worried and I got out of the bathroom right away, without even putting my pants back on, they
were practically falling down, I was wearing just my underwear and my pants were falling around my...
G. But if I understand, I mean like where was this...I mean, what time do you think this happened, I don't
know...
R. Around nine, nine twenty or so, because in the meantime we had gotten to talking and all.
G. I see.
R. I think nine-twenty, nine-thirty, around then, and then, when I heard the scream, let me tell you she
screamed so loud that you could hear it even in the street, Giacomo, she screamed really loud. When I
came out, it was in semi‐darkness, I came out and I saw him.

Here is a small part about the money.
Quote:
R. Let me get you to understand better, well, it's been said...well, okay, so something that hasn't come out
yet, it hasn't come out that...Amanda hasn't talked about umm...money, Raffaele hasn't talked about the
money. So only I know this, that she told me her money was missing, that was hidden in the drawer where
she kept her underwear.

Why does he so specifically say that neither Amanda or Rafaelle mentioned the money?

Quote:
R. Listen to this [Guede is reading from a newspaper], “Meredith's clothes were put in the washing
machine. When the police came to the house it was still full, the girl's clothes were wet”, so if that really did
happen, Amanda or Raffaele did it. Do you understand? That must have been them, if it really happened.
G. Why would they have done that?
R. Because when I left she was dressed, see?
G. Meredith? The girl who died?
R. But Meredith was dressed.
G. So they killed her dressed?
R. Yes, but it says here that they were washed in the washing machine, but it's not true, she was dressed,
she had a pair of jeans on and a white shirt and a woolen thing. She was dressed.
G. All right, and that...
R. This means that they washed them, Giacomo. I left [the house], and that guy [quello] must have left that
house and…
G. But what the hell did Amanda go wash the clothes for?
R. How the hell do I know?
G. But if she's not involved, sorry - I'm reasoning like you would, if I were...
R. Yes but then, after, though, from what I've read, someone else came, because when I left, the window
wasn't broken, Giacomo, the window of the house, that window out front, it wasn't broken.
G. And you think it's important about the window and the money that wasn't there anymore?
R. Sure, it means someone broke it, and it wasn't me.

As if it is not clear enough yet what is going on. 'Amanda or Rafaelle did it. That must have been them.', 'so they killed her dressed?', 'Yes'.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/documents ... lation.pdf
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks, Michael, for getting rid of the pests. They're pathetic little twits.

Anyone notice, how when points are made, for which they cannot explain away, they come tripping over themselves?

Ding ding ding ding ding ding .

_________________
"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 19, 2012 4:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Max. It is hard reading. I'm going through it slowly. The money , the money. The window wasn't broken. Meredith was dressed. Rudy's not lying here. He says they flirted. What's the point about lying about mez being dressed. What's the point of saying the window wasn't broken. He was inside the house.

There's no question, he was in the toilet. He didn't even flush. he came out because of the scream. We know Mez got home around 9.00pm. So, let's say they chatted for awhile. The scream could very well have been around 9.45pm..I've always thought meredith dies around 10.00 - 10.15.

Btw, in a show, this detective says in many many cases, when a body is covered, it's done by someone who knows the victim well, and it's done out of guilt.

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Cape. I heard the same about a covered body. Remorse, the killer is somebody close to the victim, for sure not a burglar rapist who just took off her clothes and assaulted her and then covered her up again? That makes no sense.

I can imagine why Rudy lies about Meredith being fully dressed. The same reason why he makes up a story about getting 'romantic' with Meredith. He left DNA traces on the bra strap and inside Meredith, so I think he is hiding his involvement in the sexual assault.

His whole Skype story rambles and it is full of lies and contradictions, but the parts where he so clearly mentions Amanda and Rafaelle make it clear that they were involved with him.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Upload it to the gallery, then hotlink to the image (copy image url) by pasting the url between 'rimg' tags (instead of just loading it up to your post as an attachment).


Like so:


Code:
[rimg]http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/gallery/image.php?album_id=23&image_id=2466[/rimg]



Oh thanks Michael. That would have never occurred to me.

After all the discussion about Amanda's deposit, I found it important to have a place to keep the screenshot. When Charlie Wilkes first posted about the deposit, he wrote he had asked Chris Mellas about it and Chris Mellas told him he didn't know where it came from or wasn't sure. Wouldn't he have remembered making monthly payments to her account? How odd. That is exactly what makes me believe it was Meredith's rent money. They are obviously lying.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Yes, and it's struck a nerve with the groupies. After all, it's from one of their own. Oh, wait, I think I know what happened.

Chris gave Charlie a couple of smacks on the back of his head, and it made him just blurt out, what he thought Chris WANTED him to do.

Now, it's the best truth that he can think of. Chris just wanted him to say Manders had enough money in the account.

Chahlie, Chahlie, Chahlie. stup-)

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell wrote:
Oh thanks Michael. That would have never occurred to me.

After all the discussion about Amanda's deposit, I found it important to have a place to keep the screenshot. When Charlie Wilkes first posted about the deposit, he wrote he had asked Chris Mellas about it and Chris Mellas told him he didn't know where it came from or wasn't sure. Wouldn't he have remembered making monthly payments to her account? How odd. That is exactly what makes me believe it was Meredith's rent money. They are obviously lying.


Ch-ah-lie (sp) aka Jim, is still repeating that pathetic BS about "the person who told him" song and dance as recently as a few hours ago.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost8036666


A page right out of one of the most masterful 'Ministers of propaganda in history'.
None other than Joseph Goebbels said about 'BIG lies':
Just keep repeating them often enough, and soon people start to believe them. ta-))

Nice work, Ch-ah-lie (sp) aka Jim
fc-)) tu-))

BTW:
Save us the asinine flattery as you again insult us here, Ch-ah-lie (sp) aka Jim.
"Those of the PG persuasion will believe whatever fantasy suits them. Those of sound mind ......"(snipped as more idiotic babble).........

Neither you, nor most of your feeble fellow FOAKer followers are of 'sound mind'
Suggestion: Live with it !!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost8036666


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


Last edited by stint7 on Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Ok, I am now at TOD in the Hellmann report and here the interpretation of Rudy's Skype call becomes a bit more clearer:

Quote:
In fact Rudy Guede, while confiding to his friend in a moment when he did not know that the police was also listening in, and while talking about a point (the time of the assault) which he had no reason to lie about, given that he stated he was present at the time in the house of via della Pergola 7 albeit denying his responsibility, he indicates a time between 9 PM and 9:30 PM. And this, even considering the approximation of the information and a possible mistake in observing the time by the same Rudy Guede, does not allow [the Court] to hold that the aggression, and then the death, occurred at around 11 PM, since a possible mistake or an approximate reading of the time by Guede cannot entail a discrepancy of almost two hours between the time indicated by Guede and the one assessed by the Court of first instance [which was] based on the scream heard by Capezzali (by Mrs. Capezzali and not by Mrs. Monacchia since as shown above, the witness Monacchia did not provide a precise indication of the time when she woke up disturbed by the noise of two people arguing).

So here he takes into account that Rudy's account of hearing the scream between 9:20-9:30pm wasn't all that accurate (I wouldn't think so if he said he went inside at 8:20-8:30pm), but Rudy being off by 2 hours (comparing it to Massei's 11:30pm) is too much. So this he uses as an indication that TOD is earlier, and he sets it at around 10:15pm.

I still find it peculiar he (somewhat) accepts this part from Rudy's Skype call where it is clear he is making stuff up about his date with Meredith. After police questioning and as stated in his SC appeal Rudy said that he left the house at around 10:30pm. If TOD was at 10:15pm then 10:30pm isn't really '1 or 2 minutes' after the scream as Capezzali indicated but at least now we are getting close. So although Hellmann argues that 'statements made by Rudy at a later stage are less credible because of a different context', here he pretty much accepts Rudy's more accurate 10:30pm and puts TOD at around 10:15pm.

Can anyone still follows this, cuz I can't sh-))
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Dirty Rudy

Quote:
Rudy Guede several times, in fact, had been the protagonist of burglaries in apartments or offices: in a legal office in Perugia when he removed, after breaking in through a French door opening onto a terrace about 3 or 4 metres high, a computer and a cell phone; in a nursery school in Milan, when a kitchen knife 40 cm long, removed from the kitchen of the nursery school, was found in his back‐pack, and yet again inside the home of Mr. Tramontano, when, having been discovered, he had managed to the escape by threatening the former with a pocket knife.

But - it is said - is it possible that Rudy Guede, being known since he had sometimes visited the house, did not experience a psychological scruple in surreptitiously entering it because of such visits? The answer, however, is yes: the personality of Rudy Guede, as it emerges from the testimony of witnesses, does not show any particular respect for others. He not only - as already mentioned - had accrued experience as the perpetrator of thefts in buildings owned by others, even committed with the victims of theft present at home [122] (see Tramontano); not only did he not hesitate to use the knife to threaten the burglary victim who had chased him (Tramentano again, but also he had taken possession of a knife 40 cm long in the Milan nursery school ) but time and again the street, above all when drunk, he had also bothered young women, trying to hug and kiss them, and finally, the very fact that (only apparently unimportant, because in reality very significant of his behaviour) it was his habit to go to the bathroom in others’ houses (whether as a visitor or an intruder, is not important here) to defecate or urinate without flushing afterwards (one evening it happened on the lower floor of the house in via della Pergola, as related by witness Stefano Bonassi: in the nursery school in Milan where he had entered - as asserted by the witness Salvatore Del Prato - the children’s toilet was found dirty, though it was certainly left clean before; and also the night of the murder he had gone to the bathroom in the house in via della Pergola leaving it dirty, so that the Scientific Police were able to find his DNA on the toilet paper) shows a complete lack of respect for others, perhaps even disdain. Which leads one to think that he also did not have any scruple in entering the house in which he had been welcomed as a friend to steal (but he had actually been a guest on the floor below, of the young men absent on the night of November 1, and not on the floor above where the young women lived).

Rudy was caught in the nursery. This is true. There were no signs of breaking in. He could have climbed through an open window, but he should not have been there. Absolutely true. The rest is all made up from gossips and rumors. Rudy did have stolen stuff from the lawyers office. This makes him suspected of that burglary, but there are other ways he could have gotten that stuff. Yet Hellmann accepts it as if it is proven. Tramontano dismissed as unreliable by earlier judges, is believed by Hellmann. Why? Who knows? He just does. Rudy being rude to women and trying to kiss them when he is drunk? I believe this comes from a witness who was dismissed because he tried to sell his story to reporters. Is that even allowed that Hellmann mentions him? So strange.

The best part is where Hellmann tries to implicate that it is likely for Rudy to have broken into a friends house, because.....Rudy makes toilets dirty. Yes he does! One time he didn't flush the toilet at the guys downstairs, and the toilet in the nursery was dirty. Maybe that was him also. And he didn't flush the toilet at the cottage. We don't know exactly why, maybe because there was a murder going on, but dirty it is! So now we know that Rudy is dirty, and from here we can conclude that he has no respect for others. And as we all know, people that have no respect for others are more likely to be burglars into their own friends houses or something..... I give up, and I only just started :(
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

It has been brought to my attention, that Jim Lovering (aka Charlie Wilkes), is flashing about over on the JREF an email that I'm purported to have sent to Peter Quennell on TJMK. I can confirm that this "email" is a complete work of fiction written by Jim Lovering himself (or one of his cultist friends). At no time did I write any such email, send any such email or have anyone else do so on my behalf. I had no knowledge of it before today. At no time have I requested the removal of any of my posts from TJMK (which would be stupid in any case, since they belong to the site on which they are posted), or from anywhere, threatened any form of legal action against Quennell or ever discussed Ergon in any email to anyone, least of all to Peter Quennell. Neither have I shared any private emails with any FOAKers. I haven't even spoken to Quennell via email or any other format for many months. The whole thing is a cynical attempt by Lovering to capitalise on percieved divisions within the pro-Meredith community. It doesn't need me to point out that Lovering is a liar and a fraud (manipulated bath mat footprints anyone?). This is on top of the recent troll storm we've seen. It would appear the cultists are getting desperate and sinking to ever lower lows.

That said, I now consider the whole matter closed as far as I'm concerned.

_________________
"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: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Chin up, Michael. Charlie is not a man. He's a dishonest, lying POS, who's desperate, because he's made a fool of himself.

This is way of hitting back. Hell, anyone can make up fake emails, etc. Take it from whence it comes. Which is the bottom of a cesspool.

_________________
"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 19, 2012 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Max, thanks for your input, re what you've read and posted. I'm out for the day, but would love to discuss your points later. I'm still reading the report, and digesting.

Reading, and grinding my teeth at the same time. The * reasoning * by Hellmann is just hogwash. wtf)

_________________
"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: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks, Michael, it indeed answers my question. I read this after sending you my last PM.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

max wrote:
Thanks Cape. I heard the same about a covered body. Remorse, the killer is somebody close to the victim, for sure not a burglar rapist who just took off her clothes and assaulted her and then covered her up again? That makes no sense.

I can imagine why Rudy lies about Meredith being fully dressed. The same reason why he makes up a story about getting 'romantic' with Meredith. He left DNA traces on the bra strap and inside Meredith, so I think he is hiding his involvement in the sexual assault.

His whole Skype story rambles and it is full of lies and contradictions, but the parts where he so clearly mentions Amanda and Rafaelle make it clear that they were involved with him.


IMO:

It would have been after Meredith was killed (clothes on) and her body was moved that her clothes were removed. This was to point in no uncertain manner that there had been a sexual assault. Just as the broken window and their cleaned footprints/other evidence was to point in no uncertain terms to someone besides a person with a key had allowed entry to the cottage. Meredith was covered by AK/RS during cleanup/staging/moving her body away from the closet. Remember that AK 'knew' that was the area of the stabbing.

I believe he makes up the story of the 'date', but only to disguise how he arrived at the cottage and to distance himself from AK. His skype call (if anything) VERIFIES that AK and RS were there.
I even believe he was in the toilet and surprised/shocked by something. Why else would he leave his crap? Surely he wasn't sleeping I wouldn't think. IIRC somealibi or the machine or someone earlier in the case noted RG saying/testifying/stating??? he was in town at around 8:30 and was supposed to meet up with some 'pals'... presumed to be a male friend/etc.
I don't believe he would have even been at the cottage at 8:30 although he might have been there around the time Meredith returned home for reasons I am not 100 percent sure of.
It could have been partying with AK, or meeting AK/RS with drugs/ or a 'prank' involvement with AK, or AK could have even mentioned him hooking up with Meredith (even tho he had already stated his fancy for AK). This maybe even be where he got the 'date' idea to help cover his sexual assault of Meredith. I believe he got his dna where it was found by using his hand down Meredith's pants and over her breast while she was clothed (As bad as I even hate to type it!!!)
The mention of the terrible scream so clearly makes me think he was either in the bathroom or right there when it happened... the MOTIVE that might have caused the fatal wounding.

Yes, perfectly clear that AK and RS were there. I am starting to believe that the washer being on was another Red Herring by the deadly duo. Like the door kick, the mop, the water spill, the bathmat boogie, the knife prick story, etc... only there/mentioned because it holds no REAL evidence against AK/RS and has innocent sounding possibilities. It is obvious due to the condensation on the washer door/window that the washer has been on since at the very latest if Meredith would have put that wash in it would have been done cycling by around 10pm or so. I don't believe it would still be so condensated at 1:30pm AT THE EARLIEST the next day when the picture we see was taken. I believe AK did it some time after the murder to confuse/deflect from her. I believe it doesn't contain any evidence to show guilt or clothes of AK... but it may have had a bloody towel or two only having Meredith's blood on it (if they had on rubber/plastic gloves on at some point during the cleanup/attack).

The money angle is both interesting from the view of a 'prank' setting up RG as the thief, and as a quick drug-money view... possibly planning to be returned before being noticed. Both scenarios would have RG meeting AK at some point... as well as a meeting to set up a 'date' with Meredith.

What we need to know now if 562$ deposit = 389.69 is what 215E is in dollars (at that time) if that is the amount found on her at arrest.
We know she made a cash withdrawal of 361.54 which would most likely have been for the rent. How much was the rent in dollars and Euros?

I sure wish I/We/someone could find out more about that cocaine dealer's case... he did not take the fast track choice like 1 of the three did. Sure would be interesting what exact amounts he was mostly dealing, what he was dealing exactly, how often with AK or even RS, who his runners were (possibly RG?), and other revealing stuff. It is AMAZING coincidence she called him just before the murder... and is is MEGA-AMAZING she would call him just after the murder before arrested ((WHY???)). It is also amazing that AK met with Patrick after the deposit (so made deposit before paid) and before she was arrested... but he is the one she ACCUSES and says she is scared of when questioned for just 2 hours. Her mind must have been in a panic/cornered whirlwind.


angel-) ih) sp) wa-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
--- snip ---

The money angle is both interesting from the view of a 'prank' setting up RG as the thief, and as a quick drug-money view... possibly planning to be returned before being noticed. Both scenarios would have RG meeting AK at some point... as well as a meeting to set up a 'date' with Meredith.

What we need to know now if 562$ deposit = 389.69 is what 215E is in dollars (at that time) if that is the amount found on her at arrest.
We know she made a cash withdrawal of 361.54 which would most likely have been for the rent. How much was the rent in dollars and Euros?

--- snap ---



Hi dgfred,

According to Massei the rent was 1,200 euros per month. That makes 300 euros for each of the occupants. The historic currency change rate on November 5th, 2007 was 1 euro = 1.4469080924 USD, so the 300 euros rent money translate to approximately $434. These values are approximates only, as it depends on what day exactly she withdrew the money and what the bank charges for the withdrawal. You can look up the historic currency exchange rates here.


Charlie Wilkes wrote that in the time between 31st of October and 5th November 2007 the following transactions were booked in Amanda's account:

- 1 cash withdrawal of $361.54 (approx. 250 euros)

- 1 bank card purchase for the underwear (Bubble store) of $62.18 (approx. 43 euros)

- 1 deposit of $562.00 (approx. 389 euros)

After all this activity Amanda's account balance amounted to $4,465.89.

The historical currency exchange rate for November 5th, 2007 was 1USD = 0.6911289012 euros (according to Charlie Wilkes the day these transactions were booked).


I suspect the 250 euros she withdrew were to pay the rent. That's 50 euros short, so I assume that she either had 50 euros or thought Patrick would pay her - I guess it's the latter, as she told Filomena that Patrick hadn't paid her yet. Anyway, she didn't spend much of the money, if any, because she had all or most of it when she was arrested - always according Charlie Wilkes, naming Chris Mellas as his source.

She bought underwear for around 43 euros and paid with her bank card. That was after the murder and somehow it suggest she either didn't have the money to pay for it in cash or she didn't want to spend the money she had.

She made a deposit of approx. 389 euros, which is a bit more than the rent money. Considering Charlie Wilkes story assuring she had most of her earlier withdrawn money on her when arrested, and with the knowledge that Patrick Lumumba hadn't paid her yet, I can only conclude that it was possibly Meredith's stolen rent money plus extra cash Meredith might have had in her purse or at home, or maybe some of Amanda's money.


I do not buy any of Charlie Wilkes latest claims that the money deposited in her account was wired from her own family.

Image


Charlie Wilkes telling us that Amanda Knox had only 4,465.89 after the deposit shows how low on funds she was. Her monthly rent was more than $430. She would have to pay for rent alone more than $5,000 in a year. Usually parents work out a budget before sending their children overseas. They send the money monthly rather than allowing their children to access large sums of money to help prevent a financial disaster. No matter how I look at it, Amanda's parents lacked any care that normal parents would have taken before sending their children off to a foreign country. I also take Charlie Wilkes claim about the $9,000 reserve with a grain of salt, because I have seen Curt Knox and Edda Mellas in interviews praising their daughter how hard she had worked to be able to afford her trip to Italy and that they had told her they didn't have the financial means to send her for a year without her help. They presented her as a serious and responsible young woman. According to them, she had to afford the trip mostly herself, so I conclude that the $9,000 were thrown in later when people started to wonder how the heck anybody could have that crazy idea to survive from only $4,500 for a year in Italy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

dgfred wrote:
max wrote:
Thanks Cape. I heard the same about a covered body. Remorse, the killer is somebody close to the victim, for sure not a burglar rapist who just took off her clothes and assaulted her and then covered her up again? That makes no sense.

I can imagine why Rudy lies about Meredith being fully dressed. The same reason why he makes up a story about getting 'romantic' with Meredith. He left DNA traces on the bra strap and inside Meredith, so I think he is hiding his involvement in the sexual assault.

His whole Skype story rambles and it is full of lies and contradictions, but the parts where he so clearly mentions Amanda and Rafaelle make it clear that they were involved with him.


IMO:

It would have been after Meredith was killed (clothes on) and her body was moved that her clothes were removed. This was to point in no uncertain manner that there had been a sexual assault. Just as the broken window and their cleaned footprints/other evidence was to point in no uncertain terms to someone besides a person with a key had allowed entry to the cottage. Meredith was covered by AK/RS during cleanup/staging/moving her body away from the closet. Remember that AK 'knew' that was the area of the stabbing.

*Snipped a bit* Thanks Fred. I agree with most of what you said, but I wonder why you think Meredith was dressed? I mean, what is the proof? I think Rudy's DNA and the blood on the bra make it clear what was going on. You are right that the pants don't need to be off necessarily for Rudy to leave his DNA, but the shirt must have been pushed up during the attack because of the blood on the bra. Then there is RS's DNA on the bra as well, which shows Rudy didn't assault Meredith by himself but RS was actively participating in the sexual assault.

I believe the bra was cut during the attack and it possibly came off when they tried to move the body so they tossed it. Why would they take off any clothes to stage a sexual assault? This must have been clear enough with the shirt up and the pants possibly open (or down/off). If they had wanted to point to the sexual assault by removing clothes after the attack then they would not have covered the body IMO. I think there is a small chance they moved the body and took off Meredith's pants looking for something (the earring?), but not for staging a sexual assault which they themselves were involved in. Massei says that clothes were removed during the sexual assault, and Meredith was already bleeding at that point but not fatally struck yet. Anyway JMO and it is getting way too graphic :(
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

max wrote:
--- snip ---

I believe the bra was cut during the attack and it possibly came off when they tried to move the body so they tossed it. Why would they take off any clothes to stage a sexual assault? This must have been clear enough with the shirt up and the pants at least down. If they had wanted to point to the sexual assault by removing clothes after the attack then they would not have covered the body IMO. Massei also says that clothes were removed during the sexual assault, and Meredith was already bleeding at that point but not fatally struck yet.

--- snap ---


Hi Max,

From what I understand, Meredith Kercher's shirt was rolled up during the attack, but she was still wearing her bra normally. The bra wasn't taken off until after she had died. That the bra was taken off after Meredith had died is another proof that the crime scene was staged.

Regarding the staging and the removal of the victim's clothes, I think that Amanda Knox correctly assumed that a sexual assault would lead the police into another direction. She wanted the police to assume a motive and a way the intruder entered the cottage, something that deflected the attention away from her. She thought she had the solution for both by breaking Filomena's window and removing most of Meredith's clothes (everything but the top).

I don't believe the covering of the body has anything to do with the nature of the crime and the sexual assault itself. I am not fully convinced Amanda Knox is capable of feeling any remorse either. Maybe the reason they covered the body was something else than remorse. However, they could be sure that once the duvet was removed, the police would suspect a sexual assault immediately when they saw the body with the clothes removed.

I believe that Amanda thinks of herself as very clever and it must have been a shock for her to realise she was found out so quickly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Thanks Nell. Sorry, I was still editing my post a bit. I thought it could be possible that they later moved the body and removed the pants although Massei apparently didn't consider this proven. I am just not convinced that it was to stage a sexual assault, which IMO was already clear enough to have happened. That is all :)
Top Profile 

Offline ResIpsa


Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:14 pm

Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

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

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

Would that be acceptable?
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

max wrote:
Thanks Nell. Sorry, I was still editing my post a bit. I thought it could be possible that they later moved the body and removed the pants although Massei apparently didn't consider this proven. I am just not convinced that it was to stage a sexual assault, which IMO was already clear enough to have happened. That is all :)


Hi max,

According to Massei, he seemed to think that the pants were removed during the attack and not after. When Massei says "underwear", I believe he refers in this case only to her undies and not to the bra. I am not sure if Massei even mentioned the bra being removed after Meredith had died in his report. Some time ago, I was looking for information myself. Judge Micheli covered the removed bra in more detail. His motivations report was never translated into English, but there is a summary at TJMK.

You can find posts regarding judge Micheli here.

What jude Micheli had to say about the staging can be found here.

I hope that helps.

Regarding your theory, I believe they had no alternative as to cut off the bra clasp once they had touched it. The only thing in the room they knew they had touched was the bra clasp and that's probably the reason they cut it off, they didn't want to leave it behind. The bra was not necessarily another element to indicate a sexual assault. Somehow the clasp got buried under Meredith's body when they moved her and they were unable to locate it. Some members think Amanda's lamp was used to look for a torn earring, but I believe they were looking for the bra clasp and couldn't find it. Maybe they covered Meredith to not contaminate the scene or the body. I am not convinced at all the reason for the duvet was remorse. They never showed any.

But it's all only a theory, we will never know. We know they were there, that's all we know.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

Nell wrote:
I do not buy any of Charlie Wilkes latest claims that the money deposited in her account was wired from her own family.

Image


Charlie Wilkes telling us that Amanda Knox had only 4,465.89 after the deposit shows how low on funds she was. Her monthly rent was more than $430. She would have to pay for rent alone more than $5,000 in a year. Usually parents work out a budget before sending their children overseas. They send the money monthly rather than allowing their children to access large sums of money to help prevent a financial disaster. No matter how I look at it, Amanda's parents lacked any care that normal parents would have taken before sending their children off to a foreign country. I also take Charlie Wilkes claim about the $9,000 reserve with a grain of salt, because I have seen Curt Knox and Edda Mellas in interviews praising their daughter how hard she had worked to be able to afford her trip to Italy and that they had told her they didn't have the financial means to send her for a year without her help. They presented her as a serious and responsible young woman. According to them, she had to afford the trip mostly herself, so I conclude that the $9,000 were thrown in later when people started to wonder how the heck anybody could have that crazy idea to survive from only $4,500 for a year in Italy.


Nell
1) Excellent documentation and analysis of just what a 'whopper' Ch-ah-lie, (aka Jim Loverling) is trying to sell people about the money.
He apparently forgets or is too dumb to understand the old saying about when you find yourself in a hole...stop digging.

2) The fact that one of his own fanatical FOAKer butt buddies, grindsonmynerves, tells him in so many words that Ch-Ah-Lie's BIG LIE is even too much for even him to swallow, apparently does not get thru to Ch-Ah-Lie/Jim either

And this is the guy who founded FOA telling this whopper; not brucie ???

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

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

And you are arrogant/dumb enough to put your name on it as you attempt to sell this story to other than atta boy only intelligence lacking level FOAKers....and the rest of cyberworld ???
Really, now, Ch-Ah-Lie/Jim ???


3) Where DO they find such men ??

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

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -   

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

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

Would that be acceptable?


Maybe I was only one not aware of your banning.

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

I am only a grateful member, not Admin, or Mod
BUT, AFAIK, this Board is not on permanently moderated status so your posts need not be pre-approved.
(as is status of 'elsewhere')
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 23 of 24 [ 5798 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

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

  

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


28,914,434 Views