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


Last visit was: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:59 am
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:59 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 - MAY 28, 12

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 1 of 12 [ 2981 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:02 am   Post subject: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 - MAY 28, 12   

XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 - MAY 28, 2012






This is the main discussion thread regarding the achievement of truth and justice for Meredith Kercher and her family. Meredith, barely 21 years old, was brutally murdered in her own home on the 1st November 2007 whilst studying in Perugia, Italy.

To read the previous main discussion thread, please view XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22, 11 - FEB 20, 12

Michael (Administrator/Moderator of Perugia Murder File)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Another indelible memory is Edda talking about imploring Amanda to leave Italy immediately after the crimes. Even during the trial and incarceration, Edda didn't comprehend the severity of what had happened.

Had Amanda left Italy, Raff would have still been arrested and tried. Amanda, I assume, would've been tried in absentia.

While they were incarcerated, Amanda was making goo-goo eyes at Raff everytime they came to court. Didn't she also send him notes, cards, letters and gifts?
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Emerald wrote:
Another indelible memory is Edda talking about imploring Amanda to leave Italy immediately after the crimes. Even during the trial and incarceration, Edda didn't comprehend the severity of what had happened.

Had Amanda left Italy, Raff would have still been arrested and tried. Amanda, I assume, would've been tried in absentia.

While they were incarcerated, Amanda was making goo-goo eyes at Raff everytime they came to court. Didn't she also send him notes, cards, letters and gifts?


Yep, but it was Raffaele who sent her flowers to her birthday behind bars. They exchanged letters and they shared chocolate in the courtroom.

I believe Edda Mellas going on about "this wouldn't have happened if she would have come back to the US right after the murder" was also used to play down the whole issue of being accused of murder in a foreign country ("foreign" translates here to "inferior" in their eyes). She implied that this whole thing would have been a non-issue if Amanda would have been "safe" in her home country, as if nothing happened. Her endlessly repeated comment proves how ignorant and arrogant she is.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I just so happen to plow through the break-in part in the Hellmann report. I thought Massei was very good on that part so I was wondering how Hellmann could have dismissed it. It wasn't easy but he does manage to make a whole series of bizar claims to reject the staged break-in claim.

It is rather long so I won't quote the whole thing, but some parts. First of all he is rude towards Maresca.
Quote:
And the lawyer for the civil parties Maresca has spoken of “splendid parallelism” between the crimes of theft and criminal slander [calunnia] because according to him - both were carried out as part of an overall plan, intended to mislead the investigators about the perpetrators of the crime.
The parallel, however, does not really seem so "splendid": when you consider that Patrick Lumumba, indicated in the "spontaneous statements" of Amanda Knox as the perpetrator of the murder, had no suitability for playing the role assigned to him in theory, as the perpetrator of attempted theft, considering his lack of precedents of this type and his total inexperience of entering through windows which were positioned furthermore at a certain height, would not have permitted suspicions to have taken root about him for entering through the window and much less with the intent to steal.
So what is he saying? If Amanda wasn't coerced then she would have accused a burglar and not Patrick?

- He then continues that in fact Rudy could have simulated the burglary since he wouldn't be suspected of breaking into his own friends house. Then later he goes on how dirty Rudy is and unrespectful as proof that he would break into a friends house. Weird logic.

- He mentions the glass on top of things could have been distributed by the burglar after breaking in. He doesn't explain exactly how this could have happened but he keeps saying that there is also glass below clothes on the floor.

- He mentions the guy that was photographed reaching the window. He says this was easy and he left no traces. I don't recall there being any investigation that that guy didn't leave any traces, shoe prints or whatever. Nor did that guy ever climb in and I never seen and pictures of him getting up on the small window.

- He mentions today's burglars can even manage greater heights then the 3 and a half meters in this case. And there was a nail in the wall that the burglar could use to climb up.

- He mentions Pasquale. The rock throwing expert. Somehow he comes to the conclusion that the dynamics and force of the throw doesn't require any glass to fall outwards. I don't remember this was a conclusion from the experiment but maybe I forgot?

Quote:
It must also be remembered that the videotape, made by the Scientific Police at the on-the-spot inspection, highlights the presence of a shard of class near an imprint of a foot in Meredith's room. This leads logically to the conclusion that the breaking of the window took place before the entry into Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, there being no reason to hypothesize that after the alleged theft simulation, set in place to divert suspicions for the responsibility of the already committed crime, the perpetrator of the same would have had a reason to go back into Meredith Kercher’s bedroom, thus leaving behind a fragment of glass which had remained stuck to the sole of the shoe or clothes worn.
- More Hellmann logic. How can he possibly know that there is no reason for the simulator to return to Meredith's room?

Quote:
The Court of the Assizes of First Instance considered that this could be explained by the consideration that, after the simulation of theft and breakage of the window, whoever had carried that out had taken him or herself into Meredithʹs room to close the door and/or to cover the lifeless body with the quilt. Such an explanation does not seem very likely, considering that after the alleged simulation of the theft, the perpetrator of the same needed to leave the house as soon as possible, even the sight of the broken window pane from the outside possibly inciting cause for alarm in whoever might just turn up unexpectedly in the vicinity the house; in theory, if it had been a matter of a simulation, this would have been put in place after placing the quilt on the body and closing the door of the room and not before.
- The one who broke the glass would have needed to leave the house immediately because somebody might notice the broken window or show up unexpectedly. In the middle of the night?

- He then goes on about the record of Rudy and him being dirty. He mentions a few other points (RS saying 'nothing was stolen' was just a spontaneous response) and then concludes that there is nothing that shows it was a simulated burglary.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
--- snip ---

- He mentions the guy that was photographed reaching the window. He says this was easy and he left no traces. I don't recall there being any investigation that that guy didn't leave any traces, shoe prints or whatever. Nor did that guy ever climb in and I never seen and pictures of him getting up on the small window.

--- snap ---

Of course he didn't leave any trace, because he never made it through the window! They guy never had the chance to cut himself with the shards of glass and the broken glass in the window frame.


max wrote:
--- snip ---

- He then goes on about the record of Rudy and him being dirty. He mentions a few other points (RS saying 'nothing was stolen' was just a spontaneous response) and then concludes that there is nothing that shows it was a simulated burglary.

--- snap ---

Dirty? Spontaneous response?

The Hellmann report must be much worse than I anticipated.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And it just goes on and on :(
Quote:
considering that after the alleged simulation of the theft, the perpetrator of the same needed to leave the house as soon as possible, even the sight of the broken window pane from the outside possibly inciting cause for alarm in whoever might just turn up unexpectedly in the vicinity the house;
Why does he not use the same logic to say that a burglar would not have chosen that window? Why does a simulator need to leave the house immediately, but he has no problem with a burglar staying in the house? Makes no sense.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Re the book deal.

Two blog entries from Christopher Fowler and Adam Lowe, two writers who have a critical opinion about publishing books about crimes written by the alleged perpetrator:

An open letter to the publisher by Christopher Fowler

I am going to quote my favourite part:

Quote:
Anyway, hats off to you for working with Ms Knox’s powerful representatives to create such a unique sales product. I’m looking forward to a book that tells a gripping partial story from a murder case’s key suspect. After all, it’s not as if 21 year-old Meredith Kercher can write one back, is it, having been stabbed so many times and had her throat slit?

Your domestic sales should be good, as I hear Ms Knox is viewed in her own country an innocent victim of a messy Italian judicial system. Unfortunately, over here it is generally assumed that she got away with murder, so you may have to do radio spots as well as posters.

Meanwhile my offer still stands. If we agree the details up-front I can start making immediate arrangements to be involved in a tragic but oddly gripping crime. I’ll visit Ann Summers and B&Q for everything I’ll need today if you like.

The main thing is not to doubt yourselves. Don’t think for a minute that this will make you appear to the rest of the world as a prime example of the moral disease gripping corporate culture.




Amanda Knox makes a killing with HarperCollins' help by Adam Lowe

Quote:
I know she was acquitted. The US press are vehement of Knox's innocence. [... ] But this is still making a killing off the death of a young woman. Isn't that abhorrent in itself, whether she's to blame or not?

Perhaps corporate publishers didn't learn enough from the debacle of OJ's vulgar book, If I Did It? Is this really the way mainstream publishing is heading?



I also like the way Adam Lowe reacts to comments from Knox supporters:

zooks wrote:
Feb 20, 2012 12:37 PM

1. She is NOT alledged to be involved in the murder. She was acquitted. She is innocent.

2. The prosecution appeals because they are stubborn, corrupt, face saving sobs.

3. She is not making money on the death of someone. The book is about her own experience being wrongfully imprisoned.



Adam Lowe wrote:
Feb 20, 2012 12:51 PM

zooks, she is alleged by some to be involved in the murder. Also, a not guilty verdict is not the same as innocence. I have reworded this, however, to clarify.

Regardless, though, you're missing the point: this article is about publishers offering money for gruesome, salacious books that cash in on real human tragedy. If you can't see what's wrong about that, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on what is, after all, a blog about books and publishing.

Seriously, chill out.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
And it just goes on and on :(
Quote:
considering that after the alleged simulation of the theft, the perpetrator of the same needed to leave the house as soon as possible, even the sight of the broken window pane from the outside possibly inciting cause for alarm in whoever might just turn up unexpectedly in the vicinity the house;
Why does he not use the same logic to say that a burglar would not have chosen that window? Why does a simulator need to leave the house immediately, but he has no problem with a burglar staying in the house? Makes no sense.


"The perpetrator needed to leave the house as soon as possible"? ... But there was time for a rape? Huh?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:47 am   Post subject: Re: Stomach contents   

Reply to geebee2 from previous, locked thread:

geebee2 wrote:


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.

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


Hi, geebee2, sorry it took so long to reply, things happen. You're welcome to post here since a) you respect the Tuesday rule and b) are polite. I think you're deserving of the same courtesy. There are no restrictions on honest discussion here, but a reminder to everyone, please stay on topic regarding PMF and the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I've read your analysis (and trust your name is Kermit, or you're a Muppets fan, otherwise some might think that's a slag at the Kermit of .org)

This is the generally accepted consensus on the much more thorough article on "Digestion" at Wikipedia:

Phases of gastric secretion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion# ... on_process
 "Cephalic phase - This phase occurs before food enters the stomach and involves preparation of the body for eating and digestion. Sight and thought stimulate the cerebral cortex. Taste and smell stimulus is sent to the hypothalamus and medulla oblongata. After this it is routed through the vagus nerve and release of acetylcholine. Gastric secretion at this phase rises to 40% of maximum rate. Acidity in the stomach is not buffered by food at this point and thus acts to inhibit parietal (secretes acid) and G cell(secretes gastrin) activity via D cell secretion of somatostatin.
Gastric phase - This phase takes 3 to 4 hours. It is stimulated by distension of the stomach, presence of food in stomach and decrease in pH. Distention activates long and myenteric reflexes. This activates the release of acetylcholine, which stimulates the release of more gastric juices. As protein enters the stomach, it binds to hydrogen ions, which raises the pH of the stomach. Inhibition of gastrin and gastric acid secretion is lifted. This triggers G cells to release gastrin, which in turn stimulates parietal cells to secrete gastric acid. Gastric acid is about 0.5% hydrochloric acid (HCl), which lowers the pH to the desired pH of 1-3. Acid release is also triggered by acetylcholine andhistamine.
 Intestinal phase - This phase has 2 parts, the excitatory and the inhibitory. Partially digested food fills the duodenum. This triggers intestinal gastrin to be released. Enterogastric reflex inhibits vagal nuclei, activating sympathetic fibers causing the pyloric sphincter to tighten to prevent more food from entering, and inhibits local reflexes."

So in other words, it takes 3-4 hours for food to start to pass from the stomach into the duodenum. This time varies according to amount of food already in the stomach and state of digestion. Since she was a healthy young female we can assume that all other things being equal, and her meal having been started around 6-6:30 pm the attack on her (which would halt the digestive process) would have taken place between 9-10:30 pm. This is confirmed by the almost undigested mushroom found in her stomach. She had it when she got home, so that says she was attacked no later than an hour after consuming the mushroom.

I did read your analysis, several times, and followed the links too. I disagree with your central argument:

"A strange mistake in Massei?
On page 115 [109] of Massei, it says "Dr. Lalli also took into consideration the state of digestion. He stated that solids are ingested into the stomach and are not able to reach the pyloric sphincter until they are reduced to a semi-fluid or fluid consistency; the emptying of the stomach then begins to occur when some of the contents have become sufficiently fluid to reach the pylorus, which happens the third or fourth hour after eating. This is when one can find food material at the level of the duodenum (page 63 of the Lalli report)."

All sources agree that for normal digestion, the stomach is half empty by 2.5 to 3 hours and completely empty at 4-5 hours. Food passes out of the stomach in a strictly controlled manner at an approximately constant rate. Thus emptying must begin much earlier. See the references below, in particular reference [2].

Thus this passage from Massei is completely wrong.
"

'All sources' is an exaggeration. The consensus amongst the forensic commmunity is actually, as I have stated many times, that there are too many variables to accurately use stomach contents to establish TOD. That the different methods used to measure the passage of stomach contents produce wild variations in times,
and, the studies quoted are based on very small samples of the general population, in part due to the dangers of radioactive markers used to measure the passage of food.

Massei got it right, as I already explained to you.

Then, following through to your reference, Gastrointestinal Transit: How Long Does It Take?
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pa ... ansit.html

It starts by saying "First, there is considerable normal variability among healthy people and animals in transit times through different sections of the gatrointestinal tract. Second, the time required for material to move through the digestive tube is significantly affected by the composition of the meal. Finally, transit time is influenced by such factors as psychological stress and even gender and reproductive status.

Several techniques have been used to measure transit times in humans and animals. Not surprisingly, differing estimates have been reported depending on the technique used and the population of subjects being evaluated.
"

The author, R. Bowen, then averages the different studies to come up with the following graph: 50% of stomach contents emptied = 2.5 to 3 hours.

Therefore, if there was no emptying of the stomach in Meredith's case, then as was wittingly put by Fiona on JREF, "Meredith was murdered by her English friends" (in Robyn's flat, my addition)

The author's conclusion: "The discussion above should help to explain why it is difficult to state with any precision how long ingesta remains in the stomach, small intestine and large intestine"

I note also that you are relying on the Camilleri study here: Camilleri M, Colemont LJ, Phillips SF, etc. Human gastric emptying and colonic filling of solids characterized by a new method. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 257:284, 1989. which was carried out on the grand total of one individual! I also feel you have misread the graph shown there in coming up with your 60-80 moments after meal is finished figure. It says, quite clearly, that stomach emptying begins around 80 minutes after ingestion but starts to enter the colon around 200 minutes. Nowhere does it say at what point in time it enters the duodenum, but here you are seriously entering into Meredith was murdered elsewhere territory.

The last word on this, thanks to Macchiavelli, is "The measurement is an issue. The G.I.S.M.A.D (Gruppo Italiano per lo studio della motilità dell’apparato digerente) defines schintigraphy (radiograpfic analysis) as “inaccurate”.

I hope this answers your question.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Reply to Nell, from locked thread:

Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:


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

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


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


Hi Ergon,

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

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


Thanks for your post, Nell. I understand what you must have felt. I disagree about the releasing Peggy's PM's and the 'they should be deleted' part.

As I said before when I released them, there are principles and there are higher principles. Mine are about loyalty to my friends, to not allow lies to go unchallenged, and, speak up against an injustice. I would not allow those principles to be compromised by some notion of 'confidentiality', when this appears to be the m.o. of those who use such PM's and e-mails to attack people behind their back and hide their own unconscionable actions. Some might be comfortable with such a compromise, I couldn't.

I confess that I used to wonder why Michael couldn't move on and let this all behind him. I still think he needs to give an explanation of why he took the actions he did, that alarmed Clander, but then, Clander has not satisfactorily answered my question whether he sabotaged the site by removing several key files, and why.

All I did was, after having been a member in good standing at.org for several months longer than at .net, was announce I was accepting the position of moderator at .net, and invite people to come over for a look; I could care less about the split anyway. This was to announce my accepting the position, and, if people had a problem with that, they could say so openly, and I would no longer post at .org.

Instead of which I got a PM asking me to take down my post. I refused, of course, which led to further PM's that were both condescending towards me and derogatory of Michael. And, worst of all, Peggy tried the emotional blackmail ploy of saying the Kerchers were 'shocked and disappointed by Michael's actions'.

Then Fly By Night showed up here with his flash bangs about Michael 'putting you up to it' which I denied but he repeated again. When I responded here, and to be fair to Michael since that is what he was saying there, on .org, I was summarily banned without notice. Now even then, I would have kept those PM's inviolate, but in short order thereafter, capealadin, amber2670, and resIpsa were also banned. That is why I released the PM's when I did, to remind people to not say things privately what they did not have the moral courage to say publicly

I regret I had to do that; I do not regret having done that. I saw this was something that had eaten away at Michael all this time, and I brought it out. This is the only way to be able to move forward.

For those who wonder what this does to the cause of Meredith Kercher, I repeat what I said: those looking at this will see there are two sites that passionately believe in her cause, and even if we disagree with each other, we are united in that cause.

And we here at .net will not be the ones to ban people, for such honest disagreement. Nor will I say anything in private I am not prepared to say publicly, and accept the consequences.

I will reply to the other part of your post after this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Ergon. One part that is usually skipped in the TOD theories based on gastric emptying is the delaying factors.
http://healthdrip.com/estimation-of-pos ... -interval/
Quote:
A head injury, physical or mental shock or stress, may completely inhibit the secretion of gastric juice, the motility of the stomach and the opening of the pylorus, and undigested food may be seen after more than 24 hours. Any illness or emotional stress, may prolong the emptying time for many hours.

Delay by many hours! So even if I accept gastric emptying was delayed then death is not the only explanation, and in fact I find 'emotional stress' a far better explanation considering the conclusions from dr. Lalli, the eating of the mushroom (possible drinking of a glass of wine) after arriving home, phone activity, Rudy's statements, witness reports, etc....
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
--- snip ---

I regret I had to do that; I do not regret having done that.

--- snap ---

I don't blame you.


Ergon wrote:
--- snip ---

For those who wonder what this does to the cause of Meredith Kercher, I repeat what I said: those looking at this will see there are two sites that passionately believe in her cause, and even if we disagree with each other, we are united in that cause.

--- snap ---

I couldn't agree more.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thank You, Nell. I must admit, I loved the description as well, but it's not mine. I read it somewhere else, and also laughed.

Max, hellmann's reasoning ( yeah, I'm being SUPER generous, is so transparent in his hand waving, ridiculous assumptions, that it must put to rest that the man has any experience in murder trials.

Rudy dirty? What would he call Knox then, who also didn't flush the toilet, stank to high heaven, didn't do housework? And, didn't mind shagging a stranger in a toilet on the train? Doubtful that she washed her hands, when the grateful middle aged lothario took her for a thank you dinner.

How many excuses has Hellmann comeup with? The glass on top of Filomena's clothes was from the robber rummaging? Must have been mining for gold. I mean, the robber has already ransacked through a WOMAN'S clothing, and now goes through them again. What, the robber was a tranny?

If it was so easy to scale that window, and enter, you may be sure the defense would have filmed that.

It's actually INSULTING to read Hellmann, and think anyone with a brain would accept his *reasoning *.

Hellmann is a very bad joke.

_________________
"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 21, 2012 4:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Oh, and Nell, in your very helpful photo, notice the monkey has his left foot caught in the grating. :) AND, the minute 1 or two inch ledge on top of the grating doesn't even have room for a toe grip. So, the robber, breaking into this cottage, ready for a huge windfall, is going to risk his neck , for what? Not only is the choice of the cottage a stupid choice, but, with 4 PEOPLE living there, a good chance of getting caught.

And, the robber, with all that rummaging, left not a trace of himself. Oh, hang on though. KNOX's DNA is in there. How does Hellmann explain that LITTLE detail, I wonder?

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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
--- snip ---
Thank You, Nell. I must admit, I loved the description as well, but it's not mine. I read it somewhere else, and also laughed.
--- snap ---

I am glad you posted it, I am still laughing. Such a fitting description.



capealadin wrote:
--- snip ---
If it was so easy to scale that window, and enter, you may be sure the defense would have filmed that.
--- snap ---

Absolutely. We also shouldn't forget that Rudy was supposed to either scale the wall with the huge rock in his hand or throw the rock through the window, striking the glass with the first attempt. I don't think anybody can do it. The rock must have weighted a few kilos. Who could throw that through a window. It wasn't a tennis ball.



capealadin wrote:
--- snip ---
It's actually INSULTING to read Hellmann, and think anyone with a brain would accept his *reasoning *.
--- snap ---

Yes. I agree. It's ridiculous and insulting.



capealadin wrote:
Oh, and Nell, in your very helpful photo, notice the monkey has his left foot caught in the grating. :) AND, the minute 1 or two inch ledge on top of the grating doesn't even have room for a toe grip. So, the robber, breaking into this cottage, ready for a huge windfall, is going to risk his neck , for what? Not only is the choice of the cottage a stupid choice, but, with 4 PEOPLE living there, a good chance of getting caught.

And, the robber, with all that rummaging, left not a trace of himself. Oh, hang on though. KNOX's DNA is in there. How does Hellmann explain that LITTLE detail, I wonder?

I don't believe it is impossible to gain access to the cottage through that window, but I believe it is impossible to do it without leaving any trace behind, given the fact the broken glass would be everywhere. That's why the police (from Raffaele's phone call) assumed the burglar must have cut himself by entering through the broken window.

Amanda's DNA in Filomena's room wouldn't be so suggestive if it wasn't because of the fact that her DNA was found in the same spot where Meredith's cleaned blood was found. That is what's incriminating. The same is true for the bathroom. No trace of Rudy Guede, only mixed traces of Meredith and Amanda.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:32 am   Post subject: Peter Quennell   

Hi Nell, as you say what Peter Quennell said about Michael on .org was shocking. I will let Michael respond to all the personal stuff which we were able to obtain from there. Here is the background, and the reason I am responding here is because I am the one being attacked in our sister site, but am not afforded the right of reply there.

From the PMF split thread:

Fast Pete » Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:10 am

Quote:
I emailed Naseer Ahmed (Ergon) four times today to emphasize that he needed to not post anonymous slurs of named people any more, or post any private messages. I told him he was flat wrong on how PMF began. The one reply I got back had him defensive and rattled. I know a great deal about him because when he arrived at TJMK from Huff Post he was emailing me 2-3 times a day. I quite liked him and his medicine and mumbo-jumbo and until today did not push him out. But he is one who wants to be on the inside and if he feels he isnt 1000% he turns nasty and acts unhinged.


"by Fast Pete » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:32 am

Hi Clander. Like so many others I felt encouraged to join the effort for Meredith because I liked and trusted Skep AND KNEW WHO SHE WAS. She was the community builder and magnetic personality and broker of truth and the absolute cause of the community and she was publicly named and right there in the furnace in Seattle.

Without her we would not only have no PMF; we would have no TJMK as well.
Quote:
We could trust her with our IP addresses and email addresses and personal messages and posts.


All of the main Seattle participants now are publicly named and so are many of the others. We put up or shut up and lay our professional reputations and families on the line and if people fell compelled to sue us they can. All are brave and have integrity and can be publicly checked out.

We ACCEPT the heat. Media trust us as a result and PMF and TJMK have had far more influence on the media than otherwise they might. Reporters reach out and talk because we are named. Many of us have been interviewed by print media and TV. Book writers reach out.

Those in Perugia advancing the case and Meredith's circle feel comfortable with who we are. The BBC website has interviewed me 3-4 times (they asked if I could use my real name) and I helped get Mignini looking good in an interview. I have had dozens of emailed tips because I am named which would not have come in if I was not. Skep the same.

It is absolutely key to what you describe that in very sharp contrast NO-ONE knew who "Michael" was
Quote:
(snip.-very private stuff about Michael)


Skep clearly thought she was appointing a helpful techie to assist when the board moved beyond Haloscan and she needed someone in a very different timezone from her own. So his real ID was maybe not a big deal. She was NOT ever handing this anonymous critter the keys, even part-time, on behalf of all of us. That he had some mysterious non-starter of a website waiting in the wings was the farthest thing from any of our minds.

Now "Michael" is one of only TWO who runs a "major" site if you can call it that on the case on either side who is too terrified to say who he is, and the other one is the oddball "Frank Szfarzo".

"Bruce Fisher" tried to smear from an alias but he was outed by us (he probably still wonders how.) Others like Peter Hyatt on our side and Doug Bremner and Steve Moore on their side are commendably named.

That unusual anonymity for a board leader allowed "Michael" to be highly aggressive on both PMF and many other sites with no fear for his own back at all. He was asked 20 times to tone it down on other sites because we named people AND THE KERCHER CIRCLE were taking the resultant heat.

He never did. He is still at it even now.

Quote:
Snip-to delete very personal stuff about Michael-


THAT is the anonymous guy who thought the community would follow him and he would be totally trusted to respect our IP addresses and email addresses and personal messages and posts? Someone who at a blow could destroy the legitimacy of the entire movement for Meredith if his ID was blown?

Gimme a break. It amazes me that
Quote:
fine posters like Ergon and Nicki who more or less are named could blindly follow someone so adamantly anonymous
who could perhaps cause them great harm and yet they would not even know him on the street.Fast Pete

Re: The PMF Split
by SomeAlibi » Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:44 am

Quote:
Here, here Stint. I don't really know what that post achieves Pete.
Those of you who have used your personal identities to lead this campaign (two of you in yourself and Skep) have taken the brunt of untold attacks and no-one is under any doubt at what that contribution has meant in terms of your own personal stress and expense. At the same time, the vast, vast majority of posters including stalwarts such as Kermit, the Machine and many others cannot, for one reason or another, de-cloak in public. This does not diminish their input which is analytical. Your use of your public identity should and does gain you many plaudits but you are in a tiny, tiny minority (the ones on the other side are getting paid / "making reputations" for themselves) and
Quote:
imvho you should not use it as a self-declared status of superiority over Michael.
Others should say that of you - I don't think it's something you should be wielding yourself fwiw.

It is very unfortunate that Michael has had these issues in relation to "ownership" which is a non-subject in my mind as the content is the authors of the posts.
Quote:
However, it is not helpful to go and do an ad hominem and allude to "dark secrets" where you are actually appearing to give sliding credence to "horrific suggestions" which you know are utter conjecture without basis because if FOA knew who Michael was, they would have "outed" him. What does that achieve? Nothing.

What Michael did contribute and probably still contributes is some first class analysis of the case and it is a great shame we are all without it because of these personality-related issues. I don't read the other board because unfortunately, I did conclude that Michael's characterisation of the split of the old PMF was not an accurate or truthful (for whatever reason including self-belief) representation of what actually happened. The loss of that analysis, integrated with the rest properly, which is what I also value hugely from many others of the vast majority of non-public posters, is a loss.What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.
SomeAlibi


Re: The PMF Split
by Fast Pete » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:31 pm

Hi SomeAlibi. I agree with Stint that you are a GREAT lawyer and I always miss you when you are not regularly posting. You did several of the most brilliant posts on TJMK and we ran your series of videos.

You do see here that I am only talking here about the narrow administrative management of the boards being publicly identifiable and not anyone else? Even having only 1 or 2 named has a pervasive effect across almost all posters. I too use a screen name on many other sites (Fast Pete on this board) and I write such that I dont (I hope) upset the apple-cart for the owners.

You and the Machine and so many others who post on PMF and TJMK have always posted such that named people like Skep and I dont feel any additional heat beyond what we originally signed up for. I think you and especially the Machine might confirm that I urge posters to say it like it is and maybe at times make it even more-so. :-)

Quote:
I agree on Michael's great talent to write insightfully with angles that others of us dont see. Again and again I have urged him to put his energy in that direction, most recently yesterday in reponse to an email he sent me. I would LIKE to see Michael and the best of his team including Nicki and Ergon back posting on TJMK.

PeteFast Pete"


All of this has been posted in a public forum. I will let Michael respond when he likes, but it is important I be allowed to defend myself too.

Yes, Pete did send me some e-mails. They were blustering and threatening to me, they were derogatory to Michael, and there were falsehoods I will correct here. My reply to him was angry, not rattled. I will not reveal our exchange out of respect to Michael's wishes expressed earlier, but have his permission to respond to the substance of them and to public attacks which I see Pete has now backed down from when chastised by some alibi (stint 7 gets honorable mention also, and others expressed regret about the split)

He said I should delete my post about 'the seattle mafia' stalking the Knoxes. I had already apologized and retracted my statement when corrected by Michael, and he should have known that.

He said I'd accused them of pedophilia, and I challenged him where I'd said that. The rest was a threat to reveal my identity since he thought it wrong for an anonymous person to say such things. Funny how this is the theme that he keeps hammering over and over again, about him and Peggy being public figures (with a lot of self-aggrandizement thrown in-media trusts us, we are interviewed etc.) yet backs down when somelaibi says many of us have reasons to not reveal our identities. IMO this one of the clubs he brought in when he barged into the group, and I believe, instrumental in causing the eventual split.

For the record, I am not anonymous, as Pete well knows and acknowledges further down. I have referred many times to my personal website where my name and location is publicised, and the FOA and several neo-con organizations have already published my details all over.

Ergon is my pen name from Huffington Post, where I had been for several years prior, and where Peter saw my comments in the Amanda Knox threads and invited me over (and I referred all my readers to TJMK and .org) Like many, I was not aware of .net or the reasons for the split.

I wrote many e-mails to him before, but that was when he was soliciting content from me. I warned him he'd get a lot of flak, and he said that was fine, then, when he did get flak, he hid my astrology article and deleted some of my comments. Yet he's the one who said my articles (crossposted from my site) were 'great'. Then they're mumbo-jumbo, then he'd like Nicki and Ergon 'the best of Michael's team, to write for him? Pfft. I need to be inside the circle of the anointed? Pfft again.

I note that for all his trusting .org not to reveal IP addresses, clander did exactly that, in the same thread?

I leave it for people to decide who's 'nasty and unhinged'.

I agree with somealibi, that it's sad about the split, and that both groups lost something, but the loss of Michael's analysis is especially missed. Especially as it was he that built this community, though I for one do not denigrate Peggy's contribution either. They are both co-founders in my eyes. I wish the personal stuff had been left out, on both sides.

But there are two PMF's, and while the split is sad, I would like for there to be fence mending, without pre-condition.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Ergon.

I noticed too that the admin log screenshot was published to the whole world unaltered. Where I come from, it is not allowed to publish others peoples ip's. It's private information.

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Skeptical Bystander didn't offer her identity voluntarily. She was outed by Knox groupies and subsequently harassed and threatened. An example to follow?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Amanda is very fluent in Italian, including the legal jargon out of necessity. She is also very well versed on her actual participation in the crime. Must be tough and weighing very heavy keeping her story straight even insulating herself with "yes" people.

I also remember how nobody was particularly interested in the homecoming presser at the airport. It was packed with media, but no 'fans'. All polls in the Seattle area Amanda would be frequenting indicated majority were inclined to believe she was guilty. No doubt Amanda has faced some naysayers.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Emerald wrote:
Amanda is very fluent in Italian, including the legal jargon out of necessity. She is also very well versed on her actual participation in the crime. Must be tough and weighing very heavy keeping her story straight even insulating herself with "yes" people.

I also remember how nobody was particularly interested in the homecoming presser at the airport. It was packed with media, but no 'fans'. All polls in the Seattle area Amanda would be frequenting indicated majority were inclined to believe she was guilty. No doubt Amanda has faced some naysayers.


I wonder what sort of a life Casey Anthony lives right now? People believe her acquittal was a miscarriage of justice. That people believe that Knox is probably guilty, despite the heavy, one-sided media portrayal of the Italian justice system, is due in full to the fine work of the volunteers of both PMF's and TJMK.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Thanks Ergon.

I noticed too that the admin log screenshot was published to the whole world unaltered. Where I come from, it is not allowed to publish others peoples ip's. It's private information.

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Skeptical Bystander didn't offer her identity voluntarily. She was outed by Knox groupies and subsequently harassed and threatened. An example to follow?


Not an example to follow, and I cringed every time some misguided person did the same on this side. I said this once, that it would not be nice to become like the FOAK'ers.

But in the end, we can only become responsible for ourselves.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Thanks Ergon. One part that is usually skipped in the TOD theories based on gastric emptying is the delaying factors.
http://healthdrip.com/estimation-of-pos ... -interval/
Quote:
A head injury, physical or mental shock or stress, may completely inhibit the secretion of gastric juice, the motility of the stomach and the opening of the pylorus, and undigested food may be seen after more than 24 hours. Any illness or emotional stress, may prolong the emptying time for many hours.

Delay by many hours! So even if I accept gastric emptying was delayed then death is not the only explanation, and in fact I find 'emotional stress' a far better explanation considering the conclusions from dr. Lalli, the eating of the mushroom (possible drinking of a glass of wine) after arriving home, phone activity, Rudy's statements, witness reports, etc....


Hi, max,

Thanks, you are correct to mention the delaying factors.

The emotional stress might conceivably include the physical attack, which happened within the 3-4 hr time period after finishing the meal.

The variables, such as whether she had an empty stomach prior, alcohol consumption, and stress, of course, all show why forensics specialists agree that stomach contents can be wildly inaccurate in determining TOD.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Thanks Ergon.

I noticed too that the admin log screenshot was published to the whole world unaltered. Where I come from, it is not allowed to publish others peoples ip's. It's private information.

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Skeptical Bystander didn't offer her identity voluntarily. She was outed by Knox groupies and subsequently harassed and threatened. An example to follow?


It was exactly the same with Peter Quennell. Neither of them came forward voluntarily with their identities, both were exposed by the FOA, or in Peter's case, some other means....I can't quite remember the exact circumstances by which he was exposed, but it was something he did that was his own fault, but it was an ACCIDENT. In Peggy's case, back in the day when Frank Sfarzo was still neutral (at least, outwardly so), Peggy did some editing for him on his blog and also wrote an article on it. Frank, instead of using her alias, credited her real name on there. Peggy wrote to him multiple times asking him to remove it, but he fobbed her off and never did. The FOAKers eventually then latched onto this. What I didn't know at the time, was that Peggy also had her own personal blog...you know, the sort many have where you post your personal views on things, amusing anecdotes, photos of themsleves and their pets, things like that. They used that name to track it down and voila, they had Peggy's identity, pictures of her and the like. They then busied themselves with posting them all over the Web.

Before having their identities exposed, both were anonymous and happy to remain so (so Pete DID NOT KNOW "exactly who Peggy was", since our identities were also anonymous from each other!). I was anonymous too and also wished to be. The only difference with me, was that I didn't mess up with an 'accident' and I didn't have a personal blog with all my info on. You see, as some of you may recall, I used to work as a Moderator on a very well known website that aside from helping as volunteers to help fix people's computers, we also took on the big malware vendors. As such, having seen all the horror stories I knew exactly the various means of how people get tracked, exploited, exposed, hacked, infected, stalked, blackmailed and anything else nasty you can think of on the Internet, as well as having made enemies of the rich and powerful malware vendors. I knew how to remain 'dark' on the Internet and wished to as I know what terrible things can happen to you if you don't. And really, one doesn't need to look much further then this case to see examples. Just look at Amanda Knox's, Raffaele Sollecito's and Rudy Guede's social networking site content and personal emails spread over the Web for people to parse and criticise and even be used against them in a murder enquiry. It may not have been a murder enquiry, it could just as easily been used by an employer deciding whether to give them a job or a promotion, or a stalker, or a divorce lawyer seeking dirt on them in a divorce/custody battle, or someone deciding whether to invest in their company...the list goes on.

After Peter Quennell was exposed, he began suggesting that I too come forward with my real name. I told him I wasn't up for that. I became a Moderator with Peggy, BEFORE TJMK existed and PMF was in the public eye (PMF was just an empty site then, we were on the TCWMB) and I took on that job under the proviso that I retain my anonymity. Peggy was always fine with that and anyway, she wanted to remain anonymous too, as did nearly all of our posters. And after all, Peggy and I were simply posters like the others, the only difference was we had stepped up out of the poster ranks to volunteer to Moderate the site, as Steve Huff insisted that at least one of us put a name forward as Moderator for the new board he had created for us. He wanted it Moderated and he didn't want to waste his time doing it each day himself. Peggy was the first to answer his call, so she got the job by default. I then told her I'd be happy to help her, as I had some experience Moderating and she said 'great'. But then, our community was not in the public eye. We were on a backwater on the Internet just discussing the case and the general surfing public had no idea about us. In the meantime, the Melloxes' PR/propaganda campaign was becoming a force and they were spreading all sorts of misinformation about the case, very publicly. Having been following the case closely, daily, we knew what was BS and were becoming evermore irritated by all the lies being put out. Peter Quennell, who hadn't been with us very long by that point I might add, suggested combating this by creating a blog that would would have a high public profile. Whe the split happened (the first split), Peggy and I decided to give our blessing to the project and at the same time, decided that PMF would also be higher profile, as we felt Meredith was being done an injustice by the Melloxes and their PR men. However, all three of us had no idea where it would all lead and intended to remain anonymous.

Pete's encouragement of me to 'come out' later turned to actual pressure and then bullying. I guess, since he was exposed, misery wanted company. It was always Pete, Peggy had no problem with my remaining anonymous, or at least...she respected it. Why should I expose myself, just because Peter Quennell had been accidentally outed? And he was never able to give me a good reason why I should. In the case of PMF, Peggy had been outed and after that, she was happy to go on record with the media when required, so in that respect, PMF was alread represented in the media. It didn't need me to do the same. The problem with Pete is, he never stops to THINK and consider others. It's alright for Pete, he's over retirement age, has his own company and so no boss, actual or future, is pretty rich and could retire for the rest of his life now in comfort if he wanted and any children have all grown up and left home long ago. He doesn't ever have to answer to anybody. So, it's all alright for HIM. I on the other hand, am still young and have decades ahead of me where I have to try and make my way in the world.

I'll tell you a sad little story. If you look at Rudy's German diary, you'll see one of the translators listed is 'Traduco'. Traduco used to be a poster back in the day on Haloscan. He was what you'd call a really sweet guy. Everyone really liked him a lot, he was just really nice, really kind, never had a bad word to say to or about anyone (even Amanda Knox and co.), and was always considerate of those around him, meek even. When it came to the time we had to move from Haloscan to the TCWMB and Traduco was told he'd have to register on the board, he went into a PANIC. Even though he didn't have to register with his real name, for some reason, he became terrified that his identity may be exposed and he was worried for his career. We simply couldn't convince him that his identity was safe and it was extremely sad when we had to wave goodbye to him on Haloscan when we moved. Anonymity is really IMPORTANT to some people and it MUST be respected. NOBODY should be bullied to reveal their identity, you'll cause a lot of pain and lose good people that way. Peter Quennell could never seem to understand this, his way is and has always been, that of a bloody great bull in a china shop.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Which makes it so funny, Michael, the received threat to 'expose' me publicly when I'd already 'exposed' myself.

That he chose .org to carry out that attack instead of his own site TJMK is something the membership of .org can address.

Or not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon quoting Peter Quennell wrote:
She was NOT ever handing this anonymous critter the keys, even part-time, on behalf of all of us. That he had some mysterious non-starter of a website waiting in the wings was the farthest thing from any of our minds.


Peggy never HAD the keys, she was a Moderator, Moderating the TCWMB on behalf of Steve Huff, who WAS the owner! HE had the keys...that's part of the reason Peggy and I decided we would move to my empty PMF forum, so that we could be joint owners and Admins, not under Steve Huff, and as such have the power to build a proper home for the community how it needed to be built. And as for this "non-starter of a website", perhaps someone could remind Pete that it is PMF, the site he claims to support (but one I might add, he never lifted a finger to help build, just interfered in from the sidelines trying to dictate to Peggy and I how to run the place, who to ban etc). Peter Quennell wasn't even a member on the TCWMB when I became a Moderator, he arrived months later. It didn't stop him going behind my back to Peggy though, even telling her I'd been bad mouthing her behind her back, which I HADN'T, trying to cause a split between us (and almost did) and trying to get me removed as a Moderator! (If any of you were wondering earlier about the row I had with Pete on the TCWMB I mentioned and why I wanted to kick his arse, now you know).


Peter Quennell wrote:
That unusual anonymity for a board leader allowed "Michael" to be highly aggressive on both PMF and many other sites with no fear for his own back at all. He was asked 20 times to tone it down on other sites because we named people AND THE KERCHER CIRCLE were taking the resultant heat.


What's this crap? I was asked "20 times" by WHO?

For the record, Peter Quennell was instrumental in the board split. After I had temporarily shut the board and the main parties of us began talking via email, Pete arrived in the email discussion, bringing his 20 - 30 members he had cc'd into his email circle with him (those who've ever been in Pete's email circle will know exactly what I mean), whether they wanted to be involved or not, with the full intention of putting me on trial in a kangeroo court with a pre-determined lynching at the end of it. He brought along every axe he had to grind with me. Intead of it being a conversation about the shutting of the board and how to resolve the problem, Pete hijacked it to attack me about 'whatever' (the old chestnut of my anonymity was one of those axes). I was lying on the floor and his sole intention was to give me a good kicking.

One of the things he hit me with, the first time I'd ever heard of it, was (to paraphrase) "you were asked repeatedly to stop posting on IIP, yet kept doing so!"

My response, again to paraphrase, was as follows:

1) First of all, who the hell are you to tell me where I can or cannot post???

2) Second of all, NOBODY has ever told me to stop posting on IIP (or anywhere else, or to "tone it down").

3) Thirdly, the reasons nobody has ever told me to stop posting on IIP is because a) see 1) above, and b) I have NEVER in my life posted on IIP, I haven't even read the place! (and that remains true to this day, except I may have read a page or two by now).

It seems now, Quennell has expanded that from IIP to "other sites" and changed it from "stop posting" to "tone it down", in classic historical revisionist style.

But as you can see, for some strange reason, Peter Quennell seemed to think he was my boss and behaved like it. I think some people, by now, are getting a little glimpse of why Pete and I 'have never really gotten along'. And for the record, the relationship between him and Peggy is just the same, pretty much. Of course, none of this stopped him the last time we spoke in email some months ago, asking me to write a piece for TJMK, and even now leaving a fishing hook in his recent posts for me to write a piece for him, even as he tries his best to smear me on .org in front of the whole World!

FFS!!!

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


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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
max wrote:
Thanks Ergon. One part that is usually skipped in the TOD theories based on gastric emptying is the delaying factors.
http://healthdrip.com/estimation-of-pos ... -interval/
Quote:
A head injury, physical or mental shock or stress, may completely inhibit the secretion of gastric juice, the motility of the stomach and the opening of the pylorus, and undigested food may be seen after more than 24 hours. Any illness or emotional stress, may prolong the emptying time for many hours.

Delay by many hours! So even if I accept gastric emptying was delayed then death is not the only explanation, and in fact I find 'emotional stress' a far better explanation considering the conclusions from dr. Lalli, the eating of the mushroom (possible drinking of a glass of wine) after arriving home, phone activity, Rudy's statements, witness reports, etc....

Hi, max,

Thanks, you are correct to mention the delaying factors.

The emotional stress might conceivably include the physical attack, which happened within the 3-4 hr time period after finishing the meal.

The variables, such as whether she had an empty stomach prior, alcohol consumption, and stress, of course, all show why forensics specialists agree that stomach contents can be wildly inaccurate in determining TOD.

Yup, sleep is also a delaying factor although I don't think she was sleeping. Even before the attack who knows what happened. Rudy said she was already very upset about missing money. Not that I exactly believe him, but there could well have been a fight about money that stressed out Meredith. Or a fight between Rudy and Meredith (but with AK present). After all, she never did call her mother back. I just don't think she ever was alone that night, and was stressed from the moment she returned due to the ob(K)noxious presence of others. JMO.
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 21, 2012 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Which makes it so funny, Michael, the received threat to 'expose' me publicly when I'd already 'exposed' myself.

That he chose .org to carry out that attack instead of his own site TJMK is something the membership of .org can address.

Or not.



And the fact the Mods there allow his posts to stand, also says a lot! Especially as Peggy's been on the receiving end of the same sort of crap from him I have and he used to try and play us off of each other. In the months before the split, he was telling Peggy to stand down as PMF Admin. He even tried to find an ally in me, but I wasn't having any of it! So, one can conclude, he wanted rid of both of us. So, for all of his sanctimonious preaching about always standing by Peggy and believing she was the one true person for the job of running PMF, it's all so much utter bullshit! He actually stood in PEGGY's OWN HOUSE and told her to stand down as PMF Admin!!!

_________________
"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 BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I was in the "True Crime" section of a local book store here in L.A. and I eyed Vincent Bugliosi's "Outrage" adjacent to Nina Burleigh's "Gift of Fatal Beauty." I purchased and read Mr. Bugliosi's book on the events and trial surrounding the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I recommend the book as demonstrating a method of examining a court trial once the "who dunnit?" question has been resolved.
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi BMF1950, I haven't read either book but I like the sound of the OJ Simpson one. What is it about Bugliosi's book that makes the writing good? I recently reread Beyond Belief on the Moors Murders which is pretty heavy going but the detail and research is amazing. I've been meaning to read the John Follian book about this case but I haven't got around to it as yet. Tbh, between PMF (in its many many guises over the past few years), a couple of trusted news sources and the grapevine, I'm not sure what a book about the case can do for my knowledge other than put the events in the right order.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Bravo, Michael, for standing up for yourself. Yay-)

I only have this to say. I have read what Fast Pete ( what does that mean, btw? Does it mean fast and loose ?) has posted.

He has demeaned HIMSELF, imo. He , HIMSELF, has chosen to show what kind of a person he is. Now, people have to sit up, and REALLY look at what kind of a person would do this. Sometimes, we're in a comfort zone. We let little things slide. Perhaps, we don't even like some of our fellow posters. However, we're together for the same reason.

THEN, someone upsets the apple cart. And, ugly things rise to the surface. Yes, heads can be buried in the sand.

I hope for one thing. I understand people not wanting to express their dismay, their HORROR, really, at the spite and vitriol, that has spilt over from .ORG......yeah, I'm calling it for what IT IS. And, I understand that.

HOWEVER, I hope people will let it sink in. Understand what and who they're dealing with. Because, it just reeks of jealousy, and some wanting POWER. It really feels as if Justice for Meredith has not been their main impetus.

I felt really sorry for Peter Quenell, when the stories surfaced about him and the ballet dancer, and all the rest of it. I was disgusted that his private business was flashed around for all the World to see. It was wrong.

And NOW? Everything that I thought was great about PQ has flown out the window. Because of what HE has done. I didn't change my opinion because of what others wrote. Who knew what their agenda was?

PQ is the author of his own disgraceful posts. NOT WELL DONE, FAST PETE.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I just couldn't take the BS anymore, Cape.

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


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Raffaele Sollecito Co-Author: ‘Grotesque Miscarriage of Justice’ in Amanda Knox Trial

By Jason Boog on February 21, 2012 11:37 AM

After news broke that Amanda Knox landed a book deal for “close to $4 million,” we caught up with journalist Andrew Gumbel–the co-writer working on a memoir with Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s Italian boyfriend.

Attachment:
Andrew Gumbel.jpg


Our interview with Gumbel (pictured) follows below. Follow this link to visit a site created by Sollecito’s family during the murder trial.


MEDIABISTRO


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
I just couldn't take the BS anymore, Cape.


ABSOLUTELY. One can be dignified to a FAULT. Everyone has a breaking point. Some are driven to it. As you have been.

But, one can only be slimed up to a point.

Do you know, Michael, I have only posted on the internet about this case. I don't count facebook. It was because I just couldn't let the lies go uncontested.

I really don't enjoy confrontation, I don't like fights. However, I like even less not speaking up, when I feel something is just wrong. Yes, I could play it safe, keep quiet. But I care about Justice in all of it's forms.

That doesn't mean I think less of people who don't speak. We have the right to be true to ourselves. Everyone has their own way of dealing with things. I respect that.

And, you may be sure, I have in my life, sometimes gone : OY. What have I got myself into.?

But, the alternative for me is not in my nature.

And, I will never regret my decision to follow you here, Michael. Yes, the Road is rocky, at times. At the end of the day, my motives have been good, and all I ever wanted, was to be one of the voices for a beautiful young lady, who could no longer speak.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Cape wrote:
And, I will never regret my decision to follow you here, Michael. Yes, the Road is rocky, at times. At the end of the day, my motives have been good, and all I ever wanted, was to be one of the voices for a beautiful young lady, who could no longer speak.


:)

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


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Drawn That Way

Lidija Haas
20 February 2012

Four months after Amanda Knox was acquitted of murdering Meredith Kercher, HarperCollins has paid her several million dollars for her memoirs. We will soon be able, we’re told, to hear ‘her side of the story’ – except that her side, an account of the ‘nightmarish ordeal that placed her at the centre of a media storm’, to be told with the help of a ‘collaborator’, already sounds a little familiar.

Meanwhile, Knox’s ex-boyfriend and co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito, has acquired his own ghostwriter, who is apparently promising to deliver ‘a love story, a harrowing description of an innocent young man in prison, a full-blooded Italian family drama, and a legal thriller’. National stereotypes have thrived in the coverage of the case: we’ve heard several times about Knox’s marathon interrogation by police who’d been ‘trained to break the mafia’. The Knox book doesn’t sound quite so juicy – her publishers anticipate something ‘very thoughtful, reflective and serious’ – but then it doesn’t need to. Amanda Knox comes late to her own story: the overwriting has been more than taken care of by the international media.


Read more: LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ta G, for the link. You ARE good, finding out all these articles, I must say. :)

Hmm, so everyone will be told about Papa's and Vanessa's machinations to change the course of Justice? For which, they must still stand Trial?

A love story? Credibility shot down right there. 6 days. Okaaaaayyyy. huh-)

_________________
"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: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

This is getting weirder and weirder.
I feel that in this whole discussion (and I sort of read it only after it took place) some kind of weird trial has been set up (even in our rabbit hole) with Michael as the accused and everybody else 'chiming in', i.e. judging him.
What is it with this constant talk about "Michael's issue"?
From what I understand there was at least one other person or more involved in/responsible for the issue as well.
And the emotional blackmail (again!) is just distasteful. Hopefully "the Kercher circle" will never read it.


Last edited by Ava on Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:24 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: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I'll read Rudy's book. It would be the one closest to the truth of what happened that night. Imo.

_________________
"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 21, 2012 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Max, sorry it tokk me some time to reply to your excellent deductions so far. I'm going to go back and read again what you've posted. But, I just wanted to say, in the meantime. I put the time of death close to 10.00-10.15 or thereabouts.

Because, IIRC, Rudy left the cottage around 10.30? The altercation between Meredith and Knox must have been around 9.15 - 9.30 pm.

I really don't know if TOD, vis a vis the stomach contents,the breakdown of such, can be determined with much accuracy. It seems to me, there are too many variables.

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

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
Hi BMF1950, I haven't read either book but I like the sound of the OJ Simpson one. What is it about Bugliosi's book that makes the writing good? .
I find it interesting you refer to it at the "OJ Simpson" one. If you note, I referred to Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and not to "OJ" or "The Juice." In fact, Mr. Bugliosi makes an express point of using "Simpson" rather than "OJ."

I am a retired lawyer who spent many an hour looking over transcripts and evidence during the course of appellate work. I found myself becoming a student of the process. Mr. Bugliosi starts with his belief that Mr. Simpson was the only person who could have murdered Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldam. His book is more about what "was in the air" surrounding the case and the process of the trial. That is what makes the book interesting to me.


Last edited by BMF1950 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

guermantes wrote:
Drawn That Way

Lidija Haas
20 February 2012

Four months after Amanda Knox was acquitted of murdering Meredith Kercher, HarperCollins has paid her several million dollars for her memoirs. We will soon be able, we’re told, to hear ‘her side of the story’ – except that her side, an account of the ‘nightmarish ordeal that placed her at the centre of a media storm’, to be told with the help of a ‘collaborator’, already sounds a little familiar.

Meanwhile, Knox’s ex-boyfriend and co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito, has acquired his own ghostwriter, who is apparently promising to deliver ‘a love story, a harrowing description of an innocent young man in prison, a full-blooded Italian family drama, and a legal thriller’. National stereotypes have thrived in the coverage of the case: we’ve heard several times about Knox’s marathon interrogation by police who’d been ‘trained to break the mafia’. The Knox book doesn’t sound quite so juicy – her publishers anticipate something ‘very thoughtful, reflective and serious’ – but then it doesn’t need to. Amanda Knox comes late to her own story: the overwriting has been more than taken care of by the international media.


Read more: LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS


Thanks for posting this article, Guermantes!
And doesn't that sound familiar:

"The ongoing media creation of Amanda Knox, which has obscured the memory of Meredith Kercher, seems likely to end with a story that few will disapprove of, and few will want to read."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Andrew Gumbel

Profile


"Andrew Gumbel is a Los Angeles-based journalist and writer and a longtime foreign correspondent for British newspapers. After covering the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the wars in Yugoslavia and rise of Silvio Berlusconi -- mostly for The Independent of London -- he came to the United States in 1998 and has written extensively about politics, the criminal justice system and pop culture. He is the author of Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America (Nation Books, 2005).

Huffington Post

"Andrew Gumbel is a foreign correspondent, mostly for the Guardian and the Independent. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Atlantic, Mother Jones and Vanity Fair. Andrew is also the author of Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America (Nation Books, 2005).

THE GUARDIAN

Andrew Gumbel in the News!!


UCLA


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
daisysteiner wrote:
Hi BMF1950, I haven't read either book but I like the sound of the OJ Simpson one. What is it about Bugliosi's book that makes the writing good? .
I find it interesting you refer to it at the "OJ Simpson" one. If you note, I referred to Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and not to "OJ" or "The Juice." In fact, Mr. Bugliosi makes an express point of using "Simpson" rather than "OJ."

I am a retired lawyer who spent many an hour looking over transcripts and evidence during the course of appellate work. I found myself becoming a student of the process. Mr. Bugliosi starts with his belief that Mr. Simpson was the only person who could have murdered Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldam. His book is more about what "was in the air" surrounding the case and the process of the trial. That is what makes the book interesting to me.


With all due respect, BMF, ultimately the book IS about O.J. As was the trial. Whether it's O.J. or Simpson, the person's the same. So much about the case, everyone became familiar with the initials O.J. and he was referred by those intials by just about everyone.

_________________
"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 21, 2012 8:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

G, I THOUGHT Andrew Gumbel looked familiar. I must have seen him around. Perhaps on TV.

A funny little snippet. Years ago, I was in San Vicente Food market. I was in the check out aisle and I saw a friend, and waved to him. He waved back, and I said : How are you. He said great, How are you? We smiled goodbye to each other.

Only after I was in the car, did I realize it was John Ritter, and I *knew* him from Television :) ( Later, Our kids were in the same class at school, and his wife Nancy and I became friendly. Of course, I mentioned to John about that day, and he laughed and said: I must have thought you were Julie Christie. p-))

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
G, I THOUGHT Andrew Gumbel looked familiar. I must have seen him around. Perhaps on TV.

A funny little snippet. Years ago, I was in San Vicente Food market. I was in the check out aisle and I saw a friend, and waved to him. He waved back, and I said : How are you. He said great, How are you? We smiled goodbye to each other.

Only after I was in the car, did I realize it was John Ritter, and I *knew* him from Television :) ( Later, Our kids were in the same class at school, and his wife Nancy and I became friendly. Of course, I mentioned to John about that day, and he laughed and said: I must have thought you were Julie Christie. p-))


:)
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I also was on the Parent's committee. It was Open House, in the evening. I was helping prepare cut up fruit outside, in the quadrangle. Things were a bit frantic, and a voice next to me said: What can I do to help?

I ordered: Cut up the pineapple, and PLEASE make it look attractive. ( I'm usually much more polite, but..well......)

After a couple of minutes, I turned to say thanks, and looked directly at MERYL STREEP. Now, that shouldn't have made a bit of difference, but I was a HUGE fan. I just said: Thanks. Very nice, and trotted off. :oops:

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi BMF1950, and welcome to PMF! :)

_________________
"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 21, 2012 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I think I'll comment on Hellmann later. I'm a little lost for words at the moment.

My God, what warped logic...no wonder he's usually tucked away safely judging corporate cases! And he's managed to become a High Court Judge? That convinces me that Italian judges aren't promoted on the basis of merit, but on a system based on who's been in the job the longest. The sooner they pension him off, the better!

_________________
"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 21, 2012 9:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yes, Michael, you should. After all, that's the only compliment that's come your way lately. :)

i.e. You have brilliant insights. co-)

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

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
With all due respect, BMF, ultimately the book IS about O.J. As was the trial. Whether it's O.J. or Simpson, the person's the same. So much about the case, everyone became familiar with the initials O.J. and he was referred by those intials by just about everyone.
"OJ" is the football player; "Simpson" is the double murderer.

For many years I have been intrigued about how trials get named in the popular press -- in regards to Bugliosi's career, "Charles Manson" was the defendant in the "Tate/LaBianca" case. I've never liked "Charlie."

If one mentions "Rodney King," the names "Stacey Koon" or "Kenneth Brisenio" do not come to mind.

For the "Perugia Murder File" should it be the "Kercher Trial" or the "Knox/Solectito Trial"??
Top Profile 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: Stomach contents   

Ergon wrote:
Reply to geebee2 from previous, locked thread:

geebee2 wrote:


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.

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


Hi, geebee2, sorry it took so long to reply, things happen. You're welcome to post here since a) you respect the Tuesday rule and b) are polite. I think you're deserving of the same courtesy. There are no restrictions on honest discussion here, but a reminder to everyone, please stay on topic regarding PMF and the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Thank you for replying - yes, it's my policy to be very polite, and restrict disagreements to the interpretation of evidence.

Ergon wrote:
I've read your analysis (and trust your name is Kermit, or you're a Muppets fan, otherwise some might think that's a slag at the Kermit of .org)

The Wiki was started as a response to Kermit's powerpoint, which I was referred to when I first posted here some weeks ago. The home page of the Wiki is http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/ ( "My personal reaction to Kermit's powerpoint" ) hence the name. The page on stomach contents is part of my evaluation of the likely time of attack and alibi at http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/T ... +and+Alibi

Ergon wrote:
This is the generally accepted consensus on the much more thorough article on "Digestion" at Wikipedia:

Phases of gastric secretion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion# ... on_process
 "Cephalic phase - This phase occurs before food enters the stomach and involves preparation of the body for eating and digestion. Sight and thought stimulate the cerebral cortex. Taste and smell stimulus is sent to the hypothalamus and medulla oblongata. After this it is routed through the vagus nerve and release of acetylcholine. Gastric secretion at this phase rises to 40% of maximum rate. Acidity in the stomach is not buffered by food at this point and thus acts to inhibit parietal (secretes acid) and G cell(secretes gastrin) activity via D cell secretion of somatostatin.
Gastric phase - This phase takes 3 to 4 hours. It is stimulated by distension of the stomach, presence of food in stomach and decrease in pH. Distention activates long and myenteric reflexes. This activates the release of acetylcholine, which stimulates the release of more gastric juices. As protein enters the stomach, it binds to hydrogen ions, which raises the pH of the stomach. Inhibition of gastrin and gastric acid secretion is lifted. This triggers G cells to release gastrin, which in turn stimulates parietal cells to secrete gastric acid. Gastric acid is about 0.5% hydrochloric acid (HCl), which lowers the pH to the desired pH of 1-3. Acid release is also triggered by acetylcholine andhistamine.
 Intestinal phase - This phase has 2 parts, the excitatory and the inhibitory. Partially digested food fills the duodenum. This triggers intestinal gastrin to be released. Enterogastric reflex inhibits vagal nuclei, activating sympathetic fibers causing the pyloric sphincter to tighten to prevent more food from entering, and inhibits local reflexes."

So in other words, it takes 3-4 hours for food to start to pass from the stomach into the duodenum.

No, this is the typical time for the stomach to completely empty into the duodenum. The emptying starts much earlier, and proceeds slowly. You can see many references which quote 2.5 - 3 hours as the time by which the stomach is 50% empty, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_gast ... ansit_time

Ergon wrote:
This time varies according to amount of food already in the stomach and state of digestion. Since she was a healthy young female we can assume that all other things being equal, and her meal having been started around 6-6:30 pm the attack on her (which would halt the digestive process) would have taken place between 9-10:30 pm. This is confirmed by the almost undigested mushroom found in her stomach. She had it when she got home, so that says she was attacked no later than an hour after consuming the mushroom.

I did read your analysis, several times, and followed the links too. I disagree with your central argument:

"A strange mistake in Massei?
On page 115 [109] of Massei, it says "Dr. Lalli also took into consideration the state of digestion. He stated that solids are ingested into the stomach and are not able to reach the pyloric sphincter until they are reduced to a semi-fluid or fluid consistency; the emptying of the stomach then begins to occur when some of the contents have become sufficiently fluid to reach the pylorus, which happens the third or fourth hour after eating. This is when one can find food material at the level of the duodenum (page 63 of the Lalli report)."

All sources agree that for normal digestion, the stomach is half empty by 2.5 to 3 hours and completely empty at 4-5 hours. Food passes out of the stomach in a strictly controlled manner at an approximately constant rate. Thus emptying must begin much earlier. See the references below, in particular reference [2].

Thus this passage from Massei is completely wrong.
"

'All sources' is an exaggeration. The consensus amongst the forensic commmunity is actually, as I have stated many times, that there are too many variables to accurately use stomach contents to establish TOD. That the different methods used to measure the passage of stomach contents produce wild variations in times,
and, the studies quoted are based on very small samples of the general population, in part due to the dangers of radioactive markers used to measure the passage of food.


There is variation, but the variation is not very large, even when Gastroparesis occurs ( partial paralysis of the stomach ). See http://care.diabetesjournals.org/conten ... 3116.short

Ergon wrote:
Massei got it right, as I already explained to you.

See above - no he didn't!

Ergon wrote:
Then, following through to your reference, Gastrointestinal Transit: How Long Does It Take?
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pa ... ansit.html

It starts by saying "First, there is considerable normal variability among healthy people and animals in transit times through different sections of the gatrointestinal tract. Second, the time required for material to move through the digestive tube is significantly affected by the composition of the meal. Finally, transit time is influenced by such factors as psychological stress and even gender and reproductive status.

Several techniques have been used to measure transit times in humans and animals. Not surprisingly, differing estimates have been reported depending on the technique used and the population of subjects being evaluated.
"

The author, R. Bowen, then averages the different studies to come up with the following graph: 50% of stomach contents emptied = 2.5 to 3 hours.

Therefore, if there was no emptying of the stomach in Meredith's case, then as was wittingly put by Fiona on JREF, "Meredith was murdered by her English friends" (in Robyn's flat, my addition)

No, because the apple crumble was consumed about 80 minutes before Meredith got home, which by my reckoning is around the upper limit of the time when stomach emptying would start for a solid meal.

Ergon wrote:
The author's conclusion: "The discussion above should help to explain why it is difficult to state with any precision how long ingesta remains in the stomach, small intestine and large intestine"


It's correct that it is not precise, but 60-80 minutes is when the stomach should start to empty. It's much more probable (based on this) that Meredith was attacked around 9:05pm than say at 9:55pm.

Ergon wrote:
I note also that you are relying on the Camilleri study here: Camilleri M, Colemont LJ, Phillips SF, etc. Human gastric emptying and colonic filling of solids characterized by a new method. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 257:284, 1989. which was carried out on the grand total of one individual! I also feel you have misread the graph shown there in coming up with your 60-80 moments after meal is finished figure. It says, quite clearly, that stomach emptying begins around 80 minutes after ingestion but starts to enter the colon around 200 minutes. Nowhere does it say at what point in time it enters the duodenum, but here you are seriously entering into Meredith was murdered elsewhere territory.


The duodenum is immediately after the stomach!! Food passes from the stomach through the pyloric sphincter into the duodenum.

Ergon wrote:
The last word on this, thanks to Macchiavelli, is "The measurement is an issue. The G.I.S.M.A.D (Gruppo Italiano per lo studio della motilità dell’apparato digerente) defines schintigraphy (radiograpfic analysis) as “inaccurate”.

I hope this answers your question.

It's important to understand that I'm not claiming a later time of attack (say 9:55pm) is completely impossible, only that it's much less probable than a time shortly after 9:05pm.

I'd say that the only likely scenario for an attack time of say 9:55pm would be (despite what it says in Massei) that the stomach had in fact started to empty, and the meal was much larger than my estimate. Perhaps it was two or three very large pizzas and a large apple crumble (shared between four), the attack was at say 9:55pm and the stomach was around 50% empty at that time ( more than 2 hours after the meal was finished at 7:45pm ). I don't find such a large meal probable though ( for a young woman of Meredith's build ) - unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any testimony on the size of the meal ( at least in Massei, but perhaps someone with access to the court transcripts could say whether there is in fact any testimony on the size of the meal fom Meredith's British friends ).


Last edited by geebee2 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
I think I'll comment on Hellmann later. I'm a little lost for words at the moment.

My God, what warped logic...no wonder he's usually tucked away safely judging corporate cases! And he's managed to become a High Court Judge? That convinces me that Italian judges aren't promoted on the basis of merit, but on a system based on who's been in the job the longest. The sooner they pension him off, the better!


The Judge just took pity on Knox for being such a 'martyr'.* ;)
____________
* martyr - a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc. --> Dictionary


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Golly G, their mouths are the same . eee-)

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

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

This is a reponse to a post by Emerald in the previous thread ( viewtopic.php?p=93059#p93059 )

Emerald wrote:
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.

No - I made a web page about this http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Myth-Knife

The context of the "story" is Amanda saying ( in her prison diary ) that it's impossible that Meredith's DNA could be on the knife.

Quote:
"Raffaele and I have used this knife to cook, and it's impossible that Meredith's DNA is on the knife because she's never been to Raffaele's apartment before. So unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, then tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well the next couple of days, well, I just highly doubt all of that."

Amanda is saying that it's highly implausible that this could have happened, not suggesting Raffaele actually did go out while she was asleep. See web page above for sources.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
capealadin wrote:
With all due respect, BMF, ultimately the book IS about O.J. As was the trial. Whether it's O.J. or Simpson, the person's the same. So much about the case, everyone became familiar with the initials O.J. and he was referred by those intials by just about everyone.
"OJ" is the football player; "Simpson" is the double murderer.

For many years I have been intrigued about how trials get named in the popular press -- in regards to Bugliosi's career, "Charles Manson" was the defendant in the "Tate/LaBianca" case. I've never liked "Charlie."

If one mentions "Rodney King," the names "Stacey Koon" or "Kenneth Brisenio" do not come to mind.

For the "Perugia Murder File" should it be the "Kercher Trial" or the "Knox/Solectito Trial"??


Huh? Not sure how the "Kercher Trial" comes up. She's the victim. It always was the Charles Manson trial, or the Tate/Bianca murders, OJ Simpson trial or The Nicole Brown/Ron Goodman murder that was established in the public consciousness.

At this point I don't even wish to give Knox/Sollecito the notoriety of a catchy appellation, the better to sell books with. Sacco and Vanzetti, they ain't. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, neither. As we prepare for a deluge of "American Girl in Italy" or however they want to market it, I prefer to downgrade the notoriety of two hopped up delinquents, not even mention them by name, and call it simply, the Murder of Meredith Kercher.
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: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Okay, it's past midnight my end, so I'm now formally declaring FOAKer Day to have finished for this week. Thank you to those who participated in the proper spirit. Of course, regualar PMF members can continue their discussions :)

Image

Normal programming will resume shortly.

_________________
"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 DanielSC


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Apparently this PMF is the more visited of the two according to Alexa. I would have thought it was the other way around. Pretty interesting.
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 22, 2012 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks Ergon.

I noticed too that the admin log screenshot was published to the whole world unaltered. Where I come from, it is not allowed to publish others peoples ip's. It's private information.

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Skeptical Bystander didn't offer her identity voluntarily. She was outed by Knox groupies and subsequently harassed and threatened. An example to follow?


--- snip ---

Before having their identities exposed, both were anonymous and happy to remain so (so Pete DID NOT KNOW "exactly who Peggy was", since our identities were also anonymous from each other!).

--- snap ---

Exactly. That's what offended me when I read Peter's post on .org. We all know he is happy to let people write for TJMK knowing nothing more about them than their nicknames, but now he uses it to discredit you. It is dishonest.



Michael wrote:
Ergon quoting Peter Quennell wrote:
She was NOT ever handing this anonymous critter the keys, even part-time, on behalf of all of us. That he had some mysterious non-starter of a website waiting in the wings was the farthest thing from any of our minds.


--- snip ---

Peggy never HAD the keys, she was a Moderator, Moderating the TCWMB on behalf of Steve Huff, who WAS the owner! HE had the keys...that's part of the reason Peggy and I decided we would move to my empty PMF forum, so that we could be joint owners and Admins, not under Steve Huff, and as such have the power to build a proper home for the community how it needed to be built.

--- snap ---

Again, I felt offended to read Peter Quennell calling Michael "an anonymous critter". My view of Peter Quennell had already changed long before he posted this on .org, the day he published a comment on TJMK saying "Skeptical Bystander is the senior Moderator on PMF by popular choice and she asked Clander to do this vital work.". I didn't know what had happened to PMF, the site was down for a few days and Michael had posted on TJMK that it had been hijacked. This comment was later removed by Peter and when the forum was back on, Michael was gone.

Peter could have made his opinion known without embellishing his post using degrading names like "critter" to describe Michael. He attempts to vilify him and diminishes Michael's achievements by not being truthful about his full involvement in PMF.org. I think it is particularly sad, because I remember Michael defending Peter Quennell against some accusations from Bruce Fisher, calling Peter a pedophile. That was after the FOA had contacted a ballerina dancer who had once felt harassed by him and she gave them a copy of their email correspondence, which subsequently was published. The whole matter caused a lot of embarrassment and distracted from the actual important matter which is justice for Meredith Kercher.


I would like to suggest to move all the posts talking about the split to the dedicated thread. Somehow, when I answered Ergon, we started to post in the "wrong" thread. If we keep both separate, than people who come here to read about the case won't be affected in their reading flow.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:42 am   Post subject: Re: Stomach contents   

geebee2 wrote:
It's correct that it is not precise, but 60-80 minutes is when the stomach should start to empty. It's much more probable (based on this) that Meredith was attacked around 9:05pm than say at 9:55pm.

You should take the starting time of Meredith's meal to determine when gastric emptying started. The end of the meal is only important to calculate the stomach's total emptying time.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi geebee2, rather than cut and paste at each other, I'll ask you this:

Do you consider the time frames given in the research you refer to apply to time after a meal is begun, or, time after the meal is finished? You seem to be saying the latter, even though every reference I have been able to find says it is after a meal has begun.

Are you saying that emptying began only after the last bite of the crumble was finished, you estimate around 7:30 pm. Is that correct?
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 22, 2012 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
capealadin wrote:
With all due respect, BMF, ultimately the book IS about O.J. As was the trial. Whether it's O.J. or Simpson, the person's the same. So much about the case, everyone became familiar with the initials O.J. and he was referred by those intials by just about everyone.
"OJ" is the football player; "Simpson" is the double murderer.

For many years I have been intrigued about how trials get named in the popular press -- in regards to Bugliosi's career, "Charles Manson" was the defendant in the "Tate/LaBianca" case. I've never liked "Charlie."

If one mentions "Rodney King," the names "Stacey Koon" or "Kenneth Brisenio" do not come to mind.

For the "Perugia Murder File" should it be the "Kercher Trial" or the "Knox/Solectito Trial"??



Hi BMF and welcome to Perugiamurderfile.net,

I know what you mean. I've read Bugliosi's book about the Charles Manson trial and about the O.J. Simpson trial. I remember him writing about calling Charles Manson "Charlie" and O.J. Simpson "O.J." or "The Juice".

Basically, from what I understand he wanted to bring some distance between him and the murderers. Only people close to him, those who cared for him would call Charles Manson "Charlie". "The Juice" was a household nickname for O.J. Simpson. People would also call him O.J. To call someone by his nickname, you must either know the person well or at least feel close to them. Who feels any affinity with a murderer?

In this particular case, the murder of Meredith Kercher, the family of Amanda Knox has been actively involved to erase Meredith from people's memory as the true victim and tried to replace her with their daughter, accused of her murder. According to them, Meredith is a victim "too", but she is dead, while their daughter "still has a chance".

The Knox groupies love to misspell Meredith's name and that of her family. That never happens once to them when they write about Amanda Knox. What are the consequences? That when you look up the name of "Meredith Kercher" in a search engine, you will find less results than when you look up the name of her murderer, "Amanda Knox". I am convinced that the misspelling of the family members names and those of the witnesses who testified in the trial, is not a coincidence.

The correct way to name it would probably be "the Meredith Kercher murder case" or the "trial about the murder of Meredith Kercher". The true victim shouldn't be forgotten.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

DanielSC wrote:
Apparently this PMF is the more visited of the two according to Alexa. I would have thought it was the other way around. Pretty interesting.


Yes, DanielSC, it is pretty interesting. But, may I ask..what is Alexa?

_________________
"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 22, 2012 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
DanielSC wrote:
Apparently this PMF is the more visited of the two according to Alexa. I would have thought it was the other way around. Pretty interesting.


Yes, DanielSC, it is pretty interesting. But, may I ask..what is Alexa?


Oh, no worries, DanielSC.

I looked it up, and it's Internet traffic rankings. I learn something every day.

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:

I would like to suggest to move all the posts talking about the split to the dedicated thread. Somehow, when I answered Ergon, we started to post in the "wrong" thread. If we keep both separate, than people who come here to read about the case won't be affected in their reading flow.


Hi, Nell, the original post was in the previous thread, and not the PMF split thread, so I responded to it here.

I think the problem is that so many people were willing to ignore the fact that an injustice had occurred, and it became very easy to sweep it under the rug, to not rock the boat.

One only has to read the dedicated thread on .org to see the revisionism taking place, directed at regular members. Hiding behind that obscure thread, Michael is still being presented as a prima donna, one who called Clander a 'thief'. He's the obstinate one, still hanging on to old stuff. And it would have gone on, and everything soon forgotten as people just read about the case at leisure. (I appreciate some members there saying they wouldn't tolerate any criticism of Michael, and note some who still accept Clander's admin log, with leaked IP addresses, as evidence of Michael's perfidy)

The only antidote to that is full disclosure, in public view, of everything they say. That is the only way to get their attention, it seems, that they can no longer get away with it?

I believe the primary cause of the split was Peter Quennell's interference in PMF, and that Peggy Ganong went along with it. Based on everything I've seen since, everyone was fine with it as long as they were 'winning'. As soon as Oct. 03 came along, it was that which caused more harm to PMF than anything Michael (or I) did. The members hadn't been prepared for this possibility, due to boosterism about how Knox and Sollecito's conviction was a done deal.

This happened before, when one day Michael was gone, and very few people knew what had happened. Any questions asked were answered by what we now know to be untruths. I would have preferred the whole thing had been hashed out and put behind, but it never can, when built on a wrong.

And where do we go from here? Are people prepared for the fact that the Supreme Court might refuse to hear the case? Is that a possibility, or not? Why are publishers willing to put up money for a book? Is it possible they've been reassured their investment will be safe? I'd rather we discuss that, and all other matters, openly.

We may discuss the case, certainly. But I don't think it will be right if we sweep another wrong into a distant corner where no one can read it. Out of sight, etc. How can we discuss one injustice if we are prepared to accept another just to make peace?

In the end, however, I will respect whatever decision Michael makes regarding this discussion.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I agree with your point of view, Ergon. I, like Nell, thought it would be better elsewhere. But, I think you're right.

And, like you, I agree that it's up to Michael.

I would add, however Ergon, that whatever peter did, it doesn't excuse Skeptical Bystanders behaviour towards Michael.

Peter wasn't pressing her finger on the banning button either. Peter didn't write her e-mails to me. Or, the ones to Resipsa.

_________________
"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 22, 2012 2:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell, I knew O.J. rather well. We lived a couple of blocks apart. From the get go, I was introduced to him as O.J.

I didn't even know his first name. Everyone called him O.J. I understand the point being made, but I can only speak from personal experience. ( His first name is a bit of a tongue twister, in any event :)

I don't know about everyone, but Orenthal doesn't exactly glide off my tongue. But, then , I'm not American, and I'm sure I don't pronounce it correctly, either.

_________________
"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 22, 2012 3:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

@Ergon and @Michael

I have a problem accessing the category "In their own words" --> "Rudy Guede's translated German diary". It redirects me almost instantly to The Times.

I cannot read through the thread, because my browser window is always redirected to The Times. Is that only me, or does it happen to someone else? I use Firefox, latest version (10.0.2 for Mac).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Same here. There is a link to an article in the Times that doesn't work anymore and somehow it is redirecting the whole page. Post of Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:49 pm.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks Ergon.

I noticed too that the admin log screenshot was published to the whole world unaltered. Where I come from, it is not allowed to publish others peoples ip's. It's private information.

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Skeptical Bystander didn't offer her identity voluntarily. She was outed by Knox groupies and subsequently harassed and threatened. An example to follow?


Not an example to follow, and I cringed every time some misguided person did the same on this side. I said this once, that it would not be nice to become like the FOAK'ers.

But in the end, we can only become responsible for ourselves.


I just noticed that my post might have been misunderstood. When I wrote "An example to follow?", I wasn't encouraging the harassment of others, it was an ironic remark questioning the recommendation coming from others to let the whole world know your real identity when debating murder cases on the internet.

Reading it again, it could be understood both ways. I just wanted to clarify that.
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 22, 2012 3:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Same here. There is a link to an article in the Times that doesn't work anymore and somehow it is redirecting the whole page. Post of Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:49 pm.


Thanks for the feedback. I thought it might be my browser.
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: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Okay, I've fixed it. Try it now :)

It wasn't the Times link that was the problem, but an embedded Times web page that no longer existed and so was invisible, but because it no longer existed, a script at the Times was running to direct readers to the main page that does exist...if you follow me.

(If you're going to download and read the diary, the PDF version is the one you want, it's the best).

Anyway, I have quite a few posts on the board and PM's I need to respond to, but I'm going to leave all that for later today...it's almost 4 am my end.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Okay, I've fixed it. Try it now :)

It wasn't the Times link that was the problem, but an embedded Times web page that no longer existed and so was invisible, but because it no longer existed, a script at the Times was running to direct readers to the main page that does exist...if you follow me.

(If you're going to download and read the diary, the PDF version is the one you want, it's the best).

Anyway, I have quite a few posts on the board and PM's I need to respond to, but I'm going to leave all that for later today...it's almost 4 am my end.


Hi Michael,

Thanks for taking care of it. I hope you have a good night's sleep (from what is left of it).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
And, the robber, with all that rummaging, left not a trace of himself. Oh, hang on though. KNOX's DNA is in there. How does Hellmann explain that LITTLE detail, I wonder?

*Snipped*. Not sure if you were serious, but just in case ;)

- He says the traces in Filomena's room are bare footprints. (Not sure why. Maybe the traces came from a foot but I never seen anything conclusive on the matter. I thought it was just a small spot?)
- He mentions the generic blood test was negative. (true, there was very little blood)
- He mentions there is such a thing as bleach without smell. (Is he being funny?)
- He says the girls could have cleaned in certain spots only (to explain for the limited number of footprints).
- He finds the whole cleaning theory illogical, cleaning footprints and leaving Rudy's shoe prints (I guess he doesn't consider the alternative that there might not have been much of a cleanup? After all that is what the TMB test showed. Little blood.)
- The girls were all friends and who knows how many times they walked into each other rooms barefoot? (I suppose you could ask them???)
- Overall there is DNA and it is soooooooo small. So who knows what it means. It has no value. Listen to C&V. Quality of instruments doesn't matter. DNA DOES NOT MATTER!

Quote:
According to Dr. Gino, a consultant for Knox defence, the DNA in those traces would be of low quantity (low copy number) which therefore requires the repetition of the analyses. The first‐level sentencing report states that the credibility and reliability of the result of the analyses derives from the good quality of the instruments, the fact such instruments undergo the required maintenance, and the correctness of the methodology. It is furthermore verified by the fact that the results are not isolated: the trace with a mixed Meredith–Amanda profile appeared twice, while the one relating to Amanda alone in other four cases.

In reality, the quality of the instruments is of no help when the quantity of DNA is insufficient to yield reliable results. On this matter, the Conti‐Vecchiotti expert report, commissioned by this Court, has made it clear that below 200 pg the interpretation of the result is not uni-vocal and, in any case, it is necessary to repeat the quantification of the DNA and also to carry out various confirmatory analyses. In the case of the footprints detected with luminol this healthy and correct practice was not utilized or could not be implemented: this fact alone [tanto basta] does not allow the results to be certain.

To conclude on this subject: the footprints at issue, in the opinion of this Court, have no evidentiary [indiziario] value against Amanda Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

:) I was being facetious. ( I love that word..it's the only one with the vowels in order, in one word ).

It's astounding, his non-logic. Is it me, or is his * reasoning * so transparent, so OBVIOUS, what his intent was all along? Find a way to make them not guilty. His excuses are almost like lying.

I'm watching the documentary of the Concordia ship disaster. Captain Schettino desperately needs Hellmann to get him off this one. :(.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

DanielSC wrote:
Apparently this PMF is the more visited of the two according to Alexa. I would have thought it was the other way around. Pretty interesting.


Actually, I'm VERY surprised. Not least of all, because I have access to the Alexa bot turned off and it has been for months.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
The correct way to name it would probably be "the Meredith Kercher murder case" or the "trial about the murder of Meredith Kercher". The true victim shouldn't be forgotten.


I couldn't agree with this more!

I tend to, wherever possible, refer to it as 'the Meredith Kercher case'.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks Ergon.

I noticed too that the admin log screenshot was published to the whole world unaltered. Where I come from, it is not allowed to publish others peoples ip's. It's private information.

Furthermore, if I recall correctly, Skeptical Bystander didn't offer her identity voluntarily. She was outed by Knox groupies and subsequently harassed and threatened. An example to follow?


--- snip ---

Before having their identities exposed, both were anonymous and happy to remain so (so Pete DID NOT KNOW "exactly who Peggy was", since our identities were also anonymous from each other!).

--- snap ---

Exactly. That's what offended me when I read Peter's post on .org. We all know he is happy to let people write for TJMK knowing nothing more about them than their nicknames, but now he uses it to discredit you. It is dishonest.



Michael wrote:
Ergon quoting Peter Quennell wrote:
She was NOT ever handing this anonymous critter the keys, even part-time, on behalf of all of us. That he had some mysterious non-starter of a website waiting in the wings was the farthest thing from any of our minds.


--- snip ---

Peggy never HAD the keys, she was a Moderator, Moderating the TCWMB on behalf of Steve Huff, who WAS the owner! HE had the keys...that's part of the reason Peggy and I decided we would move to my empty PMF forum, so that we could be joint owners and Admins, not under Steve Huff, and as such have the power to build a proper home for the community how it needed to be built.

--- snap ---

Again, I felt offended to read Peter Quennell calling Michael "an anonymous critter". My view of Peter Quennell had already changed long before he posted this on .org, the day he published a comment on TJMK saying "Skeptical Bystander is the senior Moderator on PMF by popular choice and she asked Clander to do this vital work.". I didn't know what had happened to PMF, the site was down for a few days and Michael had posted on TJMK that it had been hijacked. This comment was later removed by Peter and when the forum was back on, Michael was gone.

Peter could have made his opinion known without embellishing his post using degrading names like "critter" to describe Michael. He attempts to vilify him and diminishes Michael's achievements by not being truthful about his full involvement in PMF.org. I think it is particularly sad, because I remember Michael defending Peter Quennell against some accusations from Bruce Fisher, calling Peter a pedophile. That was after the FOA had contacted a ballerina dancer who had once felt harassed by him and she gave them a copy of their email correspondence, which subsequently was published. The whole matter caused a lot of embarrassment and distracted from the actual important matter which is justice for Meredith Kercher.



Okay, I'll tell you something. Back when we were on the TCWMB, near the end of its life, and we were talking in ernest about moving, Peter Quennell had just created TJMK as part of a new project. He wasn't sure what format it was going to take and it hadn't been launched at that time...it was a 'secret'. Meanwhile, I had PMF sitting there. Over the previous few weeks, I'd been casually working on PMF so it shadowed the format of the TCWMB. My original idea was, that it could serve as an emergency back-up board, just in case something happened to the TCWMB. All our data would be saved (the reference stuff at least) and the membership would have somewhere to rally. It just seemed to make good Moderator sense to me, to have a back-up, one that wasn't owned by some third party.

But then, it came to the point where we needed to move from the TCWMB to a new home. This made PMF perfect, as I'd been especially preparing it should there be some eventuality where we needed a board. So, I said to Peggy, well...PMF is all ready to go, all the reference sections (subforums) are laid out, all that would be needed is to copy over the data and have our members move over and join.

Peter jumped in. He started saying how, as a friendly offer, he could easily create a forum section on the website he had just created and we could all move onto the site HE owned. It was a friendly offer, but he made it about 8 + times...if you see what I mean ;) I was very much opposed to this, as I didn't consider the format of his site suitable for our requirements, it also still needed to be built and by default, Pete would be an Admin as well as the owner. I hardly knew the guy, he'd only been around a month or so and we'd already had the row I mentioned, so I'd had a very strong insight into what he was really like. I made my recommendations to Peggy and it was decided we would move to PMF where Peggy and I Admined PMF together and it went from strength to strength. And the rest is history.

Does that give you an insight into what for Peter Quennell, this is REALLY all 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 daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Arrggh! Must come and visit more often, so much to reply to and so little time!!

First of all, the ongoing drama. I’ve had discussions with a couple of people at .org and made them aware of how I feel and they have been courteous enough to reply and it’s all been very civil. Without trying to sound like I’m having a dig, I’m not sharing what was said in our PM’s, just know that I don’t agree with how things happened and I don’t support a split but I understand why it happened and can live with it. I have managed to, I think, do whatever the internet equivalent is of shaking hands and walking away. I think as far as the gulf between Peggy and Michael, it’s not my beef really, there no going back so I’m just going to leave it alone as poking either person provokes a response which does the ultimate cause of justice for Meredith no good at all. You guys don’t get on, there are two boards.....aaaannnnnd I’m over it. I’m posting here, .org will carry on, I’m not banned it seems and I hope I can post the odd bit over there now and then if it helps clarify something over here (and vice versa for .org). I also hope those people posting in both places continue as it would be a shame for there to be no link whatsoever between the two boards regardless of your opinion of how two boards came to be or indeed your opinions of the people running each place. I also hope that the bans are lifted and we can all move on.

I did say in a PM to a .org’er that Pete Quennell was a decent bloke. I’m reassessing that opinion from his own statements and from the stuff posted here, not that my opinion has changed fully but I do think that he needs to be more neutral (and if what Michael said is true, a bit more honest). I don’t doubt his dedication to the cause but you can’t start trashing someone because they don’t follow your personal rules for the internetz. To suggest someone should ‘out’ themselves is daft. Its personal choice who you out yourself to, online or IRL. I’m more likely to trust someone who understands that than chooses to put themselves out there, naively in some cases. I think anyone would understand the need for privacy in light of the FOA need to completely destroy the reputation of anyone who thinks that Amanda may be a little bit guilty. In fact if anyone should understand that, its Skep and Pete Quennell. So long as you’re on the level in PM’s when you say you are, then I have no problem with you. Michael could be Barak Obama, Rihanna, John Kercher, the Dalai Lama or Johnny Depp (*prays* hoping for the last one). So long as he keeps his integrity and behaves in the way he always has towards me, I have no problem at all regardless of what he chooses to call himself.

Right, that’s the end of the drama for me. I hope it is for you guys too.

Back on topic....

I was spitting fire over the $4m book deal but then it dawned on me that a book deal is sort of like a record deal. HarperCollins haven’t written a cheque for $4m just yet. She won’t get that but when you factor in her advance (probably around the $500k mark), her completion payment for doing the work then waiting for the royalties to roll in; she’ll get about $1.5m. The rest of the deal will be what HarperCollins will be paying the ghost writer (still laughing at that, my dog writes better than Amanda despite what Amanda may think about herself), their costs for promotion etc. Still utterly vile but comforting to know that $1.5m will basically take her parents/granny back to scratch and pay for Knox to do her degree without working 4 jobs. Then she’ll have to work for a living like the rest of us and live in a world where at least half of the people she encounters think that she might have butchered her friend in cold blood. She must get that every day and I think that is worse than prison in some ways.

As for Raffy's book, that might actually be interesting although I'll pirate bay it rather than pay for it on principle (ditto Knox's book). The only reason I say this is he's had more alibi's than Amanda yet he seems more trustworthy for some reason. Could be me just falling for whatever charms he may possess but its been my gut feeling all along. I'd love to have that feeling confirmed one way or the other and I think his own story will do that. God only knows what Amanda will write, her family and Marriot made sure the world knew what she ate for breakfast each day.

As for the Hellman report, the bits I have read would be utterly hilarious if they weren’t about the killers of a poor innocent girl. Anyone who says that Hellman has impeccable logic and Massei is mental and needs to see nurse about their meds. The whole of Hellman is patchy and defence biased, it’s like he fell out with Massei over a car parking space so he has to trash him. I actually think some of it does read as petty. I was feeling pretty down about this case until I read the bits of Hellman that I have. Supreme Court will have this appeal verdict for breakfast in my humble opinion. In my eyes, somewhere between Massei and Micheli is the truth. I also think that now that Berlusconi is gone, Girlanda doesn’t have the teeth that he used to have so there is no one dripping poison in Roman ears anymore who can put pressure on the courts. I also think that you won’t see Bongiorno again as there is nothing in this for her anymore. If she gave a crap about the Sollecito’s, she’d be defending Vanessa too but she isn’t as far as I know. Guilia is up to her legal wig in the Costa Concordia passenger cases which are way more high profile than Sollecito so I can’t see her breaking off that any time soon.
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 22, 2012 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
I would like to suggest to move all the posts talking about the split to the dedicated thread. Somehow, when I answered Ergon, we started to post in the "wrong" thread. If we keep both separate, than people who come here to read about the case won't be affected in their reading flow.


Yeah...this is easier said then done. It would mean splitting off posts...then merging them onto the other thread. That's technically tricky to do. But, it's also quite dangerous. It's the splitting, rather then the merging I have a concern with. In the earlier versions of PHPBB, there was a serious bug in the split feature, serious enough everyone was told point blank not to use it. The bug manifested in the form that every time it was used, there was high risk that the whole thread that was being split from was irrecoverably DELETED. The PHPBB authors struggled to find the cause of this bug and fix it over the course of numerous upgrades and as far as I'm aware, it has never been fully solved. And as it stands, we do not have the very latest version of PHPBB3 in any case. For that reason, I'm very wary of splitting off multiple posts, especially when it's from the main discussion thread which is full of everyone's precious posts.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
DanielSC wrote:
Apparently this PMF is the more visited of the two according to Alexa. I would have thought it was the other way around. Pretty interesting.


Actually, I'm VERY surprised. Not least of all, because I have access to the Alexa bot turned off and it has been for months.


The way Alexa works is that it measures traffic from people who have Alexa toolbars and cookies on their computers, Michael. A surprisingly lot of web users, as it turns out. Then it extrapolates their usage to come up with their figures.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

(brought over from the last thread)

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: XXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 22 -
Ergon wrote:
That's funny, Michael.. considering there are some people who truly believe they can tell people they shouldn't write about this case. I, all innocent like, said once on another site that it would make a great novel and movie, and was told we should keep ourselves pure or some such nonsense.
If I planned on writing such a book, (which I am noT) it would be a psychological thriller on the interaction between two young women on a cusp of their lives. What fate drew them together? Why are we so drawn into their story? It would make a great novel, and an even greater movie. Instead of which all we have now are hacks and gatekeepers. Pish! [end of quote]

**

That's interesting, Ergon. I know you've asked that question before. And while I've had my own Amanda experience (I'm still alive, thank God, but when it happened I was indeed, half-jokingly, picturing that girl waiting with a knife in her hand in front of my door), I'm curious why the subject of female jealousy is of interest for you, for men, or is it jealousy on a more general level? Or something different?

(in case you've explained that before, sorry, I've tried, but couldn't find your post...)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
In this particular case, the murder of Meredith Kercher, the family of Amanda Knox has been actively involved to erase Meredith from people's memory as the true victim and tried to replace her with their daughter, accused of her murder. According to them, Meredith is a victim "too", but she is dead, while their daughter "still has a chance".

The Knox groupies love to misspell Meredith's name and that of her family. That never happens once to them when they write about Amanda Knox. What are the consequences? That when you look up the name of "Meredith Kercher" in a search engine, you will find less results than when you look up the name of her murderer, "Amanda Knox". I am convinced that the misspelling of the family members names and those of the witnesses who testified in the trial, is not a coincidence.

The correct way to name it would probably be "the Meredith Kercher murder case" or the "trial about the murder of Meredith Kercher". The true victim shouldn't be forgotten.


From my past legal work, I became used to the process of two differing and often opposing narratives being developed from the same evidentiary facts. So I cannot say that I am bothered by the opposing narratives arising out of Ms. Kercher's Murder. In realization that this is way of thinking in not common outside of the law, I have often wondered if this is one of the reasons lawyers are not liked. :lol:

On the number of Google hits, allow me to mention an exercise I just engaged in. I have been a fan of the Los Angeles Lakers for nearly 50 years now. I googled "Elgin Baylor" and came up with 575,000 hits. I googled "Jerry West" and came up with 1,730,000 hits. Finally I googled "Kobe Bryant" and came up over 9 million hits. Mr. Bryant is still an active player.

This is "Perugia Murder File" -- the arc of Ms. Kercher's life was brutally ended in November 2007. This is not so of Knox. I wonder what the result of a word count of this website would show -- it strikes me that a casual examination shows much more in the way of discussion of Knox. This is not inconsistent with remembering Ms. Kercher.

As to spelling of names, I have long been amused by misspellings -- particularly of names. Spelling is an artificial construct in any case.

[Note: I have deliberately used a subtle convention I used to use in briefs to convey the writer's point of view about named parties.]
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Sorry BMF, I missed your reply. I understand your point about OJ vs Simpson but I think in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter really. The whole thing is OJ Simpson on trial for the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. You could call it the OJ Trial, Simpson trial, Ron Goldman case, Nicole Simpson case, Nicole and Ron case, the list goes on and on. Depending upon how emotionally attached, professionally motivated or indeed are personally involved in the case will depend on how sensitive you are to a person’s choice of name or description. Ditto with the trial of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and (separately) Rudy Guede for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The discussion here tends to flow around certain subjects depending on the case and how it progresses, what’s in the media, and what’s coming up. One of the more unfortunate aspects of it is that the Knox family made sure that this case was about Amanda from the very beginning. Everyone else, up to and including the victim and her grieving family is a secondary player in their version of this story. As they are the ones making sure this is in the press and ensuring the story is spun in their favour, a disproportionate amount of time will be spent discussing/despairing at their latest tactics. I wish this wasn’t the case but it is. This case is as much a study in media handling and public relations as it is a legal study. Amanda’s stepdad, Chris Mellas, actually registered on one of the incarnations of this board with the sole purpose of spreading misinformation. From a neutral point of view, it’s been absolutely fascinating how this whole tale has played out in the public arena. From a personal point of view, it’s been utterly heartbreaking how the accused, innocent or guilty, have monopolised a trial and stolen a family’s right to justice through media manipulation.

Finally, I hope to God you are a lawyer or else I’m taking a short break from the board while the world explodes. Promise me you will never start a sentence with “I’ve been following this case for some time and am confused about the mop/washing machine/bleach etc. You guys seem to mention it yet IIP says it never happened....” A read of a week or two’s worth of posts should give you a flavour as to why you would never do this. Thats me being very unsubtle about the fact this place has been troll central for some time and its getting a bit trying but I genuinely hope you're on the level :) Good to have some new blood around though BMF and keep posting!
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hey stint,
Would you mind cruising those 'other places' for me. Judging by the responses on WS to my coincidence list and MONEY questions from ChrisH, Rose, and Malkmus... there might be some interesting stuff there if they are not conversing by PMs. They seem to absolutely hate that line of questioning. Maybe Charlie will enlighten them, or get a spanking... not sure which.

stup-) sp-)) ih) dis-)) ham-) angel-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline amber2670


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:56 pm

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
And it just goes on and on :(
Quote:
considering that after the alleged simulation of the theft, the perpetrator of the same needed to leave the house as soon as possible, even the sight of the broken window pane from the outside possibly inciting cause for alarm in whoever might just turn up unexpectedly in the vicinity the house;
Why does he not use the same logic to say that a burglar would not have chosen that window? Why does a simulator need to leave the house immediately, but he has no problem with a burglar staying in the house? Makes no sense.


Where does Rudys breaking in come in on hellman's time frame. Is he saying that Meredith was home when Rudy broke in? Or did she walk past the already broken window? The one he assumes others would notice and gives the reason that simulators would have had to leave immediately. Why does that same logic not apply to Meredith walking past it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi, Ava,

I love these questions, and even if I answered them before, it gives me another chance to expand on it, so thanks.

Speaking only for myself and not any other man ;) what drew me to the case were first and foremost, the spiritual connections, which are so many I barely even touched upon them in the other sites. Sort of, as above, so below, and how this is being mirrored globally. The similarities and coincidences were also staggering.

From a psychological perspective, I am drawn to the connections between all 4 individuals, Guede, Kercher, Knox, Sollecito, and their interaction with each other. Was it you that asked, "what is it between Knox and Sollecito, as though they are soul mates"? which caused me to write a major piece on my website about the interaction between all of them? I'll cross post it here.

From a literary perspective, yes, I'm a writer (much debate on how good I am, or good at all ;) and you should see my screenplay in development for many many years, but I am a fan of film, and think this case would make a wonderful novel and movie, based on the psycho-spiritual interaction between all four of them. I should point out that my first novel, Man From Atlan, is about soulmates? This is about how we connect with others and the patterns we create, across many lifetimes.

Yes, I have said that jealousy was a primary motive in the murder of Meredith Kercher. This, connected with illness and made worse by drug and alcohol abuse, was the basis of the crime. Focusing on that alone would make it a crime like any other, but I believe there is more to it we can learn from. This was why I kept asking of every one, what draws us to the case? Why does it have such a grip on our imagination?

But is it jealousy, or female jealousy that attracts men? No, I think we find women fascinating, and like to see all the different manifestations of who and what they are, and they can be as enticing and confusing to us as men might be to women. But, that is to answer your question. Me, I find the Anger of Women to be far more interesting, and hypothesised a while back about the anger that I felt was the underlay of the psychology of Amanda Knox.

But, it is our relationships that make us more interesting, and exploring that as a work of fiction as opposed to a dry dissection of facts and evidence, or psychological analysis, is what I was discussing. I've too many books I need to write first, so threw it out for others.

And it is this, therefore, that draws me back here. To discuss the psycho-spiritual aspects of 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: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Amber2670 wrote:
Where does Rudys breaking in come in on hellman's time frame. Is he saying that Meredith was home when Rudy broke in? Or did she walk past the already broken window? The one he assumes others would notice and gives the reason that simulators would have had to leave immediately. Why does that same logic not apply to Meredith walking past it?


Or to Amanda or Raffaele coming to the cottage the next morning in BROAD DAYLIGHT, yet saw no broken window.

We are also supposed to accept that simulators, having simulated a break-in, couldn't also perform the simple task of CLOSING the shutter to hide said broken window? This all on top of the fact that when the window was broken, the outside shutter was already shut! Due to this broken window, according to Hellmann, any simulators would have to leave IMMEDIATELY, yet, with the same broken window in Rudy's case, he hangs around to turn part of the place over, take a dump, rape and murder the occupant...all supposedly completely immune to the 'broken window effect'?

One can only hold ones head in ones hands in the face of this kind of 'logic'.

_________________
"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 BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
... One of the more unfortunate aspects of it is that the Knox family made sure that this case was about Amanda from the very beginning. Everyone else, up to and including the victim and her grieving family is a secondary player in their version of this story. As they are the ones making sure this is in the press and ensuring the story is spun in their favour, a disproportionate amount of time will be spent discussing/despairing at their latest tactics. I wish this wasn’t the case but it is. This case is as much a study in media handling and public relations as it is a legal study. Amanda’s stepdad, Chris Mellas, actually registered on one of the incarnations of this board with the sole purpose of spreading misinformation. From a neutral point of view, it’s been absolutely fascinating how this whole tale has played out in the public arena. From a personal point of view, it’s been utterly heartbreaking how the accused, innocent or guilty, have monopolised a trial and stolen a family’s right to justice through media manipulation.

Finally, I hope to God you are a lawyer or else I’m taking a short break from the board while the world explodes. Promise me you will never start a sentence with “I’ve been following this case for some time and am confused about the mop/washing machine/bleach etc. You guys seem to mention it yet IIP says it never happened....” A read of a week or two’s worth of posts should give you a flavour as to why you would never do this. Thats me being very unsubtle about the fact this place has been troll central for some time and its getting a bit trying but I genuinely hope you're on the level :) Good to have some new blood around though BMF and keep posting!


As to the promise, that is an easy one to make. For me, analysis of an evidentiary record was WORK -- and not easy work at that. My opinion does not matter; it is not my job to advocate a particular point of view. During the Brown/Goldman murder trial, my father would often have questions about the on-going televisded trial and I would say "I care not to talk about it." [For what little it is worth, I do agree with Mr. Bugliosi that it was a botched prosecution.]

I am the father of grown children. When one was 20 years old, a dead body was found down the dorm hall, the result of a drug overdose. When I found out about this, I immediately arranged for legal representation on the other side of the US and give instructions "Your father is putting on a lawyer hat -- don't you dare talk to the police until you talk to this person I've arranged for you talk to. Be very nice to the cops but blame ME by telling them your lawyer father said to talk to a lawyer first."

Accordingly, I must say that I do not share the contempt for Knox's parents and step-parents often expressed in this forum. Their role in the drama surrounding the trial was nothing other than what they did -- to them it was, and is, about Knox.

As for "justice" -- I recall in the first chapter "The Godfather" where Amerigo Bonsera beseeches the Godfather to avenge the beating of his daughter. The men who had done the beating had had been let off lightly by the courts. Bonsera wants "justice." The Godfather mocks him that he received justice from the courts. Bonsera replies that the boys received justice, but he, Bonsera, did not. That scene has stuck in my mind for quite some years.

The term "justice" can be the topic of a very long theological and philosophical discussion.

As I noted in my first posting, I find myself more interested in the process and not so much as the crime.


Last edited by BMF1950 on Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And, Raf said the door was open, Knox the door closed. Or. vice versa.

Rudy is adamant that the window was not broken when he was there. He could have said he didn't know. He could have said he never noticed. After all,what he's saying that about the window, didn't implicate Knox at that stage, because he knew she had a key. Because, at that stage, he had left. he didn't know about the staged break-in done by them or the cleanup.

Or, and I know I'll be corrected here, if I'm wrong, did he know about the staged breakin , when he mentioned the window not being broken?

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

quote="BMF1950"

Quote:
On the number of Google hits


We were discussing Alexa rankings but I apologize if I have missed your point.

Quote:
This is "Perugia Murder File" -- the arc of Ms. Kercher's life was brutally ended in November 2007. This is not so of Knox. I wonder what the result of a word count of this website would show -- it strikes me that a casual examination shows much more in the way of discussion of Knox. This is not inconsistent with remembering Ms. Kercher.


Ms. Kercher's life was indeed brutally ended. The actions of her accused murderer have continued to this day, it follows we will discuss them more often than the life of Ms Kercher, but we still memorialise her by making sure she isn't forgotten. It is for that reason while we speak more often of Charles Manson, we remember Sharon Tate, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, and when discussing O.J. Simpson, never forget Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

If I had to guess, who COULD have attempted the climb, I'd have to say Knox, the Rock Climber......

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

quote="BMF1950"

Quote:
I must say that I do not share the contempt for Knox's parents and step-parents often expressed in this forum. Their role in the drama surrounding the trial was nothing other than what they did -- to them it was, and is, about Knox.


Fair enough, though you might well find the contempt expressed here is a product of frustration at the process by which Knox and Sollecito were eventually set free. A crude but effective PR campaign, political interference, judicial corruption (in the opinion of many) enabled people we believe to be guilty to walk free. Nothing is more likely to create outrage than the belief that the guilty escaped justice by unfair means. Which brings us to..

Quote:
As for "justice" -- I recall in the first chapter "The Godfather" where Amerigo Bonsera beseeches the Godfather to avenge the beating of his daughter. The men who had done the beating had had been let off lightly by the courts. Bonsera wants "justice." The Godfather mocks him that he received justice from the courts. Bonsera replies that the boys received justice, but he, Bonsera, did not. That scene has stuck in my mind for quite some years.


Knox may have received 'justice' from the courts. The Kerchers, did not, but that story is incomplete.

Quote:
The term "justice" can be the topic of a very long theological and philosophical discussion.


By all means.

Quote:
As I noted in my first posting, I find myself more interested in the process and not so much as the crime.


By all means, discuss it; this is a big tent.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF, I notice in your post upthread, that you mention your work in Appellate Law.

Are you familiar with the Appeal Courts in Italy? Any insights as to how you think the appeals will go, vis a vis the Supreme Court?

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

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
BMF, I notice in your post upthread, that you mention your work in Appellate Law.

Are you familiar with the Appeal Courts in Italy? Any insights as to how you think the appeals will go, vis a vis the Supreme Court?


My legal education was American. US law is based in large part on English Common Law. I do not speak Italian nor "Civil Law" underpinnings of Italian law.

Justice Robert Jackson of the US Supreme Court [and the Nuremburg war crime tribunal] once famously stated "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

I learned that early on that my crystal ball was cracked. :D
Top Profile 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
We were discussing Alexa rankings but I apologize if I have missed your point.
For what little it may be worth, I was responding to Nell who made a generic reference to "a search engine" in her comment.
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 22, 2012 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Michael wrote:
DanielSC wrote:
Apparently this PMF is the more visited of the two according to Alexa. I would have thought it was the other way around. Pretty interesting.


Actually, I'm VERY surprised. Not least of all, because I have access to the Alexa bot turned off and it has been for months.


The way Alexa works is that it measures traffic from people who have Alexa toolbars and cookies on their computers, Michael. A surprisingly lot of web users, as it turns out. Then it extrapolates their usage to come up with their figures.


So, what is the Alexa bot supposed to do?

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Aaah, The Nuremburg Trials. My ex-husband's uncle, Judge Henry Baker, was one of the Judges. ( That was very useful, when visiting Israel, and we were given a very hard time entering. Because we travelled a great deal, our passports were pretty full. The stamp with Cyprus on it, really got them going.) When they asked if we had any packages for anyone, my ex showed the package for his uncle. Things changed immediately. They had even emptied my makeup. In all fairness, this was around 1974-5, IIRC.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Max summing up Hellmann wrote:
- He says the traces in Filomena's room are bare footprints. (Not sure why. Maybe the traces came from a foot but I never seen anything conclusive on the matter. I thought it was just a small spot?)
- He mentions the generic blood test was negative. (true, there was very little blood)
- He mentions there is such a thing as bleach without smell. (Is he being funny?)

- He says the girls could have cleaned in certain spots only (to explain for the limited number of footprints).
- He finds the whole cleaning theory illogical, cleaning footprints and leaving Rudy's shoe prints (I guess he doesn't consider the alternative that there might not have been much of a cleanup? After all that is what the TMB test showed. Little blood.)
- The girls were all friends and who knows how many times they walked into each other rooms barefoot? (I suppose you could ask them???)
- Overall there is DNA and it is soooooooo small. So who knows what it means. It has no value. Listen to C&V. Quality of instruments doesn't matter. DNA DOES NOT MATTER!


1) Whilst it may true the TMB test was negative, the negative test doesn't rule out blood, due to its very low sensitivity. After all, Rudy's final footprint out of the cottage didn't provide a positive TMB test either and the blood in that print was visible...that's how low the sensitivity of the test is.

2) There may be such a thing as bleach without smell, but there's no such thing as bleach that doesn't dissipate after 24 hours and certainly not after 16 days, when the luminol testing was actually done.

3) Isn't the leaving of a single individual's footprints, a set that didn't belong to the simulators, perfectly consistent with the simulation of a break-in by a phantom lone intruder?

4) They may have walked into each others rooms? Are we to take it then, that Filomena, who had lived in the cottage several months longer then Knox, never walked in her own room? Filomena's DNA wasn't mixed with Meredith's blood! And Knox's DNA just 'happened' to be in the exact spot Meredith's blood was?

5) The only DNA that has no value is a DNA reading of ZERO, anything above that is highly valuable. There is no such thing as too low when the reading is above zero and a full profile can be extracted. Low Copy Number DNA is perfectly acceptable evidence in criminal trials. Were Hellmann actually a criminal judge rather then a corporate judge, he would know this. And just because C & V didn't know the first thing about LCN DNA, it doesn't mean the Italian Forensics team weren't perfectly expert in the field.

What a numpty.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Not sure how all this pr stuff works, but it seems to me HarperCollins would expect more high profile from someone they recently invested $4 million in.
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 22, 2012 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Emerald - I've no idea what their selling point is. The planned book sounds to me as though it's going to have all the 'juicy stuff' left out. Knox is famous infamous because of the murder, her trial and incarceration. If all of that's left out, then what 'is' the product? It's certainly not her poetry.

_________________
"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: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I am going to make a final post here, about some people over at .org. Unless they continue in the same vein as they have. In which case, I shall continue to respond.

It is posted that I was never that involved. Excuse me? Thousands of posts there, thousands at Jref and other sites.

That I should move on. I was BANNED simply because I asked why Ergon's post was deleted. He was. refuting assertions made by Fly By Night, who came here, like a bull in a china shop, accusing Michael of something he never did.

It is posted, how come my posts about .org have been allowed to stay, and why they have not been moderated.

Oh, I see. Peter Quenelles vicious, untrue post about Michael is allowed to stay. Double standards, anyone?

Oh, that I have serious issues. DAMN STRAIGHT. I have serious issues, with lying, bullying, and left with only one place to defend myself, because they don't want anyone to question their disgraceful tactics.

That I'm bad mouthing .org. Yeah, it works that way. Attack me, and people that I know to be dignified, wronged, unfairly treated, you may be SURE I will not just roll over. That's what THEY would like me to do.

They want me to move on? I will, when THEY stop their vicious attacks. When they stop banning people, simply because they ask why someone has been banned.

I'm not going anywhere. As long as .org continues to demean, spin, tell untruths, I will respond. The ball is in their court.

BANG. ff)

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Cape wrote:
It is posted, how come my posts about .org have been allowed to stay, and why they have not been moderated.


Exactly what post/s of yours is it they feel should have been 'Moderated' and why? And what exactly do they mean by 'Moderated'? Deleted?

I'm wondering...is it not enough for .org that they are banning our members, that after doing so they have to keep stabbing them from over there? Have they not had enough revenge yet? What is wrong with these people!

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thank you so much to the poster ( you know who you are ) from dot.org, who just sent me a fabulous pm.

The first three words made my day. They were: CAPE, YOU ROCK!!. Bless you. hugz-)

_________________
"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 23, 2012 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I don't know, Michael. I want to move on, and will, when they cease and desist. I'm not going to do THEIR bidding. Pfft.

This is America. I'm allowed, encouraged to defend myself. And, here's a SURPRISE. I will.

I don't believe * Shrinking Violet * is in my repertoire..:)

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

DanielSC wrote:
Apparently this PMF is the more visited of the two according to Alexa. I would have thought it was the other way around. Pretty interesting.


Thanks, DanielSC. I was surprised to see it already confirmed by Alexa, but yes, we've had a huge increase in our global and US readership over just the last month.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

nice post daisy!

daisysteiner wrote:
Arrggh! Must come and visit more often, so much to reply to and so little time!!

same here :-(

Quote:
First of all, the ongoing drama. I’ve had discussions with a couple of people at .org and made them aware of how I feel and they have been courteous enough to reply and it’s all been very civil. Without trying to sound like I’m having a dig, I’m not sharing what was said in our PM’s, just know that I don’t agree with how things happened and I don’t support a split but I understand why it happened and can live with it. I have managed to, I think, do whatever the internet equivalent is of shaking hands and walking away. I think as far as the gulf between Peggy and Michael, it’s not my beef really, there no going back so I’m just going to leave it alone as poking either person provokes a response which does the ultimate cause of justice for Meredith no good at all. You guys don’t get on, there are two boards.....aaaannnnnd I’m over it. I’m posting here, .org will carry on, I’m not banned it seems and I hope I can post the odd bit over there now and then if it helps clarify something over here (and vice versa for .org). I also hope those people posting in both places continue as it would be a shame for there to be no link whatsoever between the two boards regardless of your opinion of how two boards came to be or indeed your opinions of the people running each place. I also hope that the bans are lifted and we can all move on.

you couldn't say it better :-)

Quote:
Michael could be Barak Obama, Rihanna, John Kercher, the Dalai Lama or Johnny Depp (*prays* hoping for the last one).

lol! I guess there is no hope :mrgreen:

Quote:
I was spitting fire over the $4m book deal but then it dawned on me that a book deal is sort of like a record deal. HarperCollins haven’t written a cheque for $4m just yet. She won’t get that but when you factor in her advance (probably around the $500k mark), her completion payment for doing the work then waiting for the royalties to roll in; she’ll get about $1.5m. The rest of the deal will be what HarperCollins will be paying the ghost writer (still laughing at that, my dog writes better than Amanda despite what Amanda may think about herself), their costs for promotion etc. Still utterly vile but comforting to know that $1.5m will basically take her parents/granny back to scratch and pay for Knox to do her degree without working 4 jobs. Then she’ll have to work for a living like the rest of us and live in a world where at least half of the people she encounters think that she might have butchered her friend in cold blood. She must get that every day and I think that is worse than prison in some ways.

Maybe.

Quote:
As for Raffy's book, that might actually be interesting although I'll pirate bay it rather than pay for it on principle (ditto Knox's book). The only reason I say this is he's had more alibi's than Amanda yet he seems more trustworthy for some reason. Could be me just falling for whatever charms he may possess but its been my gut feeling all along. I'd love to have that feeling confirmed one way or the other and I think his own story will do that. God only knows what Amanda will write, her family and Marriot made sure the world knew what she ate for breakfast each day.

I will not buy any of their books.

Quote:
As for the Hellman report, the bits I have read would be utterly hilarious if they weren’t about the killers of a poor innocent girl. Anyone who says that Hellman has impeccable logic and Massei is mental and needs to see nurse about their meds. The whole of Hellman is patchy and defence biased, it’s like he fell out with Massei over a car parking space so he has to trash him. I actually think some of it does read as petty. I was feeling pretty down about this case until I read the bits of Hellman that I have. Supreme Court will have this appeal verdict for breakfast in my humble opinion. In my eyes, somewhere between Massei and Micheli is the truth. I also think that now that Berlusconi is gone, Girlanda doesn’t have the teeth that he used to have so there is no one dripping poison in Roman ears anymore who can put pressure on the courts. I also think that you won’t see Bongiorno again as there is nothing in this for her anymore. If she gave a crap about the Sollecito’s, she’d be defending Vanessa too but she isn’t as far as I know. Guilia is up to her legal wig in the Costa Concordia passenger cases which are way more high profile than Sollecito so I can’t see her breaking off that any time soon.

Thank you for the news about Guilia, I did not know.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Daisy, another absolutely bang on post. I think I'm rather envious :)

Now, I know you don't like the emoticons, but please understand, I adore them. It took me a year, before Bard explained. Now, to the dismay of many, I'm sure, I use them...

Hi Zopi..

Life gets in the way, right? Good to see you...

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

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Daisy, another absolutely bang on post. I think I'm rather envious :)

Now, I know you don't like the emoticons, but please understand, I adore them. It took me a year, before Bard explained. Now, to the dismay of many, I'm sure, I use them...

Hi Zopi..

Life gets in the way, right? Good to see you...


Hi Cape, thank you for the welcome, and yes life gets in the way.

...I love emoticons too Yay-)
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zopi wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Daisy, another absolutely bang on post. I think I'm rather envious :)

Now, I know you don't like the emoticons, but please understand, I adore them. It took me a year, before Bard explained. Now, to the dismay of many, I'm sure, I use them...

Hi Zopi..

Life gets in the way, right? Good to see you...


Hi Cape, thank you for the welcome, and yes life gets in the way.

...I love emoticons too Yay-)


8-) For you liking the emoticons.

And, you're welcome.......

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zopi wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Daisy, another absolutely bang on post. I think I'm rather envious :)

Now, I know you don't like the emoticons, but please understand, I adore them. It took me a year, before Bard explained. Now, to the dismay of many, I'm sure, I use them...

Hi Zopi..

Life gets in the way, right? Good to see you...


Hi Cape, thank you for the welcome, and yes life gets in the way.

...I love emoticons too Yay-)




Hey Zopi, great to see you 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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
Michael could be Barak Obama, Rihanna, John Kercher, the Dalai Lama or Johnny Depp (*prays* hoping for the last one).


Actually, out of that list, I look the most like the last one :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
As for the Hellman report, the bits I have read would be utterly hilarious if they weren’t about the killers of a poor innocent girl. Anyone who says that Hellman has impeccable logic and Massei is mental and needs to see nurse about their meds. The whole of Hellman is patchy and defence biased, it’s like he fell out with Massei over a car parking space so he has to trash him. I actually think some of it does read as petty. I was feeling pretty down about this case until I read the bits of Hellman that I have. Supreme Court will have this appeal verdict for breakfast in my humble opinion. In my eyes, somewhere between Massei and Micheli is the truth. I also think that now that Berlusconi is gone, Girlanda doesn’t have the teeth that he used to have so there is no one dripping poison in Roman ears anymore who can put pressure on the courts. I also think that you won’t see Bongiorno again as there is nothing in this for her anymore. If she gave a crap about the Sollecito’s, she’d be defending Vanessa too but she isn’t as far as I know. Guilia is up to her legal wig in the Costa Concordia passenger cases which are way more high profile than Sollecito so I can’t see her breaking off that any time soon.


Yeah, you effectively stole my thunder with this as I was meaning to make a similar point about Hellmann and his reasoning (or lack thereof). As terrible reading as it makes, the worse the better, as it can only be a very good thing when it gets to the High Court. It would be very difficult for a panel of High Court judges not to see the blazing illogic, naivety when it comes to criminal forensic science and breathtaking bias against both the prosecution and Rudy Guede. I can't see how they would be able to let that stand. The only point you make Daisy, that I would disagree with, is that I think, despite perhaps no longer having the full attention of Bongiorno the Sollecitos are still very well connected and well off. That said, I think it would be very difficult, even for them, to control a full panel of High Court judges.

Of course, reading Hellmann now, it's very easy to see why the FOAKers, masters of illogic that they are, think Hellmann is very logical. In fact, had Hellmann written that Meredith was killed by the long sunken Titanic, sailing off course over land, they would still be declaring his report a model of sage reasoning since for them, they don't really care about truth and what's written and how his thoughts are reasoned out, they care only that he says Knox is innocent. Agenda, agenda, agenda.

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


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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
If I had to guess, who COULD have attempted the climb, I'd have to say Knox, the Rock Climber......


You know, thats crossed my mind on more than one occasion. But why would you break into a house which you have door keys for? I think the whole climb up the outside of the house is a huge red herring. The climb has bob all to do with the case, mainly because it never happened. Noone scaled the outside of the cottage other than the divvy solicitor and even then it was a huge fail on his part because he didn't really manage it convincingly. There is no evidence that anyone scaled that wall, only a need to provide a route into the house for a thief/murderer without using door keys (because that is what actually did happen!). Even Spiderman leave footprints in mud at the start of a climb which the magic burglar didn't.
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Emerald wrote:
Not sure how all this pr stuff works, but it seems to me HarperCollins would expect more high profile from someone they recently invested $4 million in.


If I was a betting woman (which I am, lol), then I'd say that Knox's PR crew will begin whoring her out to the media from about October this year onwards. Starting small, building over the new year and into the Spring 2013 release date. Similarly Sollecito, you usually get a 6 month run into a big release.

Something that occurred to me as I typed the above is the side effects of all this. Knox and Sollecito are releasing books and will soon begin to have a media presence. They have, in effect, declared open season to the media on themselves. Its the "live by the sword" mentality of the press and if they want any promotion of their respective books, they will need the press to make it happen. I hate the Daily Mail but if their long lensers are making Foxy and Raffy's lives a little uncomfortable then I'm a bit on their side. Actually the DM recently went to town on Tesco for accepting slave labour from the DWP and I have to begrudgingly give then kudos for that. They are dragging themselves out of the sewer but only as far as the gutter sadly. Either way, keep printing every detail of Knox and Sollecito's lives and soon, there will be nothing left for a book.
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

@Zopi - hey there! Good to see you :) and thanks for the feedback on my post, much appreciated. As we're like ships that pass in the night, I hope we can catch up with each others posts as I like the way you think.

@Cape - .org are right, you are as mad as a box of frogs m'love but in the best possible way (the bit they missed!). Don't change ever please ;) If you're winding people up its usually because what you say is true. The delivery is blunt and to the point...you a northerner by any chance? You write like one and I like it. And as for emoticons, I'm starting to think if you can't beat em, join em!!

@Michael - Jonny Depp you say? I think we may need to take this onto PM from here.... ;) Sorry for stealing your thunder but the Hellman thing is funny isn't it. I think Hellman Mayonnaise had a better grip on this case than the appeal judge. I do see your point over the Sollecito wealth thing, they will get another amazing lawyer but I think Bongiorno was the driving force for a big chunk of the defence and the push to link with the Knox team. Once she is out of the picture, a new lawyer may focus more on Raf's self preservation and less on making the two sides join up. Which brings us back to initial predictions for the last appeal which was the breakign apart of the two sides. Once Sollecito realises that he can beat this by shuffling blame to Amanda rather than Rudy then he will. Now she's rejected him totally (dumped for DJ who was then dumped for Terrano, Sollecito wasn't even a runner for Knox's affections) what possible motive does Raf have for sticking with her?
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 23, 2012 12:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
Now she's rejected him totally (dumped for DJ who was then dumped for Terrano, Sollecito wasn't even a runner for Knox's affections) what possible motive does Raf have for sticking with her?


Hmm, well, I suppose the fact that he tied his fate with Amanda and she serves as his alibi that he was in his flat that night. If he were to change that narrative, then that will have made him an admitted liar for the last five years and that won't go over well in his defence to any High Court or possible subsequent appeal court. He would also have no alibi. I would imagine any new lawyer, for those reasons, would stick to the old narrative. And then, I'm not convinced Bongiorno won't continue to defend him either, Concordia case or not. I very much doubt she will drop him as a client.

_________________
"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 Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, Ava,

I love these questions, and even if I answered them before, it gives me another chance to expand on it, so thanks.

Speaking only for myself and not any other man ;) what drew me to the case were first and foremost, the spiritual connections, which are so many I barely even touched upon them in the other sites. Sort of, as above, so below, and how this is being mirrored globally. The similarities and coincidences were also staggering.

From a psychological perspective, I am drawn to the connections between all 4 individuals, Guede, Kercher, Knox, Sollecito, and their interaction with each other. Was it you that asked, "what is it between Knox and Sollecito, as though they are soul mates"? which caused me to write a major piece on my website about the interaction between all of them? I'll cross post it here.

From a literary perspective, yes, I'm a writer (much debate on how good I am, or good at all ;) and you should see my screenplay in development for many many years, but I am a fan of film, and think this case would make a wonderful novel and movie, based on the psycho-spiritual interaction between all four of them. I should point out that my first novel, Man From Atlan, is about soulmates? This is about how we connect with others and the patterns we create, across many lifetimes.

Yes, I have said that jealousy was a primary motive in the murder of Meredith Kercher. This, connected with illness and made worse by drug and alcohol abuse, was the basis of the crime. Focusing on that alone would make it a crime like any other, but I believe there is more to it we can learn from. This was why I kept asking of every one, what draws us to the case? Why does it have such a grip on our imagination?

But is it jealousy, or female jealousy that attracts men? No, I think we find women fascinating, and like to see all the different manifestations of who and what they are, and they can be as enticing and confusing to us as men might be to women. But, that is to answer your question. Me, I find the Anger of Women to be far more interesting, and hypothesised a while back about the anger that I felt was the underlay of the psychology of Amanda Knox.

But, it is our relationships that make us more interesting, and exploring that as a work of fiction as opposed to a dry dissection of facts and evidence, or psychological analysis, is what I was discussing. I've too many books I need to write first, so threw it out for others.

And it is this, therefore, that draws me back here. To discuss the psycho-spiritual aspects of the case.



Hi Ergon! Thank you for your reply, I'm still thinking about one myself...
Yes, anger must be an issue for Amanda, no doubt, but it also seems to run in her family a bit, doesn't it.
I think jealousy is often closely tied to anger and can in fact be a very strong bond for certain people, for some even the only way they can connect with others at all.
Didn't you write once that Amanda felt a strong attraction towards or connection with Meredith?
I believe that could be true.
And I can see the relationship patterns you're talking about for Rudy, Raffaele and, well, Amanda (but I think even the dailymail figured that one out :)).
With regard to Meredith I just find it heartbreaking that (according to her dad, iirc) something with her application for the Erasmus program went wrong and she fought extra hard to still be able to go to Perugia in the fall of 2007.
What a tragic coincidence.
By the way it wasn't me who was talking about AK and RS being soulmates (the word 'soul' isn't exactly written on Raffie's face, is it ;) ).
And yes, I would like to read the piece from your website again!


Last edited by Ava on Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
daisysteiner wrote:
Now she's rejected him totally (dumped for DJ who was then dumped for Terrano, Sollecito wasn't even a runner for Knox's affections) what possible motive does Raf have for sticking with her?


Hmm, well, I suppose the fact that he tied his fate with Amanda and she serves as his alibi that he was in his flat that night. If he were to change that narrative, then that will have made him an admitted liar for the last five years and that won't go over well in his defence to any High Court or possible subsequent appeal court. He would also have no alibi. I would imagine any new lawyer, for those reasons, would stick to the old narrative. And then, I'm not convinced Bongiorno won't continue to defend him either, Concordia case or not. I very much doubt she will drop him as a client.


I think that it is a case of hope over expectation on my part about Sollecito going back to the alibi where Amanda left the flat. I think my only real grip on that theory is the fact that Sollecito's alibi doesn't actually need to change. He can say he was at his flat for the night but Amanda left to go to work and didn't come back until 1am. A new lawyer may be able to frame it in such a way that doesn't make him come across as a total liar. Who knows, we'll see sooner rather than later I hope :)

I reckon we'll have to see if Bongiorno comes back or not. I just can't help thinking that much of her political power/clout came from Berlusconi (same with Girlanda). Now he is off the scene and the political landscape of Italy is changing so much then it isn't quite as important for her to keep her hand into this case, and certainly not offer it the same level of her attention. Nailing Captain Calamity from the Costa Concordia will bring her more attention than Raffaele these days (esp as they have found the body of that poor missing 5 year old, that has completely screwed Schettino's miniscule chance of getting off and rightly so). I have no doubt that the Sollecitos are significantly wealthier than the Knox's. But I do agree with you that it doesn't mean that they will be able to "influence" the judges this time around.
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 23, 2012 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well, Berlusconi was a member of P2, who's to say Bongiorno isn't a part of the club? Power in Italy doesn't always reside on the surface. I'm thinking of that dual Italian aspect Ergon alluded to.

And as for the Concordia case and Sollecito...I'm quite sure she's capable of handling both cases at the same time. And after all, I doubt she'll be quite as busy with parliament these days, as she once was when Berlusconi was in power.

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


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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

@Ava - You're spot on. This whole thing is driven primarily by theft to my mind but secondly by jealousy/anger. I'd love to see a full interview with Filomena and Laura to really understand the dynamic in that house.
Top Profile 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I have promised that I will not engage in a legal analysis of the evidence. I will keep that promise. However, I would like to bring some broader principles which are now second nature to me having practiced law for over 35 years. Again, I am interested in the process.

The great English commentator William Blackstone noted in the 18th Century that "better that ten guilty persons then that one innocent suffer." An interesting article from the University of Pennsylvania Law Review can be found at http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

As I have mentioned previously, I engaged in a fair amount of appellate work when I was in practice. After a careful review of the record accompanied by legal research I would write unassailable legal briefs. The "unassailable" was a matter of my good faith opinion. Guess what? The other side would then proceed to file their own legal brief which purported to make a good faith attack on the position I would take. I just loved reading my own reasoning and would fume at the piece of crap put out by the opposition. Desipite this, I lost as often that I would prevail. :(

My point is that in the Knox trial, there are essentially two "briefs" now in play -- "Massei" and "Hellmann." As much as one may think one is great and the other pure undulteraed crap -- both will be taken into consideration.

A principle in US appellate jurisprudence I would often run into is along the lines of "although we might have ruled differently, we must give deference to the decision below."
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
@Ava - You're spot on. This whole thing is driven primarily by theft to my mind but secondly by jealousy/anger. I'd love to see a full interview with Filomena and Laura to really understand the dynamic in that house.


True, and aren't such dynamics interesting...too bad so few of their observations have been made public.
Maybe they didn't fully overview what was going on though. I believe their lifes and schedules were different from Meredith's and Amanda's.


Last edited by Ava on Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello, all. Might I add here to the jealousy/anger comment.
Raffaele noticed how cute Meredith's jeans were that day. I believe they belonged to a former boyfriend. If he made this comment aloud at the time, I could see the blue eyes changing to a blazing green.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Good Morning all :)

Super posts to wake up to. I'm on the page with the stealing of the money and jealousy. Yes, Napia, I've thought of the boyfriends jeans comment as well. And, I would REALLY liked to have seen more of what Filomena and Laura said.

@Daisy. English parents, Mum's from Suffolk. Me, born and raised in Africa. GRRRRR. Thanks, Daisy, for your comments. Mad as a box of frogs? :D You make me laugh, but next time I read one of your posts, I will NOT be holding a cup of espresso..

Like a Northerner? No..but if they tell it like it is, I like 'em. A lot.

I don't see Bongiorno back . Which reminds me. Is she facing any charges re: The bribery allegations? Money for the sex change op?

_________________
"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 23, 2012 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thinking about the anger issue. In the beginning, Edda said Amanda dealt with problems with people, by writing them letters. She didn't like confrontations.

Was she frightened of her feelings? Frightened at her thoughts? Frightened of what she felt she was capable of?

No question. When Knox went to Italy, she allowed herself the freedom to be herself. She shed any inhabitions she had in Seattle. Chris said all she ever did, was eat the same breakfast, go to school, study and go to bed. Same thing, every day.

I think she thought of herself as a butterfly, coming out of it's cocoon. Unfortunately, Knox had no idea of acceptable behaviour. What worked for her in Seattle, didn't work in Italy.

I think Arline Kercher was absolutely correct, when she said Meredith was everything Knox wanted to be.

_________________
"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: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

My wonderings are: If the appeal goes against Smelly, can we put pressure on the British Foreign Office to not allow the American Govt to refuse to send her back
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 23, 2012 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well there is that tricky extradition treaty the US has with Italy.
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 23, 2012 9:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
Well there is that tricky extradition treaty the US has with Italy.


Yes, but that treaty isn't equal. Under the treaty, the Italians HAVE to extradite its citizens, whilst all extradition applications for US citizens have to be okayed by the US Government. If the US Government feels like it, it can simply say no. So, any extradition application for Knox will have to go through two hurdles instead of one...first, the US courts and secondly the US Government. In other words, any such decision would be political as well as legal and the Italians would have to overcome both.

Maria wrote:
My wonderings are: If the appeal goes against Smelly, can we put pressure on the British Foreign Office to not allow the American Govt to refuse to send her back


Hi Maria :)

Huh! Britain currently has a Tory government. First of all, the Tories never stick up for the rights of British citizens abroad and secondly, the Tories worship everything American and will never attempt to deny the Americans whatever they want. Whatever in the World may be done to help this case proceed as it should, that help is never going to come from the British Government.

_________________
"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 Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Hello, all. Might I add here to the jealousy/anger comment.
Raffaele noticed how cute Meredith's jeans were that day. I believe they belonged to a former boyfriend. If he made this comment aloud at the time, I could see the blue eyes changing to a blazing green.


Hi Napia, or more like greenish-yellow maybe (they eyes)? ;)
I do think Raffaele said it aloud, it took place in the kitchen and it's in his testimony, iirc.
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 23, 2012 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Hello, all. Might I add here to the jealousy/anger comment.
Raffaele noticed how cute Meredith's jeans were that day. I believe they belonged to a former boyfriend. If he made this comment aloud at the time, I could see the blue eyes changing to a blazing green.



I think it was that Raffaele thought it was cute that Meredith wore her previous boyfriend's jeans in order to remember/be close to him, rather then his saying she looked cute in them or they looked cute.

_________________
"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 Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael is right...this is from Raff's diary Nov 7, 2007:

"So I prepared the lunch for us both, she so setting herself to play the
guitar meanwhile Meredith was preparing to go out.
The cute thing that I remember is that Meredith wore a pair of jeans
from man that were her ex-boyfriend's in England."
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 23, 2012 10:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Haha Michael... I did say 'tricky' treaty.
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 23, 2012 10:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
capealadin wrote:
If I had to guess, who COULD have attempted the climb, I'd have to say Knox, the Rock Climber......


You know, thats crossed my mind on more than one occasion. But why would you break into a house which you have door keys for? I think the whole climb up the outside of the house is a huge red herring. The climb has bob all to do with the case, mainly because it never happened. Noone scaled the outside of the cottage other than the divvy solicitor and even then it was a huge fail on his part because he didn't really manage it convincingly. There is no evidence that anyone scaled that wall, only a need to provide a route into the house for a thief/murderer without using door keys (because that is what actually did happen!). Even Spiderman leave footprints in mud at the start of a climb which the magic burglar didn't.


One should also remember that Knox and Sollecito claimed she tried to climb up to Meredith's window (this when they were in a supposed panic about Meredith, the panic that suddenly no longer existed when everyone else arrived). I think, that perhaps that was more then simple embellishment of their story to emphasise how concerned they were for Meredith. That whole detail could have been constructed to try and help cement the idea in investigators' minds that the break-in by a lone phantom intruder was genuine "Hey, look, if a girl is willing to attempt to make a climb up to that level in the belief she can make it, then so could a male intruder and being a stronger/taller man, could probably succeed!". One must remember, that story of the attempted climb first came out a day later, in Amanda's email...so they'd had over a day and a half to talk it over with each other and think it up.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
Haha Michael... I did say 'tricky' treaty.


:)

It gets trickier still. Knox has the high profile Ted Simon as her lawyer and his speciality is dealing with extradition cases.

_________________
"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 Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I see that I have mis-used the word "cute" here. But, I think the important fact is he noticed the jeans at all. Or, at least the jeans were the topic of some conversation had, or else, how would he have known? The jeans were noticed. Meredith was noticed, in this context. And he found this to be "cute." I think the attention to this at all would have put the frosting on the cookies of a jealous person. I know this is speculation on my part, but, to me, this makes sense.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Last post on this, I promise. But, it made me laugh.

Ganong has now termed Michael, DEAR LEADER. I love it. I'm so sorry Michael, I really don't think I've shown you due respect.

I prolly should have added this emoticon, when addressing you. wor-))

The other thing, that had me going wtf) is Ganong saying how SHE asked Michael to co-moderate.

OKAAAYYY...I'm not a techie, but even I know, you NEED software, HARDWARE, a BOARD, to post and moderate.

Oh, YEAH. THAT would be Michael. It was very nice of you, Dear Leader :) to do that. Because, without YOUR software, your HARDWARE, your BOARD, NO PMF.

And, we're all equal here, folks. Because without the posters, there's no need to have Admins, no need for Moderators.

Right. Back to where we were. hugz-)

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Napia5,

Yes, I understand what you mean.

I don't really have a view on the jealousy thing, whether Knox was or wasn't jealous, although I'm more inclined to the idea that it wasn't a crucial factor. This is for two reasons. Firstly, unless Knox tells us or others that she was, it's unknowable. Secondly, I have to take into account Knox's bombastic and loud nature with an attention deficit (so loud, always prattling loudly or fidgeting and when she's not doing that she's daydreaming in her own world), she is likely to have missed noticing many of the small and subtle things that may cause jealousy, that many other quieter and more self-disciplined girls WOULD notice. There is also Knox's lack of empathy with others. If you're less able to empathise with others, then you're less likely to pick up things in their manner or behaviout that may cause jealousy. Certainly, Knox can turn on the charm and can also flirt, but I also consider her socially handicapped (which is a good part of the reason most of her friends are male rather then female...). What I'm saying is, a good many things that may have made other girls jealous, probably would have gone right over Knox's head.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I wonder about that Michael. Mainly because of the previous boy that AK let Meredith 'have', the problems in her eyes at work, Meredith coming to make drinks there, maybe even that 'cute' statement by RS. I don't think the avoidance of her on Halloween helped either... might have even pumped it up a notch.

Lately I have been intrigued with the RG as the 'patsy' viewpoint in regards to being there after being told Meredith liked him, or maybe even to be in on a prank with AK and RS harrassing Meredith. But the one that I always go back to is to set him up as the thief in regards to the stolen money. I believe that at least AK would have known RG had previous trouble from a break-in. One reason for this is that if AK and RS didn't have anything to do with it... the broken front door lock is always a valid reason for someone to have entered. They (she) didn't really need to stage the break-in. Another is that she most likely knew he 'fancied' her... and may have used that to her plan's advantage. I'm not even sure it had anything to do with drugs from/thru RG... but I'm almost certain all three were 'blinded' off of something. The one joint bullcrap and RS saying he wouldn't do it again make this obvious to me. Wasn't there a video of RG acting foolish while drunk/stoned? Add the called cocaine dealer both before and immediately after the murder (why after the murder?) it sure looks likely cocaine may have been involved.

Am I correct that there are only two ways that RG would have known about the missing money at the point he did?
1-There was a fight between AK and Meredith over the stolen money.
2-He took it himself. Even that wouldn't excuse AK/RS in my mind as they would have probably told him were it was or given it to him.

You know you are my bouncing board for ideas/theories/guesses... get me straight.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Last post on this, I promise. But, it made me laugh.

Ganong has now termed Michael, DEAR LEADER. I love it. I'm so sorry Michael, I really don't think I've shown you due respect.

I prolly should have added this emoticon, when addressing you. wor-))

The other thing, that had me going wtf) is Ganong saying how SHE asked Michael to co-moderate.

OKAAAYYY...I'm not a techie, but even I know, you NEED software, HARDWARE, a BOARD, to post and moderate.

Oh, YEAH. THAT would be Michael. It was very nice of you, Dear Leader :) to do that. Because, without YOUR software, your HARDWARE, your BOARD, NO PMF.

And, we're all equal here, folks. Because without the posters, there's no need to have Admins, no need for Moderators.

Right. Back to where we were. hugz-)


Really? I thought it was IIP that was rolling about on the floor about Some Other Person's statement about "the role of a Leader" ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael, Patrick said how Jealous Knox was. He said she hated Meredith. Knox's behaviour..LOOK AT ME, is because she din't miss the fact that Mex was popular. Effortlessly. It's like a child, when seeing someone else get attention..does the look at me thing.

Knox was aggressive in getting attention. We have that info, including from pal Madison. She was competitive for male attention..so I think she was very aware of Mez's popularity.

Even to the point, where she tells Mez she can have the boy downstairs. ( whom Knox fancied)......I think Knox took into account many things. Even Raf's thinking it was cute, that Mez wore the ex-boyfriends jeans.

What would have gone over most females heads, were very big in Knox's. Imo.

_________________
"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 24, 2012 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Them too, Ergon :)

_________________
"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 24, 2012 12:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

DG!!! We're on the same page. Sorry, our posts crossed. Yours says it better, though. Yes, yes and no. I don't believe Rudy took the money. Knox would have known that Mez had the rent money . Where it was kept. Personally, I think Knox took the money , when Mez left. And, was planning on making herself scarce, until Mez left for England.

_________________
"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 24, 2012 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And, I do believe Knox made arrangements for Rudy to go to the cottage. So, when the money was discovered missing, it wasn't just her and Raf. They were the last ones there. And, therefore, the likely suspects.

Rudy was set up, I'm sure. AND, he never scaled that wall. No-one did. Either the door was left open for him, or Mez let him in. I'm inclined to believe the latter. That Rudy was hanging around outside, waiting for Knox. He tells Mez that's he's meeting Knox. She let's him in. She discovers her money missing, calls Knox a drugged up whore. Rudy escapes to the bathroom...hears a loud argment about the money.........

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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

But RG has to be involved in the actual attack of Meredith. Maybe he left during that part for the bathroom, then heard the terrible scream he speaks of, then runs into RS and AK running out (remember 'black man found, black man guilty') sees Meredith, runs to the bathroom turning light on, gets towels and returns to 'try' to help, then too runs right out the cottage. AK and RS return later to clean, move the body, and stage. What you think?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yes. But, I think Rudy went to the bathroom, and while he was in there, he heard the argument. Then the scream. He comes running out..I believe him when he says this, because there's all the details about him not even pulling up his pants. I've never been able to get an understanding about Rudy's dna in Meredith, btw. Becaue, I do think Meredith was dressed when he left. I think Rudy didn't want Meredith to call the police, about the missing money. He mentions having mediated between Knox and Meredith before. I think Raf may have arrived at this point, or Knox ran to get him, while Rudy stayed with Meredith.

Of course, we don't know. I;m trying to find a possible believable scenario. I do believe the missing money was the catalyst. Add jealousy, drugs/drinking. It certainly seems that Knox and Raf were off their heads that night, on something. ( Kokomani's testimony)......

How did it play out. Adding to this: Raf, the lust besotted swain, saying Knox told him to say a sack of merde. That Knox came home at 1.00am. It's taking the truths, and the lies, and coming up with a credible version of what caused this terrible tragedy. The footprints tell us something. We know Rudy went from Meredith's room, straight out the front door. We know he took no part in the staged break in. So, it's how the actual murder happened.

Did Knox, in her anger, give Meredith a strong blow, taking her by surprise ? Is that when Meredith screamed? Did Knox then put her hand over Meredith's mouth? Did Knox leave, going to get Raf? Or, did he arrive at that point.

_________________
"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 24, 2012 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Another thing, dg. Rudy says he was in the bathroom for about 5 minutes? I imagine the attack lasted longer. I could be wrong...it could have been as little as a couple of minutes. Andrelanin must have been high.

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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I believe all three were involved in the attack with RS and AK with knives while RG assaulted her sexually with his hand down her pants. Maybe he went to the bathroom just after that point... and the knife pokes and holding down continued. Then the scream and the fatal stab wound delivered. RG runs from the bathroom and meets RS/AK heading out of the cottage... RS does say something about him (RG) being the one that everyone would blame. I believe AK's neck mark comes from either her pulling off her own ski mask at some point... or Meredith did.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

That theory is plausible. I tell you what i DO know.

Follow the Fear Factor. Who ever did the staged break in was responsible. The Fear Factor? The two things that rattle the Foakers. The money, the staged breakin. Those two things put Knox right there. Where did Knox get the extra money? A frantic shuffling over at the groupies. The breakin? Knox's dna right there.

And, those two things have not been addressed in any logical way. Hellmann has looked like an idiot trying.

_________________
"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 24, 2012 1:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And, I'm talking from the point of the ludicrous spiderman walk up the wall, to Knox's dna in Filomena's room. To the glass on TOP of the clothes. To nothing being taken..( forget the credit cards...that's part of the staged breakin).

The HUGE rock...we don't need just spiderman, we need a javelin thrower as well. Or the discus thrower. Someone with an enormous amount of strength and skill. Except, the rock was thrown from inside. That makes sense. The rest is just nonsense.

I wonder if sometimes, Knox isn't tickled pink, when reading Hellmann's verdict. Thinks, Raf was right about the cops being stupid. Even the Judges are. Whoot.......... Gives a LOT of meaning to her : CIAO, SUCKERS.

_________________
"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 24, 2012 1:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Good chatting, dg :)

I'm out for the night. Sushi, here I come. Yum.........

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

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
dgfred wrote:
Haha Michael... I did say 'tricky' treaty.


:)

It gets trickier still. Knox has the high profile Ted Simon as her lawyer and his speciality is dealing with extradition cases.
An interesting blog post on the legal aspects of the US-Italy extradition treaty vis a vis Ms. Knox:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20 ... on-treaty/

There is nothing "automatic" about extradition. The requesting state passes on its request to the US Department of State. If the paperwork is in order, the Secretary of State then files a suit in the appropriate federal district court. The District Court determines if the grounds exist for extradition under the terms of the treaty.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
I believe all three were involved in the attack with RS and AK with knives while RG assaulted her sexually with his hand down her pants. Maybe he went to the bathroom just after that point... and the knife pokes and holding down continued. Then the scream and the fatal stab wound delivered. RG runs from the bathroom and meets RS/AK heading out of the cottage... RS does say something about him (RG) being the one that everyone would blame. I believe AK's neck mark comes from either her pulling off her own ski mask at some point... or Meredith did.

The thought that RG was indeed in the bathroom during the murder has crossed my mind a few time but never really made complete sense to me. I think if any of the 3 had any lesser involvement in the murder they would have told the truth. For the scream I agree with Massei that this was Meredith in protest against what they were doing to here. IMO that was when RG assaulted her. I find it more difficult to imagine Meredith releasing such a scream with a wound in her neck, besides her hyoid bone was likely broken from the strangle and she can't scream after that.

Then after the scream it is a matter of minutes for the stabbings to occur. I believe the witness Capazeli who heard running a few minutes after the scream. IMO the sequence is the sexual assault, scream, strangle, struggle to breath by Meredith and controlling her with knives by AK and RS (who was also messing around with his knife to cut the bra at this point) which totally went out of hand. I am even leaving the option open that they didn't intend to stab her, although we can never know for sure what went through their minds at that very moment.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ava wrote:


Hi Ergon! Thank you for your reply, I'm still thinking about one myself...
Yes, anger must be an issue for Amanda, no doubt, but it also seems to run in her family a bit, doesn't it.
I think jealousy is often closely tied to anger and can in fact be a very strong bond for certain people, for some even the only way they can connect with others at all.
Didn't you write once that Amanda felt a strong attraction towards or connection with Meredith?
I believe that could be true.
And I can see the relationship patterns you're talking about for Rudy, Raffaele and, well, Amanda (but I think even the dailymail figured that one out :)).
With regard to Meredith I just find it heartbreaking that (according to her dad, iirc) something with her application for the Erasmus program went wrong and she fought extra hard to still be able to go to Perugia in the fall of 2007.
What a tragic coincidence.
By the way it wasn't me who was talking about AK and RS being soulmates (the word 'soul' isn't exactly written on Raffie's face, is it ;) ).
And yes, I would like to read the piece from your website again!



Here's the article, Ava, on a new thread:

A Psycho-Astrological Perspective on the Relationship of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=371

It was in an interesting time for me last October when I wrote it. What I feared, that Knox and Sollecito would be acquitted, had just happened. Then someone asked for a psychological perspective on their relationship, so sure enough, I had to bring in,
A Psycho-Astrological Perspective :)

But really, there are very close links between astrology and psychology. So, please, enjoy, and if any one has questions, please post. I had some visitors from the Innocentsi sites and it was mostly a very polite, and illuminating discussion for all. Since they'd posted it publicly, I'm adding our conversation to their topic. There was some lovely stuff! Please, be polite about them, it shows we can indeed have polite conversation, when they do the same.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ha, I found something in the Hellmann report I (somewhat) agree with which is Rudy's testimony. Rudy had a thought that was absolutely true. Well, how can it be absolutely true if it is just a thought?

Quote:
“DEFENCE COUNSEL DALLA VEDOVA – And therefore, Mr Guede, when you write word for word that it was ‘a horrible murder of a gorgeous, marvellous girl who was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox’ what exactly do you mean? Had you ever said this?
WITNESS – Well I have never said it explicitly in this way, however, I have always thought it.
DEFENCE COUNSEL DALLA VEDOVA – Well why did you write it?
WITNESS – I wrote it because it was a thought which has always been in my mind [dentro di me].
DEFENCE COUNSEL DALLA VEDOVA – But therefore it is not true.
WITNESS – No, it is absolutely true.
DEFENCE COUNSEL DALLA VEDOVA – And can you better elaborate that? What do you mean?
WITNESS – It is absolutely true.
DEFENCE COUNSEL DALLA VEDOVA – Do you confirm this circumstance? As a party? [Da parte?] (=as someone who was there)
WITNESS – Well, I with the ... well, as I have told you before, this is a thought that has always been in my head, it’s a thought which however in the end I decided to put in writing, hearing certain absurdities, in my opinion, and I accept all the responsibility, hearing a puppet manipulated by certain people, that’s all. Thus, if I have written those words it’s because they exist, I’ve always had them inside me. It’s not for me to decide who killed Meredith, in the statement I made at my trial, I have always said who was there on that cursed night in that house, therefore I think that I am not saying anything new, I have only put in writing my thoughts and I have made them tangible, that’s all. Therefore I don’t see to what other question I must answer...”.

Rudy refused to talk any further and said it is not up to him. He did not want to say anything about the murder night and his 'thought' was just not good enough. I could agree with that.

Quote:
Thus, even from a substantive point of view, the indication of responsibility contained in the acquired letter does not represent the result of the description in a circumstantial way of an actual event, verified by the writer and referred to in detail, but only the expression of a personal conviction, based on what facts it is not known, given the absence in the present trial of statements on the part of Rudy Guede.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

SomeLawyer wrote:
Hello


Hi, SomeLawyer. Welcome to the board.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
SomeLawyer wrote:
Hello


Hi, SomeLawyer. Welcome to the board.


Hi Ergon. Good to be here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I have been thinking about the break-in and while we know it was staged there is also further reason to believe that Rudy would never combine an attempted sexual advance on the night of a robbery. If the entry was a robbery attempt when confronted by Meredith he would have fled immediately rather than thinking I better leave my DNA before I go just to make sure I get nailed. Rather, I think the unwanted assualt did happen while she was clothed, in his mind perhaps he didn't think at that point it was such a serious offence. Drugs could have made the hazing seem less real and not a crime that would would escalate with the help of others.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

malvern wrote:
I have been thinking about the break-in and while we know it was staged there is also further reason to believe that Rudy would never combine an attempted sexual advance on the night of a robbery. If the entry was a robbery attempt when confronted by Meredith he would have fled immediately rather than thinking I better leave my DNA before I go just to make sure I get nailed. Rather, I think the unwanted assualt did happen while she was clothed, in his mind perhaps he didn't think at that point it was such a serious offence. Drugs could have made the hazing seem less real and not a crime that would would escalate with the help of others.


Nor would he have taken the time off to go poop in the toilet. fc-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

With focus on process:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ided_.html
Top Profile 

Offline SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Will a message to Michael be recieved via PM if it's only in the outbox not the sent box?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

No. Sometimes it takes several hours for PM's to clear the outbox, though i think it might seem that way, depending on one's browser.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
An interesting blog post on the legal aspects of the US-Italy extradition treaty vis a vis Ms. Knox:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20 ... on-treaty/

There is nothing "automatic" about extradition. The requesting state passes on its request to the US Department of State. If the paperwork is in order, the Secretary of State then files a suit in the appropriate federal district court. The District Court determines if the grounds exist for extradition under the terms of the treaty.
I took the time to read the actual treaty. If I were a betting man, I would put the odds on Knox not being subject to extradition. Please do not shoot the messenger -- I'm just giving an opinion on the law.

Murder is a crime in both the US and Italy -- no problem on that. However, as noted in the blog discussion, Article VI of the treaty disallows extradition if there has been an acquittal. The question then arises, whose law will be used to define that term? Given the reciprocal nature of extradition treaties, it is my belief that both countries' defintions need to be examined -- and if an "acquittal" exists under the law of either country, extradition will not lie.

Under United States law, an acquittal takes place when, after "jeopardy"" has attached and the "finder of fact" has found in favor of the defendant. [This is not a complete definition, but I think it applies to Knox's situation]. "Jeopardy" did attach to Knox. Hellmann, et al made a formal ruling that she did not commit the crime. If this had happened in the United States, that would have been the end of the story.

I may very well be wrong. However, for an extradition to occur, many steps have to occur with multiple parties agreeing that extradition will lie.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:


Ah yes, process and the George Huguely trial. Some here might believe that if Amanda Knox had been tried in a U.S. court she would definitely have been found guilty, through all stages of trial and appeal. I am not sure I agree. White woman, mixed race victim. I think the presumption of innocence would have been skewed towards her, even though the DNA evidence would have been viewed more favorably by a US jury.

I was much drawn by how the first two courts (Micheli and Massei) followed the Italian model of jurisprudence, while Hellmann's might be charitably expressed, as er, American, with its skewed and perverse interpretation of 'reasonable doubt'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

SomeLawyer wrote:
Will a message to Michael be recieved via PM if it's only in the outbox not the sent box?


Hi SL, messages sit in the outbox until picked up by the recipient, i.e. until the other person reads them; then they move to your sent box.

If the other person doesn't pick up, your message will be in your outbox for three months or until you delete it.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
BMF1950 wrote:
An interesting blog post on the legal aspects of the US-Italy extradition treaty vis a vis Ms. Knox:

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20 ... on-treaty/

There is nothing "automatic" about extradition. The requesting state passes on its request to the US Department of State. If the paperwork is in order, the Secretary of State then files a suit in the appropriate federal district court. The District Court determines if the grounds exist for extradition under the terms of the treaty.
I took the time to read the actual treaty. If I were a betting man, I would put the odds on Knox not being subject to extradition. Please do not shoot the messenger -- I'm just giving an opinion on the law.

Murder is a crime in both the US and Italy -- no problem on that. However, as noted in the blog discussion, Article VI of the treaty disallows extradition if there has been an acquittal. The question then arises, whose law will be used to define that term? Given the reciprocal nature of extradition treaties, it is my belief that both countries' defintions need to be examined -- and if an "acquittal" exists under the law of either country, extradition will not lie.

Under United States law, an acquittal takes place when, after "jeopardy"" has attached and the "finder of fact" has found in favor of the defendant. [This is not a complete definition, but I think it applies to Knox's situation]. "Jeopardy" did attach to Knox. Hellmann, et al made a formal ruling that she did not commit the crime. If this had happened in the United States, that would have been the end of the story.

I may very well be wrong. However, for an extradition to occur, many steps have to occur with multiple parties agreeing that extradition will lie.


It might well play out the way you say, BMF1950. The Knox team has already made that argument many times in the media and in blog posts. They certainly will use the double jeopardy argument, and the US, never one to extradite defendants who have the semblance of public support, might well refuse to extradite Knox. We know that.

But the state of Italy will, if it convicts Knox in absentia, issue an extradition request, and the courts will argue Article VI of the treaty in enough measure to keep the lawyers happy.. It might be advisable to keep in mind, though, that if they establish this precedent, Italian courts might well in future require American criminals to stay within their jurisdiction until all the trials are concluded, just saying.

Future Amanda Knoxes might not be so lucky as her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Morning all :)

Max, you bring up something that always frustrates the hell out of me. Rudy's waffling, if you will.

I wanted to scream: Just spit it out, man. Stop with the thought thing. Just SAY IT.

However, Rudy seems like a frightened man. Scared of repercussions. His : It's not for me to say who Killed Meredith, is like shifting the DECISION to the Judges. The KNOWLEDGE, however, is his.

Is it possible, that Rudy believes he still has a case for retrial? That it's not a done deal for him? Because, that would explain in part, why he hasn't been more forthcoming.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

There is lots of discussion about bribes being given to some witnesses. I happen to believe it's true.

That said, I don't doubt Rudy would be a recipient, too. It's obvious he wants to tell, but doesn't feel he can. He reaches the brink, but steps back.
Top Profile 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
It might well play out the way you say, BMF1950. The Knox team has already made that argument many times in the media and in blog posts. They certainly will use the double jeopardy argument, and the US, never one to extradite defendants who have the semblance of public support, might well refuse to extradite Knox. We know that.

But the state of Italy will, if it convicts Knox in absentia, issue an extradition request, and the courts will argue Article VI of the treaty in enough measure to keep the lawyers happy.. It might be advisable to keep in mind, though, that if they establish this precedent, Italian courts might well in future require American criminals to stay within their jurisdiction until all the trials are concluded, just saying.

Future Amanda Knoxes might not be so lucky as her.
My understanding is that it fairly difficult for the "U.S." to extradite murder suspects TO the U.S. due to the fact that the extradition is a Federal matter while most criminal murder trials are a matter of state jurisdiction. Add on top of that the tiny little fact that many of the individual states have capital punishment. My understanding is that the Federal Government cannot, as a matter of Constituional law, give legally binding assurance that the individual state will not seek to impose the death penalty.

For what it is worth, I put "U.S." in quotation marks due to the Federal nature of the system. I recall reading about the refusal of Mexico to extradite to the US because the local District Attorney in California refused to give his right to seek the death penalty. [Personally, I think that allowed to the DA to look like he was "tough on crime" without having to actually try the turkey. But I digress].
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Emerald, Bongiorno said they hounded Rudy for a long time. He wrote a long letter to his attorneys.

Do we have access to it?

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
My understanding is that it fairly difficult for the "U.S." to extradite murder suspects TO the U.S. due to the fact that the extradition is a Federal matter while most criminal murder trials are a matter of state jurisdiction. Add on top of that the tiny little fact that many of the individual states have capital punishment. My understanding is that the Federal Government cannot, as a matter of Constituional law, give legally binding assurance that the individual state will not seek to impose the death penalty.

For what it is worth, I put "U.S." in quotation marks due to the Federal nature of the system. I recall reading about the refusal of Mexico to extradite to the US because the local District Attorney in California refused to give his right to seek the death penalty. [Personally, I think that allowed to the DA to look like he was "tough on crime" without having to actually try the turkey. But I digress].


You explain that very well, thanks. However, I do not believe that the U.S. (it is a federal court that will rule on extradition) will make a ruling based on legal considerations; it will do so based on political and internal considerations.

And Article VI has so far only been floated as a factor by anonymous bloggers of the kind that post (in the article you link to) "let the Italians come, they will be met by more armed Americans than at Anzio Beach" :(

I am not a lawyer, but imho Article VI does not apply to Amanda Knox. I am not convinced that jeopardy attaches to her when she has not yet been exonerated under the Italian system Acquittal has been ruled, but not confirmed. And Italy might well look askance at Americans accused of crimes in the future. Why should they permit them to leave if the U.S. cannot guarantee it will extradite someone in the future if they are eventually found guilty?

The death penalty example, while interesting, does not apply here.. Italy does not have the death penalty, and the double jeopardy argument, might work both ways. I might be stretching a bit here, but Italy might well refuse to extradite anyone back to the US who had been acquitted by a lower court in a non-capital crime, say. They'd been acquitted, you see.
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 24, 2012 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but imho Article VI does not apply to Amanda Knox. I am not convinced that jeopardy attaches to her when she has not yet been exonerated under the Italian system Acquittal has been ruled, but not confirmed. And Italy might well look askance at Americans accused of crimes in the future. Why should they permit them to leave if the U.S. cannot guarantee it will extradite someone in the future if they are eventually found guilty?


Yes, it must be remembered in Knox's TRIAL she was found guilty, unanimously, of all charges barring the theft of the money and credit cards. It was an APPEAL (a review, not a main or first degree trial) where she was then found innocent and that was never a final verdict and the appeal process is not complete. If the High Court rules that it should be sent back to the appeal court for retesting, that again is an APPEAL and should that appeal court then find her guilty, it isn't breaching any double jeopardy views the American courts may have, since it would merely be an appeal court upholding the verdict of her TRIAL where she was found guilty. Even then, it's not done, as it would then have to go back up to the High Court, which is another appeal degree, for that verdict to be upheld or not.

Had it been the other way around and Knox had been found innocent in her main trial but it was the appeal that then found her guilty, THEN it would be easier for US lawyers to propose a double jeopardy form of argument, but that isn't the case.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
I have promised that I will not engage in a legal analysis of the evidence. I will keep that promise. However, I would like to bring some broader principles which are now second nature to me having practiced law for over 35 years. Again, I am interested in the process.

The great English commentator William Blackstone noted in the 18th Century that "better that ten guilty persons then that one innocent suffer." An interesting article from the University of Pennsylvania Law Review can be found at http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

As I have mentioned previously, I engaged in a fair amount of appellate work when I was in practice. After a careful review of the record accompanied by legal research I would write unassailable legal briefs. The "unassailable" was a matter of my good faith opinion. Guess what? The other side would then proceed to file their own legal brief which purported to make a good faith attack on the position I would take. I just loved reading my own reasoning and would fume at the piece of crap put out by the opposition. Desipite this, I lost as often that I would prevail. :(

My point is that in the Knox trial, there are essentially two "briefs" now in play -- "Massei" and "Hellmann." As much as one may think one is great and the other pure undulteraed crap -- both will be taken into consideration.

A principle in US appellate jurisprudence I would often run into is along the lines of "although we might have ruled differently, we must give deference to the decision below."


Ah yes, the presumption of innocence, and the better that ten guilty walk free argument. As the Chinese law professor wittily notes in the Volokh article, "better for whom?"

Now, much as we might love to think of the presumption of innocence as a foundation stone of civilization going all the way back to Deuteronomy (!) the reality is a tattered fig leaf designed to cover up all the messy imperfections of our system of laws, like 'democracy' only better than all other systems.

I wonder how the 'presumption of innocence' has been applied over the years in the star chambers, inquisitions, witch trials and military tribunals which have continued to this day, despite our system of common law.

I look at its practice, and note it is only a legal maxim, reduced to 'argument' now and benefiting at best, white females (sorry) and applied in lesser degree to the marginalised, black, poor, or muslim. When the state uses a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on terror' to take away those rights, when it can waterboard and torture to get the verdict it wants, then I say the presumption of innocence never was a very strong principle to begin with. The principle, baldly put, is now "better to put ten black people or muslim males in prison than let one drug dealer or terrorist go free"

Now, pertaining to your linking this to the Amanda Knox trial. With all due respect to your experience in American appellate law, the Italian Supreme Court (Cassazione) might well uphold Hellmann, or, send back for re trial. The Massei brief will only be considered in the event of a re trial, and it is only Hellmann's that is being appealed. We have had a great many legal opinions on what the outcome might be, those legal experts being, quite often, wrong. The law, as we have seen all along, can be perverse and blind.

It is we common people, on the other hand, that will always call out for justice.
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: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
I look at its practice, and note it is only a legal maxim, reduced to 'argument' now and benefiting at best, white females (sorry) and applied in lesser degree to the marginalised, black, poor, or muslim. When the state uses a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on terror' to take away those rights, when it can waterboard and torture to get the verdict it wants, then I say the presumption of innocence never was a very strong principle to begin with. The principle, baldly put, is now "better to put ten black people or muslim males in prison than let one drug dealer or terrorist go free"


I agree fully. And both the US and and UK have in recent times introduced laws where citizens can be jailed indefinitely without trial on home soil. No presumption of innocence there. It seems the presumption of innocence is a privelege and an aspiration, an aspiration that is rapidly fading, rather then a right and is applied or not, at the convenience of governments and courts. And that convenience, certainly differs depending on the colour of ones skin, religion or nationality and sometimes...even gender. All men and women are not equal under the law. And in fact, different laws are made for different groups. As the people, if we commit fraud it is a crime, we are arrested, dragged through the courts and go to jail. Yet, in congress insider trading is not a crime, in our financial centres fraud is decriminalised, legalised, deregulated..hell, it's their business model. These days it isn't the crime, it's WHO is committing it, that's what effects not only the application of the law, but how those laws are rewritten to provide criminal exemptions. Since the legislature and the corporate can hardly be seperated these days, that explains a lot. And whilst America kids itself into thinking they don't have a class system, nowhere is that class system more evident then in law.

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Now, pertaining to your linking this to the Amanda Knox trial. With all due respect to your experience in American appellate law, the Italian Supreme Court (Cassazione) might well uphold Hellmann, or, send back for re trial. The Massei brief will only be considered in the event of a re trial, and it is only Hellmann's that is being appealed. We have had a great many legal opinions on what the outcome might be, those legal experts being, quite often, wrong. The law, as we have seen all along, can be perverse and blind.


I know we use that term in a general way, but it wouldn't actually be a "re-trial", it would really be a second second degree, another appeal. I know it's semantics, but in this case in regard to the law, they are important. In the Italian system, it isn't only trials that are appealed, but also the appeals are appealed. And that goes on until the High Court is satisfied and feels it can issue a final verdict and sentence.

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Cape wrote:
Is it possible, that Rudy believes he still has a case for retrial? That it's not a done deal for him? Because, that would explain in part, why he hasn't been more forthcoming.


Is there any reason for him to be, from his perspective? He cannot present any case for retrial until this process is completed via a final verdict and sentence stamped by the High Court. By that time, he will have served the lion share of his sentence and be rapidly approaching day release, work realese and the other preperations for his final release.

_________________
"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 BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
You explain that very well, thanks. However, I do not believe that the U.S. (it is a federal court that will rule on extradition) will make a ruling based on legal considerations; it will do so based on political and internal considerations.

And Article VI has so far only been floated as a factor by anonymous bloggers of the kind that post (in the article you link to) "let the Italians come, they will be met by more armed Americans than at Anzio Beach" :(

I am not a lawyer, but imho Article VI does not apply to Amanda Knox. I am not convinced that jeopardy attaches to her when she has not yet been exonerated under the Italian system Acquittal has been ruled, but not confirmed. And Italy might well look askance at Americans accused of crimes in the future. Why should they permit them to leave if the U.S. cannot guarantee it will extradite someone in the future if they are eventually found guilty?

The death penalty example, while interesting, does not apply here.. Italy does not have the death penalty, and the double jeopardy argument, might work both ways. I might be stretching a bit here, but Italy might well refuse to extradite anyone back to the US who had been acquitted by a lower court in a non-capital crime, say. They'd been acquitted, you see.


Ergon: Please re-read the link. The "Anzio Beach" poster did not discuss Article IV. The Anzio Beach comment was, as us legal types like to say, "inapposite" and was pretty much ignored in that discussion.

"Jeopardy" is what is called a "term of art" -- and it attaches at the very beginning of a trial.

On political reasons for denying extradition, the extradition process starts in the Italian Ministry of Foregin Affairs and then goes on the Department of State. In other words, the request has to go though political vetting before it gets to a U.S. District Court -- in my opinion, the Court hearing will not be political.

The discussion of the death penalty was directed at what appears to be a belief on your part that the "U.S." does not extradite people. Of course, it is not directly related to Knox and I did not say it was.
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 25, 2012 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
On political reasons for denying extradition, the extradition process starts in the Italian Ministry of Foregin Affairs and then goes on the Department of State. In other words, the request has to go though political vetting before it gets to a U.S. District Court -- in my opinion, the Court hearing will not be political.


Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether any extradition application would have to go through the US courts first, or the political machine. The court process is quite open...how open is the political aspect?

_________________
"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 BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Yes, it must be remembered in Knox's TRIAL she was found guilty, unanimously, of all charges barring the theft of the money and credit cards. It was an APPEAL (a review, not a main or first degree trial) where she was then found innocent and that was never a final verdict and the appeal process is not complete. If the High Court rules that it should be sent back to the appeal court for retesting, that again is an APPEAL and should that appeal court then find her guilty, it isn't breaching any double jeopardy views the American courts may have, since it would merely be an appeal court upholding the verdict of her TRIAL where she was found guilty. Even then, it's not done, as it would then have to go back up to the High Court, which is another appeal degree, for that verdict to be upheld or not.

Had it been the other way around and Knox had been found innocent in her main trial but it was the appeal that then found her guilty, THEN it would be easier for US lawyers to propose a double jeopardy form of argument, but that isn't the case.
Michael:

Your points are well taken. That said, it strikes me that the terms "trial" and "appeal" appear to be somewhat different between Italy and the U.S. Under U.S. parlance, the "trial" is an examination and determination of the facts. As a general rule, the U.S. appellate tribunals do not do "de novo" review of the facts -- they review the legal points. It appears to be different in Italy -- the first level of appeal includes a review of the factual findings. If I had to analogize it to U.S. law, the "appeal" seems to be along the lines of a "new trial."
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 25, 2012 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
The discussion of the death penalty was directed at what appears to be a belief on your part that the "U.S." does not extradite people. Of course, it is not directly related to Knox and I did not say it was.


Certainly, Ergon will speak for himself, but I really don't think he believes that the U.S. does not extradite people, only that they extradite far less as they have more hurdles in place. Certainly, I feel they politicise the process more and also refuse as policy, to extradite from certain groups (politicians, the military, or government agencies. With Italy's attempts serving as an example, Certain U.S. Airforce pilots and some umpteen CIA agents come to mind), they also don't recognise the international crimes against humanity courts (the Hague) in regard to U.S. citizens, military ones especially and they also demand more criminal evidence then other countries do (or, that of their allies at least). In the UK, the Americans merely have to go to a British court and say they want him or her, and provided they aren't facing the death penalty, they are handed over with no other requirements for things like...evidence. It may go through two or three British courts first, but that's merely to give the appearance of a process and to hear the appeals against from the victim which are all dismissed as a matter of course. The Americans have been heavily criticised for their infamous (and illegal) Extraordinary Rendition program, but they never practiced Extraordinary Rendition against resident British citizens...they never needed to, they simply only had to ask for who they wanted and they were handed over. Now, it's getting extreme, British citizens are not being extradited to America only for capital crimes, but for 'crimes' like copyright infringement or simply doing something they didn't like that happened to go through a web server in the U.S. I could never imagine either the U.S. courts or the U.S. Government agreeing to extradite its citzens over matters like copyright infringement, or because something one of its citizens did merely passed through a web server in Europe. It isn't balanced, that's what I think Ergon was getting at.

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
Your points are well taken. That said, it strikes me that the terms "trial" and "appeal" appear to be somewhat different between Italy and the U.S.[/qiote]

Exactly...we are in effect comparing apples and oranges.

BMF1950 wrote:
It appears to be different in Italy -- the first level of appeal includes a review of the factual findings. If I had to analogize it to U.S. law, the "appeal" seems to be along the lines of a "new trial."


Not really. I grant you, their appeals certainly differ to what the Americans would regard as an appeal in the strictest sense. But that is because we are talking about completely different systems. In a U.S. appeal, the evidence is not revisited because it is an adversarial system, whereby two sides, prosecution and defence, face off and whichever side wins in the trial provides a verdict in totality, on ALL of the evidence therein, as well as the narrative they have constructed from it. the Italian system is inquisitorial and whilst there are adversaial elements, it is more of a debate, a collegial process between multiple parties. These parties include the prosecution, the defence/s, the judges (who are classed as 'investigators' and as such, are dynamic, rather then simply legal referees or mere 'observers', like the amateur jurors in the Common Law system) and finally, the legal parties representing the various victims. This means there are multiple opinions and interpretations of the evidence and even where the judges agree that a particular party may be 'mostly' right and accept their petition of guilt or innocence, they may rewrite in part the merit and interpretation of both individual pieces of evidence and of the narrative. With the complications caused by multiple narratives, based on the evidence, it cannot be safetly concluded within one round of debate, it therefore must go through several rounds of debates so that the narrative is refined, into what is hopefully...'truth'. The U.S. and UK system is far simpler...two opposing parties hammer it out with each other and the victor's interpretation of the evidence and decalared narrative is considered to be 100% the 'legal truth'. The common law system therefore, does not consider there to be a need to revisit the evidence in appeal, there has been a 'victor' and it does not consider that it is possible for juries to be wrong (legally) and so that is all settled. Moreover, there is no 'reasoning' of the evidence and narrative they can revisit. Juries are merely required to give a verdict, not explain how they have weighed the evidence and come to their various conclusions. The Italian system is not about victors and "the winner takes it all", rather it is a collegial debate by multiple parties, that requires several, possibly more, 'rounds' of debates. Moreover, the judges must explain every step of their reasoning about each piece of evidence they considered relevant or rejected, and a complete narrative supported with a detailed account of their reasoning for it. Meanwhile, each of the parties can then later submit their analyses, objections or support of that reasoning. On this basis, the appeal has something to focus on and debate and in fact, these reports and subsequent appeal documents in reaction to it not only provide reason to, but demand it. In the common law appeal system, there is no reasoning to examine and it doesn't care about reasoning, only verdicts which they already have, leaving the only remaining requirement being to ensure the legal process in reaching that verdict was technically correct.

The appeal is not a new trial either. Not all of the evidence is re-examined (much of it isn't), many of the witnesses and experts are not recalled to testify and only a (relatively) small range of the different pieces of the evidence are actually debated in the court, whilst one or two pieces of evidence, in a case where there may be many, may take up most of the allotted period. One cannot really call it a re-trial (in the common law sense) and neither can one (in the common law sense) call it an appeal. It is both and it is neither.

_________________
"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: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Cape wrote:
Is it possible, that Rudy believes he still has a case for retrial? That it's not a done deal for him? Because, that would explain in part, why he hasn't been more forthcoming.


Is there any reason for him to be, from his perspective? He cannot present any case for retrial until this process is completed via a final verdict and sentence stamped by the High Court. By that time, he will have served the lion share of his sentence and be rapidly approaching day release, work realese and the other preperations for his final release.


You're correct, Michael. I wasn't really thinking about how soon Rudy will actually be out.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

There is also the little matter of if he is more 'forthcoming' in any legal forum, where it requires he makes accusations of criminal actions by others, he risks committing calunnia or at least, being accused and charged for it with a possible conviction, so increasing his sentence. Should he make criminal accusations specifically against Knox and Sollecito and they are then later confirmed innocent by the High Court whilst he remains guilty, then he does risk it. I think this is why he was so cagey on the stand in the Knox/Sollecito appeal and refused to read out his letter where he accused them. That letter was to his lawyers so does not carry a calunnia risk, but once he reads it out to the court as his words under the caution that he declares them to be his words and he stands by them, it then becomes formal legal testimony from his mouth directly to the court. I don't think this occured to Rudy, rather it very much occured to his lawyers who would have explained the dangers to him and devised a strategy. The primary goal of his team was to ensure Rudy did nothing that would further legally damage himself, but they couldn't be there themselves in person to shield or instruct him. That letter, unvocalised by him, served to allow him to put his accusations to the court without any real calunnia risk. And then, when pressured to read it out by Mignini, he did some pretty fast thinking and pretended he couldn't. It was a very smart play by Rudy's team. Of course, trial observers of all sides criticised him roundly and accused him of coming over as obstructive and foolish, but I think it was a very slick play. He succeeded in not risking himself legally, yet he and his lawyers devised a means by which his accusations against the accused could be heard in the court and affirmed by him to be true.

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


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

My reply to Egon's post in the new thread "A Psycho-Astrological Perspective" can be found HERE.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:

The discussion of the death penalty was directed at what appears to be a belief on your part that the "U.S." does not extradite people. Of course, it is not directly related to Knox and I did not say it was.


I did not say the US does not extradite people, just that the whole legal process is frequently politicised and disproportionately applied to some groups of people. You brought up the death penalty as a reason why some countries like Mexico (or Canada) will not extradite people to the U.S. if they're facing the death penalty, when we really were talking about the extradition process as it might apply to Amanda Knox. Though, now you do mention it, I think it was the death penalty that led to Blackstone's Maxim, to wit, 'better to let ten guilty men go free, than to hang an innocent man' (my interpretation bolded) and that if the death penalty were abolished, many more American juries would be likely to convict. It is the death penalty that causes the extreme interpretation of reasonable doubt. if the prosecutor Casey Anthony trial had not asked for the death penalty, i am convinced she would have been convicted. But, this argument is irrelevant to the Knox case.

As to the politicisation of the process and whether an extradition court would be influenced by those considerations, I am sure that as a lawyer you might not be able to admit to these concerns, since you must believe in and uphold the integrity of the law. As a lay person, I can say credible rumours have already been circulated about Wa senator Maria Cantwell approaching her senate colleague John Kerry of the senate foreign affairs ctee, who spoke to his brother in law the US ambassador to Rome, who told the Italians Knox would never be extradited to Italy.

Given the extreme PR effort made in the US, given that the well connected publisher Murdoch must have received some sort of assurance this would be the case or he would never have approved the $4 million 'book deal' I think that is a reasonable assumption, don't you?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cape wrote:
Is it possible, that Rudy believes he still has a case for retrial? That it's not a done deal for him? Because, that would explain in part, why he hasn't been more forthcoming.

Is there any reason for him to be, from his perspective? He cannot present any case for retrial until this process is completed via a final verdict and sentence stamped by the High Court. By that time, he will have served the lion share of his sentence and be rapidly approaching day release, work realese and the other preperations for his final release.

You're correct, Michael. I wasn't really thinking about how soon Rudy will actually be out.

Wouldn't hurt to try I suppose? Clear his name, get out even sooner. I am expecting his lawyers to at least try if the SC stamps the Hellmann ruling. Then based on 'new evidence' Rudy might have a chance? I don't know. Hellmann says he has no reason to lie to his friend in the Skype call so he then can say that is the proof he did have a date with Meredith. And having a date with Meredith makes all the DNA evidence meaningless. Then we are stuck with an illogical story about him in the toilet exactly at the time that Meredith gets murdered, and Rudy not hearing anything of that murder that according to him took just a few minutes but still caused some 40+ wounds. Mmhh...still makes no sense but Hellmann says anything is possible so.... :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
--- snip ---

As for Raffy's book, that might actually be interesting although I'll pirate bay it rather than pay for it on principle (ditto Knox's book). The only reason I say this is he's had more alibi's than Amanda yet he seems more trustworthy for some reason. Could be me just falling for whatever charms he may possess but its been my gut feeling all along. I'd love to have that feeling confirmed one way or the other and I think his own story will do that. God only knows what Amanda will write, her family and Marriot made sure the world knew what she ate for breakfast each day.

--- snap ---


I share your view that Raffaele's book will be more interesting to read than Amanda's. We don't know as much about him than we know about her, which leaves him more wiggle room than her. Amanda's only option is to ignore her email and her court testimony and statements to police entirely. What everybody wants to read about the case, they won't get it from her book. Another option is that she repeats all her lies, like her parents have been doing for years, but it will look bad to put it all into writing resumed in one book.

Andrew Gumble, Raffaele Sollecito's co-author has made the following statements about the forthcoming book:

Quote:
I would venture to say Raffaele’s story is even more absorbing than Amanda’s, because it was his family which orchestrated the detective work that made it possible to dismantle the case against both of them piece by piece. It was a high-wire act from beginning to end, and it’s a thrilling tale.

[...]

Not only will the book leave no doubt about Raffaele’s innocence; everything Raffaele and his family have to tell, backed by previously unpublished documents in the case, suggests that his incarceration had almost nothing to do with the actual evidence but had another motivation entirely — to be revealed when the book comes out.


He also says that there will be a love story. Since Sollecito and Knox have been incarcerated, she dumped him for someone else and after returning to the US, she moved in with yet another guy. I wonder how this will be embellished to make it look like a modern "love story". We have 10 days of sex. That's all it amounts to. If I remember correctly, she didn't even managed to stay faithful in that short time. Too much of a challenge for her.

I don't see the "thriller" part of this book either, except they decide to disclose how the Sollecitos managed to get Hellman and Zanetti to acquit the pair despite the evidence. May I suggest a title: "The Inside Job" or "You Get What You Pay For". The Sollecito family is accused of using their contacts to interfere with the investigation and they leaked the crime scene video to the media.

No matter what they write, I am not going to buy their books. I would consider downloading it, if they were available, but I doubt it, because there won't be enough interest in their story from either side.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
The thought that RG was indeed in the bathroom during the murder has crossed my mind a few time but never really made complete sense to me.

There are references to:

Guede "fugue states" "sleepwalking" (CNN)
At least two incidences of him falling asleep on peoples toilets - would fall asleep anywhere
absences? some kind of epilepsy?
absence of mind to the extent that he would get into these "fugue states" and would find
them difficult to escape from

forum comment

in "Fatal Gift of Beauty", Nina Burleigh tells of an account by one of Rudy's friends about how we would wake up in the middle of the night, and act out whole fantasy scenes while asleep. Like pretending to give lectures to a class on various subjects. The friend got so weirded out that he asked Rudy not to sleep over anymore.

This type of thing does not necessarily indicate a killer, but it sure indicates something is wrong.


I think so too - there was something wrong with Guede involving these "fugue states"

there are many concrete references out there to Guede / sleeping disorder / sleepwalking /
fugue states ...

Rudy Guede possibly has a sleeping disorder ...

Drugs were consumed that night. Very possibly heroin ....
Rudy could have been a heroin addict I've always said that - many pointers.
Heroin was a big problem in perugia - basketball courts something of a "needle park"
Guede was there every day, Curatolo was too. Curatalo is a known heroin addict/dealer

Knox's "Marie Pace" letter references to drugs, "puncturing" (injecting heroin) .. to "acrid smoke" (heroin smoked) Why would Knox, a heavy marijuana user mention specifically that "acrid smoke"? I am sure that the scenario was Guede "puncturing" - goes away to go into his heroin "nod" accenuated by his "fugue state" - wants privacy - sits on the toilet with his ipod - it is what he has been REPORTED AT LEAST TWICE as having done before ... Knox and Sollecito smoke the heroin using tin foil ... but they were doing all kinds of drugs

The Marie Pace story seems to me to be a relation of her experience of that drug specifically.
The Marie Pace story was also a warning to Sollecito, during the trial to stay silent. That she could still be crazy - that she would implicate him easily. A cold semi coded reminder addressed to him, of his total involvement. The "Marie Pace" letter cannot be framed in any other way - why would she write, as she did with that letter, TO HIM confirmed a story of that night? IN A CRUCIAL WEEK OF THE MAIN TRIAL. Knox aware that Sollecito is weak, worried that he may totally turn against her - she had no idea how the trial would go - she had no idea what would come up in the trial. The "Marie Pace" letter was her attempt to completely control Sollecito (with the offer of love, sent in a valentines day card, also with a poem). That week Knox turned up at the trial in a t-shirt emblazoned with big pink lettering ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE .. smiling at the besotted Sollecito.



that night

Sollecito as he stated "wanted to try extreme experiences" such a statement almost sealed it - he WOULD try an "extreme experience". He did not mean bungee jumping. Wanting to impress Knox with his baseness with his "worldliness" they were acting out fantasy - they wanted to be extreme. Sollecito was off the hook from university - he was free - wanted to party - had found Knox - THEN was the time to commit his "extreme experience" - to impress Knox - to BIND HER TO HIM -- Sollecito had found in Knox only his 2nd girlfriend - he was a huge fantasist



- they were huge fantasists - had both earlier watched the "Amelie" film "we are unique we are weird we are like "Amelie" and boyfriend trapped in a fantasy mindset after watching that surreal film - application to Knox "quirky, unique" - little communication between the two boosts that fantasy ... drugs -- it all fits in

later as Kokomani reported "knox held the 30cm kitchen knife upright in front of herself with both hands and shouted "COME HERE I'LL SHOW YOU" .. they were the couple out of pulp fiction they were acting out a huge filmic fantasy - that is most specifically how Sollecitos mind works
- role playing

much of the reason for argument between Knox and the studious/responsible Meredith
Kercher - as Guede reported specifically in his account of that night. Also things were coming to a head with Knoxs' slobbiness / unreliability - the fact she was bringing strange people around ...


Guede "fixed up" Sollecito / Knox that night then ended up in his "fugue state".
I can't really understand Meredith Kercher being involved in any of that though.
My problem is timelines - the time Meredith Kercher arrived and how she got
involved - my suspicion is she arrived later - saw the druggy scenario - went
straight to check whether her rent money was there, saw it was gone - challenged
Knox - at that time Rudy is in his fugue/absent/typically asleep state on the toilet
"nodding" in heroin stupor ... he wakes up when he hears argument / remonstration
(which he reported between Knox and Meredith Kercher) - over the rent money

Knox and Sollecito are hyped up / out of it - it was planned to do something to
Meredith Kercher ... Knox came armed with the knife she had carried from Sollecito s
apartment - the double DNA knife.

That was the first instance of harm to Meredith Kercher - then, Meredith Kercher
is locked in the room while they meet Kokomani outside - they have phoned for
more drugs as they have the stolen rent money ...

It would be very easy to identify Knoxs' handwriting if we had the original "Marie Pace"
letter. The Daily Mail and the charity "Caritas", which originally published it have
confirmed it was written by Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

please delete


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

What is the PG position regarding Mario Alessi's testimory that Guede said he was with someone called "The Drunkard"? Happy to hear everyones opinion but I'd like to hear Michael's.

Thanks in advance
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

please delete


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Just to clarify, I know what he said and I know his criminal background. I'm just after PG position on why he contacted Bongiorno and gave a statement? What was his motive?

Was Alessi stating Guede said Fatty or one of the other friends had followed Meredith home? That's the way it comes across to me in the quote you provided.

"He said that one had got drunk and that he had followed Meredith home to see where she lived.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:

Here's the article, Ava, on a new thread:

A Psycho-Astrological Perspective on the Relationship of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=371

It was in an interesting time for me last October when I wrote it. What I feared, that Knox and Sollecito would be acquitted, had just happened. Then someone asked for a psychological perspective on their relationship, so sure enough, I had to bring in,
A Psycho-Astrological Perspective :)

But really, there are very close links between astrology and psychology. So, please, enjoy, and if any one has questions, please post. I had some visitors from the Innocentsi sites and it was mostly a very polite, and illuminating discussion for all. Since they'd posted it publicly, I'm adding our conversation to their topic. There was some lovely stuff! Please, be polite about them, it shows we can indeed have polite conversation, when they do the same.


Thanks Ergon! I'm looking forward to reading it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

SomeLawyer wrote:
Just to clarify, I know what he said and I know his criminal background. I'm just after PG position on why he contacted Bongiorno and gave a statement? What was his motive?

Was Alessi stating Guede said Fatty or one of the other friends had followed Meredith home? That's the way it comes across to me in the quote you provided.

"He said that one had got drunk and that he had followed Meredith home to see where she lived.


Why Alessi contacted Bongiorno? Maybe it was the other way around? It's alleged that money was promised by her for testimony and sex change operations.

In what universe is Alessi a credible witness about anything, which is what ttrroonniicc was saying too if I am not mistaken?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Certainly, Ergon will speak for himself, but I really don't think he believes that the U.S. does not extradite people, only that they extradite far less as they have more hurdles in place. Certainly, I feel they politicise the process more and also refuse as policy, to extradite from certain groups (politicians, the military, or government agencies. With Italy's attempts serving as an example, Certain U.S. Airforce pilots and some umpteen CIA agents come to mind), they also don't recognise the international crimes against humanity courts (the Hague) in regard to U.S. citizens, military ones especially and they also demand more criminal evidence then other countries do (or, that of their allies at least). In the UK, the Americans merely have to go to a British court and say they want him or her, and provided they aren't facing the death penalty, they are handed over with no other requirements for things like...evidence. It may go through two or three British courts first, but that's merely to give the appearance of a process and to hear the appeals against from the victim which are all dismissed as a matter of course. The Americans have been heavily criticised for their infamous (and illegal) Extraordinary Rendition program, but they never practiced Extraordinary Rendition against resident British citizens...they never needed to, they simply only had to ask for who they wanted and they were handed over. Now, it's getting extreme, British citizens are not being extradited to America only for capital crimes, but for 'crimes' like copyright infringement or simply doing something they didn't like that happened to go through a web server in the U.S. I could never imagine either the U.S. courts or the U.S. Government agreeing to extradite its citzens over matters like copyright infringement, or because something one of its citizens did merely passed through a web server in Europe. It isn't balanced, that's what I think Ergon was getting at.
In thinking about the issues, it strikes me that much of the way in extradition law regards instances where the requesting government is trying to get its own nationals back. Also, as you note, the government of the country of which the request is directed to will often be less than willing to extradite its own nationals. Knox is a U.S. citizen and physically present in the United States.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/771 ... criminals/

An interesting saga was that of Joe Doherty. The UK wanted him back and the US Government went to great lengths to send him back. The McMullen litigation involved similar issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Doherty

A certain Mr. Ruiz-Massieu had been fleeing Mexico to seek refuge in Spain. Unfortunately for him, he had to transit the United States to do so. http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol22/3400.pdf For what it is worth, Sr. Ruiz committed suicide as the legal noose was tightening. Consistent with my point here is that it was Mexico who wanted its own Mexican citizen back.

In regards to military personnel -- this is often the subject of a particular "SOFA" [Status of Forces Agreement]. One of my uncles had been a career officer in the US Air Force. He was stationed in Turkey for some years and commanded a relatively remote radar station. Under Turkish law, a prisoner's family was responsible for provision of food, clothing and other necessities. From time to time, one or two of his men would be convicted under Turkish law for minor offenses. My uncle would have to treat the prisoners as a member of his "family" and send a detail out to the jail every week with food, clean clothes and bedding, books, etc and return with the dirty clothes, bedding, books, etc.
Top Profile 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
BMF1950 wrote:
On political reasons for denying extradition, the extradition process starts in the Italian Ministry of Foregin Affairs and then goes on the Department of State. In other words, the request has to go though political vetting before it gets to a U.S. District Court -- in my opinion, the Court hearing will not be political.


Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether any extradition application would have to go through the US courts first, or the political machine. The court process is quite open...how open is the political aspect?


In my opinion, not very clear at all. I speak from experience.
Top Profile 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Exactly...we are in effect comparing apples and oranges.

...

Not really. I grant you, their appeals certainly differ to what the Americans would regard as an appeal in the strictest sense. But that is because we are talking about completely different systems. In a U.S. appeal, the evidence is not revisited because it is an adversarial system, whereby two sides, prosecution and defence, face off and whichever side wins in the trial provides a verdict in totality, on ALL of the evidence therein, as well as the narrative they have constructed from it. the Italian system is inquisitorial and whilst there are adversaial elements, it is more of a debate, a collegial process between multiple parties. These parties include the prosecution, the defence/s, the judges (who are classed as 'investigators' and as such, are dynamic, rather then simply legal referees or mere 'observers', like the amateur jurors in the Common Law system) and finally, the legal parties representing the various victims. This means there are multiple opinions and interpretations of the evidence and even where the judges agree that a particular party may be 'mostly' right and accept their petition of guilt or innocence, they may rewrite in part the merit and interpretation of both individual pieces of evidence and of the narrative. With the complications caused by multiple narratives, based on the evidence, it cannot be safetly concluded within one round of debate, it therefore must go through several rounds of debates so that the narrative is refined, into what is hopefully...'truth'. The U.S. and UK system is far simpler...two opposing parties hammer it out with each other and the victor's interpretation of the evidence and decalared narrative is considered to be 100% the 'legal truth'. The common law system therefore, does not consider there to be a need to revisit the evidence in appeal, there has been a 'victor' and it does not consider that it is possible for juries to be wrong (legally) and so that is all settled. Moreover, there is no 'reasoning' of the evidence and narrative they can revisit. Juries are merely required to give a verdict, not explain how they have weighed the evidence and come to their various conclusions. The Italian system is not about victors and "the winner takes it all", rather it is a collegial debate by multiple parties, that requires several, possibly more, 'rounds' of debates. Moreover, the judges must explain every step of their reasoning about each piece of evidence they considered relevant or rejected, and a complete narrative supported with a detailed account of their reasoning for it. Meanwhile, each of the parties can then later submit their analyses, objections or support of that reasoning. On this basis, the appeal has something to focus on and debate and in fact, these reports and subsequent appeal documents in reaction to it not only provide reason to, but demand it. In the common law appeal system, there is no reasoning to examine and it doesn't care about reasoning, only verdicts which they already have, leaving the only remaining requirement being to ensure the legal process in reaching that verdict was technically correct.

The appeal is not a new trial either. Not all of the evidence is re-examined (much of it isn't), many of the witnesses and experts are not recalled to testify and only a (relatively) small range of the different pieces of the evidence are actually debated in the court, whilst one or two pieces of evidence, in a case where there may be many, may take up most of the allotted period. One cannot really call it a re-trial (in the common law sense) and neither can one (in the common law sense) call it an appeal. It is both and it is neither.


Michael:

I don't think we are really in disagreement. As a lawyer, I may analogize my "opinion hat" to the "inquisitorial" method. My "advocate hat" is more directed at the advesarial system. We are not adversaries and I am just giving my evaluation of what would probably happen.

As I noted in a prior post, I am not conversant in Italian law; my training and legal life has been in the American/Common Law tradition. [One exception being California Community Property -- a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago. But that Civil Law doctrine has now been subject to Common Law procedure for 160 years]. As noted above, once the extradition request comes from Italy, it will go through various levels of vetting in the United States -- by American trained lawyers.

In my opinion, the request will be viewed through ingrained "Common Law eyes." And it is those "eyes" I bring to this discussion.

In the view through U.S. legal "eyes," I believe it pays to note that there is is a rough analouge of the Italian procedure in US law -- a "motion for a new trial." The Federal Rule on this can be found in Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_33

I believe that the analogy is even closer if one considers the Italian procedure to be a species of "bench trial" -- A FRCrmP 33 "new trial" need not be an entirely new trial.

The big difference between US and Italian procedure is that, in the US the prosecution cannot seek any review [be it "appeal" or "new trial"] once "jeopardy" has attached and there is a factual finding in favor of the defendant.

So, if one treats FRCmP 33 as an analogue to the Italian system, a guilty verdict followed by a grant of a partial "new trial" which results in a not guilty verdict is an "acquittal."

In the US, game over in that situation. In Italy, as in the case of Knox, the game is not over.

Given the idea of reciprocity, I would not bet on the US extraditing a US citizen under an Italian procedure that would count as an acquittal if the case had been tried in a US court. In fact, it might be that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs might just conclude that inasmuch as Ms. Kercher was a UK national and Knox a US citizen, it just might not be worth the effort to attempt extradition.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:

Michael:

Given the idea of reciprocity, I would not bet on the US extraditing a US citizen under an Italian procedure that would count as an acquittal if the case had been tried in a US court. In fact, it might be that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs might just conclude that inasmuch as Ms. Kercher was a UK national and Knox a US citizen, it just might not be worth the effort to attempt extradition.


The first point is debatable, we shall see.

Regarding the second, I disagree. The crime was committed on Italian soil. If Knox is convicted, the Italians will file an extradition request.
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: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to say, there's been a lot of activity lately and I have been rather overwhelmed. As such, I'm behind on some things, namely my PM's. I have a lot in my inbox that need answering. I just want to say I'm not ignoring any individual that has PM'd me, I'm just behind. I will respond to each of you once I start catching up.

The other thing...I'm currently taking a break for the weekend. This is a 'Michael Break', which means it's not a rest, rather it's a break from regular posting and a focus on dealing with other PMF requirements (mainly technical and infrastructure stuff), working on getting some minor projects past the planning stages and set up and I am also in the planning stage of a MAJOR PMF project. Since I'm only currently planning/researching it (and it's going to be very tricky...and it's also going to be an imense amount of work), I'm not going to give any more details about it at this stage, other than to say...if it can be pulled off, it will be potentially of enormous benefit to everyone, from all parties, that have an interest in this case.

I'll be back to regular posting some time after the weekend :)

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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Enjoy something peaceful Michael.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks, Michael, for the heads up. The project sounds really wonderful.

Do what you have to do..walk slowly and hurry back.....

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

Offline SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... amily.html

But now we can reveal that the day before Meredith's body was found convicted small-time drug dealer Kokomani PARKED his car in the driveway of the two-storey home she shared in Perugia, Italy.

Several sources in the town claim to have information that suggests he met Rudy Guede, the man still in jail for the murder.

Giuseppe Castellini, editor of the local Giornale dell Umbria paper, told The Sun that Kokomani was at the scene to do a drug deal with Guede.

Last week he confirmed in a phone interview he had parked his black Golf in front of the house Meredith and Amanda shared — which had been empty.

FBI veteran Steve Moore said of Kokomani: "Investigators need to get to the truth of what he was doing there that evening and what was happening with the meeting with Guede."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

SomeLawyer wrote:
FBI veteran Steve Moore said of Kokomani: "Investigators need to get to the truth of what he was doing there that evening and what was happening with the meeting with Guede."

Steve Moore: "Kokomani was there that evening"
Steve Moore: "Kokomani met Guede that evening"

Steve Moore accredits Kokomani as a witness.

Also in that article:

"Raffaele's dad Dr Francesco Sollecito told The Sun: "We must find out the truth of Kokomani because the stories we heard in the court were lies."".

Worried about Kokomani.

Article is no longer on the Sun website but is posted here. Kokomani was the drug dealer. He was a known drug dealer. He was reticent in the trial because of that.
Top Profile 

Offline SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

My theory.

Kokomani was "The Drunkard" that Rudy told Alessi about. Kokomani is a co-conspirator who fled Italy when Rudy was arrested. His arrest for cocaine based on a tip off while he was out of the country is suspicious.

The crime scene could have been staged afterwards if they knocked on the door and forced there way in but I see no evidence of a staged crime scene OR they both climbed the wall and in the window. Micheli said on the courthouse steps any agile person could have done so.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Trolls / FOA protest that every bizarre assertion that they put up isn't answered completely.
Alessi is a liar, paid to lie. He's from the same place and background as Aviello, who newspapers state
Bongiorno (Sollecito lawyer) was paying. It's a huge jump without any logical connection to make
Kokomani the "drunk" in the story from Alessi.

You're saying Alessi was a "co-conspirator" you're saying that Guede AND Alessi climbed in through the
window, which you say is "easy".
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 26, 2012 8:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Just passing through quickly. Aviello may have been paid but Alessi wasn't, or at least not initially...that wasn't why he got involved. His angle, was that he'd not long been convicted of the murder of little Tommy and was in big trouble. He saw/read of the high profile lawyer Bongiorno's involvement in the Meredith case, was unhappy with his own legal team, and wanted her. He was looking to find some way of challenging the verdict against him and to do that, he needed Bongiorno to take him on as a client. The thing was, he couldn't afford her. He therefore offered to make himself 'useful', in the hope Bongiorno would be grateful.

Both Aviello and Alessi are liars. They have a history of claiming they have information about crimes, claims that turned out to be lies. They have their own agendas going on and those aren't anything to do with 'performing their civic duty'.

_________________
"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 SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Kokomani being there to deliver drugs is not plausible and I dont buy into the drug delivery to a crime scene theory and Guede had most likely left before he could. Kokomani's car was most definately there from at least 10.30pm when the car broke down to 11.15pm when the tow truck driver left. The tow truck testified seeing the car there.

If you believe the eyewitnesses about seeing "a colored man" running @ 10.30 and it was Rudy then that leaves Kokomani at the crime scene on his own waiting for the broken down car to go.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SomeLawyer


Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:53 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The only way to void my theory entirely is Rudy had hired Kokomani's car for the night which means the "colored man" running and almost knocked over the witnesses @ 10.30 wasn't Rudy and everything Alessi said is rubbish. That means Kokomani realised after Rudy was caught that Rudy has his car that night and he panicked and left Italy to work out his story.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

An interesting case was on 48 Hours last night. The case of Nuora Jackson accused of stabbing her mother 50 times in her bedroom. It was a horrific crime complete with a bloody bedroom and no trace of DNA from Nuora!! The crime also included a staged break-in with a broken window, no cell phone activity and no real alibi. To watch Nuora it was difficult not believe her sincerity. She was convicted and sentenced to 20 years. No DNA no murder weapon and supporters who maintained she had a loving relationship with her mother.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

User SomeLawyer has just been warned to respect the Tuesday rule, as everything he's written so far seems to skirt around the edge of being identified as FOA. I'm not very patient with them today.

SomeLawyer, please don't post, or even PM me until Tuesday. If you do, I'll ban you, and delete your posts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
BMF1950 wrote:

Given the idea of reciprocity, I would not bet on the US extraditing a US citizen under an Italian procedure that would count as an acquittal if the case had been tried in a US court. In fact, it might be that the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs might just conclude that inasmuch as Ms. Kercher was a UK national and Knox a US citizen, it just might not be worth the effort to attempt extradition.


The first point is debatable, we shall see.

Regarding the second, I disagree. The crime was committed on Italian soil. If Knox is convicted, the Italians will file an extradition request.
I see we differ on the odds. :D

As a matter of further thought and speculation -- Italy allows for in absentia trials. I wonder what would happen if on remand from the Italian Supreme Court, the case simply goes forward whether or not Knox elects to come back. The U.S. has a doctrine called "fugitive disentitlement" -- but that does not seem to exist in Italy.

[Notice my ambiguous language. Again, I do not know Italian law and do not feel comfortable giving opinions. Just a matter of professional conservatism].
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4883

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Book Review

The murder that won't die

By Paul Dorsey

February 27, 2012 1:00 am

Death in Perugia
By John Follain
Published by Hodder & Stoughton, 2011
Reviewed by Paul Dorsey

Italian prosecutors' Valentine's Day announcement that they will appeal the acquittal of American Amanda Knox in the murder of her British fellow university student Meredith Kercher certainly adds value to "Death in Perugia", an account of the case released just after it was supposedly resolved last October.

And if the appeal succeeds, paving the way for Knox's possible (but unlikely) extradition to resume a 26-year jail term, it would also certainly revive the animosity between the "heartland people" of the US and UK, to use a kind euphemism for flag-waving bigots on both sides of the sea who followed the case via tabloid news outlets.

Ugly debate raged during the snail-paced but turbulent two-year trial that convicted Knox and her by-then-former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of brutally murdering Kercher (with the help of a second man, Rudy Guede, who remains in prison) and the year-long appeal that overturned the verdict.

"Foxy Knoxy", the British news rags called Amanda, playing up the sexual aspects of the crime while never acknowledging that she got the nickname at age five for her slyness on the soccer pitch. Consider yourself wise or lucky if you ignored the daily fulminating, because getting the big picture from a book like this is surely preferable.

And John Follain, the London Sunday Times' man in Italy who covered the drawn-out court wrangling, does a great job with a complicated story in 400 pages. Once or twice his objectivity yields to slight subsidence, but overall this is a balanced account that doesn't presume to suggest guilt or innocence.

Based on a mass of circumstantial evidence - much of which was withheld from the American public, according to several accounts - the often obnoxious Knox and the rather seedy Sollecito seemed quite guilty of participating in Kercher's drug-addled sexual assault and gruesome murder on the night after Halloween 2007.

As the shock of the slaying spread, Amanda and Raffaele appeared more interested in cuddling than caring, laughing at inappropriate moments, given to jarring remarks. Challenged over her bizarre lack of emotion, Knox allowed that she was indeed concerned - it could have been her found lying dead and mutilated rather than her housemate.

This was the Amanda Knox who prosecutors presented to the judges and juries: self-centred, carefree, sexually uninhibited and envious of Kercher's friendships, her natural appeal to men and her devotion to study. [...]

On February 14 the Italian prosecutors reaffirmed their belief that Knox and Sollecito are guilty and will challenge the logic behind the appellate court ruling. The Court of Cassation will, probably later this year but in the course of a single day, weigh accusations of procedural irregularities that could represent grounds for a retrial.

The announcement was not a surprise. Follain refers to the possibility in this book. Unspecified "officials" had already told the chief prosecutor, "Yes, there was an extradition treaty between the two countries, but no, America would never send Amanda back". [...]


Read more: THE NATION
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

@Malvern. Yes, and that's not the first time someone was convicted, with no DNA etc. Circumstantial evidence can be far stronger than direct evidence. I.D. is showing a trial where the Husband is accused of murdering his pregnant wife. No Dna, no cell phone records. Glib as glib can be. ( His first trial, where there was a hung jury, he testified.) Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. It's amazing to me, how sincere and believable murderers can sound and appear.

Last night, on 48 hours, they had on Rodman, a producer of * Survivor*, accused of killing his wife in Cancun. No DNA, no witnesses, no cell phone activity, and, yet, he is being held over for trial. He did a cell phone interview. ( I believe he's guilty).

@ Gurmantes. Now, THAT'S a good review. John Follain's book is the best one out there, imo. And, as usual, there's Knox..It couldv'e been ME. Sigh. ALWAYS about HER.

Btw, could they have shown a WORSE photo of Knox? eee-)

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I had a query about the Tuesday Rule and whether that applied even to people who in good faith believed that there is not enough evidence that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher (as opposed to hard core FOA)

Michael invited such agnostics (if there truly are any left :) to post, only on Tuesdays. Many regular members of this board were upset, they felt we would be inundated by trolls in disguise who'd post tendentious arguments about the 'evidence'.

That is exactly what happened as the FOA site, IIP advised its members to post here while 'Michael was away', and we were indeed inundated by such posts.

It was one of the main reasons why I agreed to take on the moderator's position It speaks ill of people who choose to take advantage of a person's illness and try to wreck a site he had worked so hard to build.

The Tuesday rule was a temporary experiment, not even worth posting on the Forum rules. Michael had already posted that on the main thread.

Michael will clarify any questions when he returns, but until then, here are the rules:

Any rehashing of FOA talking points, under any guise will be warned, just once, to post only on Tuesdays. (Hint: "I don't see evidence of a staging" is a giveaway)

New members, of whatever camp, will continue to be accepted, and we will assume their good faith until they prove otherwise.

Hope that helps every one's understanding.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
@Malvern. Yes, and that's not the first time someone was convicted, with no DNA etc. Circumstantial evidence can be far stronger than direct evidence. I.D. is showing a trial where the Husband is accused of murdering his pregnant wife. No Dna, no cell phone records. Glib as glib can be. ( His first trial, where there was a hung jury, he testified.) Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. It's amazing to me, how sincere and believable murderers can sound and appear.

Last night, on 48 hours, they had on Rodman, a producer of * Survivor*, accused of killing his wife in Cancun. No DNA, no witnesses, no cell phone activity, and, yet, he is being held over for trial. He did a cell phone interview. ( I believe he's guilty).

@ Gurmantes. Now, THAT'S a good review. John Follain's book is the best one out there, imo. And, as usual, there's Knox..It couldv'e been ME. Sigh. ALWAYS about HER.

Btw, could they have shown a WORSE photo of Knox? eee-)


The ones I thought really horrible were what I call the 'Elizabeth Taylor' shots, through 2 layers of pantyhose to give her that really fuzzy model like etherealness, but then I'm a guy who makes fun of such media driven artifice.

For the record, I don't like it either when news only posts horrible pictures to influence us.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon, they used to use Vaseline to blur out imperfections :)

And, do you know Ergon, SOMETIMES a user name CAN be a clue. i.e. Someone COULD have a username like, oh, let's say..Somelawyer...which could be an insult to Somealibi, who's a REAL Lawyer. Just sayin ;)

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


Last edited by capealadin on Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:15 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: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It's a very sad reflection, on some sites, when all decency is lost. IIP seems to encourage this. Indeed, brings out the worst in people. The sad thing is, the posters don't see it.

When it comes to la_) , they are blind, deaf and dumb. And, her lack of empathy rubs off on them. Of course, there's always the possibility that they themselves identify with this lack of empathy, and have found a kindred spirit. That would explain a lot.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
I had a query about the Tuesday Rule and whether that applied even to people who in good faith believed that there is not enough evidence that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher (as opposed to hard core FOA)

Michael invited such agnostics (if there truly are any left :) to post, only on Tuesdays. Many regular members of this board were upset, they felt we would be inundated by trolls in disguise who'd post tendentious arguments about the 'evidence'.

That is exactly what happened as the FOA site, IIP advised its members to post here while 'Michael was away', and we were indeed inundated by such posts.


Yes, here you are spelling out why unlike some other rules, the Tuesday Rule must be a hard rule enforced rigidly and without discretion or exception. Any flexibility allows for trolls and Knox Cultists to attempt to create loopholes to circumvent it (and boy, have they tried to do just that!). Unfortunately, such a rigid rule will result in collateral damage against genuine agnostics, but the alternative would result in major disruption that would be far worse for regular and agnostic members alike.

I see it as a long-term 'process' that will weed out the trolls and Knox zealots via banning, until it will get to the point where the genuine agnostics will form the remainder. I have always felt that genuine agnostic participation in the debate can both enrich and advance it and that is the long-term goal of the Tuesday Project. We already have seen one or two constructive agnostics attend and it's precisely those types of posters I wish to cultivate for the Tuesday debates. The success of the project would see Tuesdays become an asset to the case, rather then an annoying diversion. Being a process, it will take some time getting there and the road will be rocky, but I believe the destination will provide a payoff that will make it all worth it. But, this can NOT work unless the Tuesday Rule is applied like iron.

FOAKer Tuesday is not simply an idea, it's a plan.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Ergon, they used to use Vaseline to blur out imperfections :)

And, do you know Ergon, SOMETIMES a user name CAN be a clue. i.e. Someone COULD have a username like, oh, let's say..Somelawyer...which could be an insult to Somealibi, who's a REAL Lawyer. Just sayin ;)


Or "RetiredPilot". Funny how they they show up with the rope used to hang themselves with :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

New Topic What Might Have Been-A Spiritual Perspective viewtopic.php?f=1&t=372&p=93573#p93573 based on the article that started my notoriety around these parts :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

guermantes wrote:
Follain refers to the possibility in this book. Unspecified "officials" had already told the chief prosecutor, "Yes, there was an extradition treaty between the two countries, but no, America would never send Amanda back".
For what it is worth, I have not read Mr. Follain's book.

:D
Top Profile 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Not sure if this is related. But some of the discussion over Ms. Kercher's murder has referred to the 1998 Cavalese Cable Car disaster. The National Geographic Channel ran a documentary -- http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... 6.3.1l11l0

I find the procedures and surrounding circumstances to be of interest.

[Unlike Knox, the Marine defendants did not dispute that they did the killings].
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
Not sure if this is related. But some of the discussion over Ms. Kercher's murder has referred to the 1998 Cavalese Cable Car disaster. The National Geographic Channel ran a documentary -- http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... 6.3.1l11l0

I find the procedures and surrounding circumstances to be of interest.

[Unlike Knox, the Marine defendants did not dispute that they did the killings].


How bizarre to compare an ACCIDENT with murder. The last sentence is a wtf) moment. What ARE you trying to say? Compare?

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

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:

How bizarre to compare an ACCIDENT with murder. The last sentence is a wtf) moment. What ARE you trying to say? Compare?
I am sorry if I offended you. However, this board is a discussion of a homicide in Italy by American[s] where the accused criminal was acquitted.

I did acknowledge the difference in that in one the accused killer alleged "I did not do it" and in the other "not my fault." So, in one the defendant walked on the ground "it was an accident" and the other "the crime was not committed." People died and the verdict was "not guilty."

I'm sorry to say that I do not understand what upsets you about the question.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I do not understand why you would even post such a totally different set of circumstances.

How you can even equate people dying from an accident, and someone murdered in cold blood.

It's apples and oranges. There is no correlation whatsoever.

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

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
I do not understand why you would even post such a totally different set of circumstances.

How you can even equate people dying from an accident, and someone murdered in cold blood.

It's apples and oranges. There is no correlation whatsoever.
To repeat -- this board is about unlawful killing in Italy by Americans. Just because Ms. Kercher was only one person while twenty people were killed at Cavalese is no reason to say that they are not related in any way. I don't make that numerical "comparison" and there is no reason to send flames my way.

Peace.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Are you sure you're an attorney? It's not about numerical..it's the COMPLETELY different way that someone/people died.

I'm not offended...simply nonplussed...Your gigantic leap, between what transpired at Cavalese, has absolutely no bearing on the matter of what happened to Meredith Kercher.

If you think that's sending flames your way, you're being ultra sensitive..imo.

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

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The description of an event as an accident or a murder is rather semantics. In some sense all murders are accidents and /or all accidents are murder. All laws are deliberately fuzzy in this matter.

That some one has died is an observable fact (where is the body? is the first question) and is usually undisputed. The causes and intents are all matters of opinion- they cannot be proved or disproved- only opined.

Laws are deliberately fuzzy for a reason: we can always attribute death to some scientific principle- loss of blood; brain damage; lack of food etc etc. It does not answer the philosophical question: why the person had to die?

Consider a person dying on the road after being run over by a vehicle. Is it an accident or a murder? No one can be sure. The end result for the victim is the same- unexpected death.

Meredith's death is also an accident- unexpected premature termination of life. Perhaps (I also believe it) it was an unintended but violent end.

Another example: a drunk man with a gun shoots and kills a person. Is it a murder or an accident?

What goes on within the mind is not an observable: that makes this highly subjective.

There will be hundreds of examples when one judge pronounces "guilty" and another pronounces "not guilty". The interesting thing is that it is perfectly reasonable to expect such judgements: it is not possible to replace the judges with a supercomputer.

Trying to setup a foolproof and watertight legal system is a dangerous proposition. We want the human opinion and the consequent flexibility.


"Occam's eraser: The philosophical principle that even the simplest solution is bound to have something wrong with it. "
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Are you sure you're an attorney? It's not about numerical..it's the COMPLETELY different way that someone/people died.

I'm not offended...simply nonplussed...Your gigantic leap, between what transpired at Cavalese, has absolutely no bearing on the matter of what happened to Meredith Kercher.

If you think that's sending flames your way, you're being ultra sensitive..imo.
Be nice.

Yes, I am an attorney. An American law school education involves a period of time studying the law of homicide.

It is not any stretch of the imagination to state that those two Marines murdered 20 people due to their extreme recklessness. ["Recklessness" can constitute the "mens rea" of "malice aforethought" so as to consitute "murder" under Common Law.] However, they were found not guilty on a defense that it was an accident.

Similarly, there is evidence which strongly shows that Knox killed Ms. Kercher. However, she was found not guilty on a defense "I wasn't there."

Ms. Knox killed only one person, not 20. And notionally speaking, I believe her defense is morally better than "I did it but its not my fault."

Perhaps I am sensitive -- but I have refrained from using the "WTF" emoticolon. I believe that its use is a "flame."

Post Script -- I do NOT mean to suggest that killing only one person is any "less" immoral than killing 20. "He who saves but one life has saved the world." The converse is also true.
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I think you could most likely find alot more examples of cases (even in Italy) that would be more similar to the murder of Meredith... instead of that one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
I think you could most likely find alot more examples of cases (even in Italy) that would be more similar to the murder of Meredith... instead of that one.
A case that impacts US-Italy relations that raises press attention and international emotion? If so, I'd like to know.
Top Profile 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I have been looking at the bra-clasp Y-chromosome result here

http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Bra-clasp-results

My personal interpretation ( also at the above link ) is this :

<<

Raffaele's DNA is clearly present, the relevant peaks are all 3 times or more higher than the minor peaks. DYS456:13 is rare (1.9%).

Rudy matches 15 out of 16 Loci (but some RFU are very low), however for the statistics above, his markers are all quite common.

However Rudy does not account for some of the non-Raffaele significant peaks, e.g. DYS390 23^76; 24^107; DYS383 12^212; 14^65; DYS438 9^201, so there is significant evidence of contamination. Also DYS438 9^201 is quite rare (4.5% ).

DYS390 (and DYS383) show there are at least 2 other males, besides Rudy and Raffaele, present.

Luca Altieri's reference profile could be useful for interpreting this piece of evidence. If Luca has some of the unexplained alleles noted above (and/or is a good overall match), it would suggest a transfer of DNA from the door to the clasp ( because both Luca and Raffaele tried to break the door down, quite probably depositing significant quantities of DNA in the process ). Considering the door opens into Meredith's bedroom, it is not hard to imagine material falling from the door onto the bedroom floor, and then being transferred to the bra clasp.

Samples of dust from Meredith's bedroom floor, which certainly contaminated the bra-clasp during the 46 days it lay on the floor uncollected, should have been taken when the bra-clasp was collected. If results were similar to the bra-clasp result ( subtracting Meredith's profile ) this would have proved beyond all doubt that the evidence has no value. Alternatively if Raffaele's DNA was not found in dust samples, the evidence would have more value.

As it is, the evidence is not reliable, since contamination is not excluded, indeed it is proven, since it is inconceivable that two males in addition to Rudy and Raffaele participated in the attack, both leaving their DNA on the bra-clasp.

>>

Do you agree with the bolded text "there are at least 2 other males, besides Rudy and Raffaele, present" ?

I think this (and the stomach contents evidence) is in many ways the crux of the case. Oddly, Massei does not seem to address either the unexplained alleles, or the door as being an obvious source of Raffaele's DNA. It's a great pity there was no dust sample tested, but was Luca Altieri's profile ever obtained? It just possibly could be the key to the whole case, as I explain in the linked page. And it's still not too late to do this ( I assume he is still alive! ).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yeah, the Cavalese cable car disaster of 1998 has very little bearing on the Meredith Kercher case. Under NATO treaties the crew of the Marine Corps Prowler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998) were tried by military courts in the US and found not guilty of negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter.

A more relevant case, since we were talking about the extradition treaty, would be the CIA agents trial http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... n-absentia

December 16,2010 --- Rome, Italy
In what may be seen as a continuing decline in Western prestige, an Italian state court increased the sentences of 23 Central Intelligence Agency operatives today. The agents had already been convicted of kidnapping Osama Mustafa Hassan in 2003.
Hassan is a member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, a fundamentalist islamic movement, and has several aliases.
Robert 'Bob' Seldon Lady, former CIA station chief in Milan, was sentenced to eight years in November 2009, for his role in the now infamous Imam Rapito Affair. The Italian media reports that the mission was orchestrated with the help of the Italian government agency Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare or SISMI. That's fascist for Military Intelligence and Security Service. How's that for an oxymoron of monumental proportions?
Yesterday, Seldon Lady's, along with 22 of his former CIA colleagues' sentences were increased minimally, most likely as a shot at Washington's waning power. Increases ranged from 1-2 years. The court has also ordered the agents (not the agency...go figure) to pay a fine of euro1.5mil.
The defendants lawyer, Alessia Sorgato, said the court had taken a hard line against the agents.
"It's a shocking blow for the Americans," she said.

Not surprisingly, Washington has refused extradition requests.


But please note, I disagree with anyone who attempts to portray Knox and Sollecito's killing of Meredith Kercher as involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide. She was charged correctly, and received the proper sentence in the first trial. Anyone who feels otherwise might have to defend their position quite rigorously :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I think you could most likely find alot more examples of cases (even in Italy) that would be more similar to the murder of Meredith... instead of that one.


A case that impacts US-Italy relations that raises press attention and international emotion? If so, I'd like to know.


Well aside from the CIA 23 case I referenced earlier you might like to know about the intentional (some say) killing of Italian Major General Nicola Calipari in Baghdad in 2005 and shooting at journalist Giuliana Sgrena http://www.democracynow.org/features/giuliana_sgrena

Attempts by an Italian court to try the US soldier that shot at them, Mario Lonzo, in absentia, were rebuffed as being outside their jurisdiction.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

geebee2 wrote:
I have been looking at the bra-clasp Y-chromosome result here

http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Bra-clasp-results

My personal interpretation ( also at the above link ) is this :

<<

Raffaele's DNA is clearly present, the relevant peaks are all 3 times or more higher than the minor peaks. DYS456:13 is rare (1.9%).

Rudy matches 15 out of 16 Loci (but some RFU are very low), however for the statistics above, his markers are all quite common.

However Rudy does not account for some of the non-Raffaele significant peaks, e.g. DYS390 23^76; 24^107; DYS383 12^212; 14^65; DYS438 9^201, so there is significant evidence of contamination. Also DYS438 9^201 is quite rare (4.5% ).

DYS390 (and DYS383) show there are at least 2 other males, besides Rudy and Raffaele, present.

Luca Altieri's reference profile could be useful for interpreting this piece of evidence. If Luca has some of the unexplained alleles noted above (and/or is a good overall match), it would suggest a transfer of DNA from the door to the clasp ( because both Luca and Raffaele tried to break the door down, quite probably depositing significant quantities of DNA in the process ). Considering the door opens into Meredith's bedroom, it is not hard to imagine material falling from the door onto the bedroom floor, and then being transferred to the bra clasp.

Samples of dust from Meredith's bedroom floor, which certainly contaminated the bra-clasp during the 46 days it lay on the floor uncollected, should have been taken when the bra-clasp was collected. If results were similar to the bra-clasp result ( subtracting Meredith's profile ) this would have proved beyond all doubt that the evidence has no value. Alternatively if Raffaele's DNA was not found in dust samples, the evidence would have more value.

As it is, the evidence is not reliable, since contamination is not excluded, indeed it is proven, since it is inconceivable that two males in addition to Rudy and Raffaele participated in the attack, both leaving their DNA on the bra-clasp.

>>

Do you agree with the bolded text "there are at least 2 other males, besides Rudy and Raffaele, present" ?

I think this (and the stomach contents evidence) is in many ways the crux of the case. Oddly, Massei does not seem to address either the unexplained alleles, or the door as being an obvious source of Raffaele's DNA. It's a great pity there was no dust sample tested, but was Luca Altieri's profile ever obtained? It just possibly could be the key to the whole case, as I explain in the linked page. And it's still not too late to do this ( I assume he is still alive! ).


My recollection of Monica Napoleoni's testimony is that the 'profiles' of two other males you claim to be there are in fact stutter and do not represent two other unidentified males. I believe her, and not the defense or their surrogates.

Since Massei rules out the possibility of contamination, that leaves only two identifiable profiles, Guede's and Sollecito's, and I for one am going to leave it at that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

SomeLawyer wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Yeah, the Cavalese cable car disaster of 1998 has very little bearing on the Meredith Kercher case. Under NATO treaties the crew of the Marine Corps Prowler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998) were tried by military courts in the US and found not guilty of negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter.

A more relevant case, since we were talking about the extradition treaty, would be the CIA agents trial http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... n-absentia

December 16,2010 --- Rome, Italy
In what may be seen as a continuing decline in Western prestige, an Italian state court increased the sentences of 23 Central Intelligence Agency operatives today. The agents had already been convicted of kidnapping Osama Mustafa Hassan in 2003.
Hassan is a member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, a fundamentalist islamic movement, and has several aliases.
Robert 'Bob' Seldon Lady, former CIA station chief in Milan, was sentenced to eight years in November 2009, for his role in the now infamous Imam Rapito Affair. The Italian media reports that the mission was orchestrated with the help of the Italian government agency Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare or SISMI. That's fascist for Military Intelligence and Security Service. How's that for an oxymoron of monumental proportions?
Yesterday, Seldon Lady's, along with 22 of his former CIA colleagues' sentences were increased minimally, most likely as a shot at Washington's waning power. Increases ranged from 1-2 years. The court has also ordered the agents (not the agency...go figure) to pay a fine of euro1.5mil.
The defendants lawyer, Alessia Sorgato, said the court had taken a hard line against the agents.
"It's a shocking blow for the Americans," she said.

Not surprisingly, Washington has refused extradition requests.


But please note, I disagree with anyone who attempts to portray Knox and Sollecito's killing of Meredith Kercher as involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide. She was charged correctly, and received the proper sentence in the first trial. Anyone who feels otherwise might have to defend their position quite rigorously :)


What do you think about Rudy's sentence and day release in a few years?


I think Knox and Raffaele got away with murder. That being the case, Rudy's sentence is long, in comparison.

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

One of the observations I have made about the case of Knox and Sollecito is how judges Micheli and Massei arrive at slightly different conclusions. Massei, that the murder was a hazing that went wrong under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and Micheli, that Amanda Knox was the deliberate instigator who influenced the love sick (and perverse) Raffaele Sollecito and her actions led to one inevitable outcome: the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I tend towards Micheli's verdict.

I believe that Massei bought, even subliminally, the contention that these were two 'normal, young kids' whose lives just took a wrong direction and the murder was more of an unforeseen event. An accident, almost.

This, unfortunately, created a hole in logic which Hellmann drove a bus right through. He, and the apologists for the defense, just couldn't wrap their heads around how two such 'normal, clean cut, kids', could just up and murder a room mate for no reason whatsoever.

I try not to use words like 'evil' when 'mental illness' and 'psychopathy' are perfectly fine, thank you.

We here in Toronto are riveted by the trial of Rafal (also known as Raffaele) LaSota and Michelle Liard, who were 23 years and 19, respectively, when they slashed and killed 13 year old Aleksandra Firgan Hewie, and once again, I look at the similarities between yet another murder case and that of Knox and Sollecito.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/22/ac ... eces-crown
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/24/ac ... -to-jurors
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/23/bl ... olds-death

1. Liard, like Knox, telegraphed her psychopathy in an essay, which, when discovered, was stated by the defense to be a 'school assignment'.

"BRAMPTON - It was the bloody massacre of a helpless child allegedly foretold in a short story by one of two former lovebirds now on trial for first-degree murder.

Aleksandra Firgan-Hewie was just 13 when, prosecutors say, she was lured by Michelle Liard and her boyfriend, Rafal LaSota, to his Mississauga home and viciously stabbed 37 times before her body was shoved into a garbage bag and dumped behind his backyard shed on Dec. 10, 2008.

In October, 2008, Goulin said, one of their group overheard Liard, who went by the nickname Meesha, tell her new friend that she “wanted to experiment, that she wanted to cut Aleks up into little pieces.”

It was a macabre fantasy Liard repeated to another friend as well, the prosecutor said. “She wanted to cut them up into little pieces, to chop them up,” Goulin told the jury.

Police would later find a five-page story Liard wrote about a woman named Meesha, her boyfriend Rafal and a hitchhiker who kidnap a blonde woman and confine her to a motel where they stuff a sock in her mouth and slash her to death.

“In her story,” the prosecutor said, “Ms. Liard also describes the muffled noises made by the blonde woman as she is being cut and the amount of blood that results.

It will be LaSota’s family who will explain the rest of the story, the jury was told. His sister Monika, who lived in the basement, was smoking outside with Liard that evening when her boyfriend came out of the LaSota home complaining of noise coming from upstairs.

Liard said LaSota was “just putting together a desk” in his room.

When they tried to investigate, Liard blocked their way.
"

Here is her work of fiction, in more detail:

Her prescient words echo through the courtroom as they’re read by the Peel Regional Police officer who discovered them in the 19-year-old’s bedroom closet, of a killer without conscience named “Meesha”, her boyfriend Rafal and their thirst for blood.

“We had talked about this for 10 years, now was the time,” Michelle Liard wrote in the handprinted five-page tale entitled ‘Heres my f---ing story’. “I took the knife and pointed the tip to her skin — she tried to squirm again and rock the chair.

“I dug out a little circle of skin and flesh, she had her eyes closed tightly now, muscles tense and all made me smile. I did this 10 times or so. She was getting bloody.

“Raff took the knife and sang a little tune: ‘Mass murder makes me happy; mass murder makes me happy.’

“And with a nice swing of the knife he sliced her arm right open — so much so you see the fat pop out and blood streamed everywhere.”

This was Liard’s work of fiction. But it was discovered the day she was charged with boyfriend Rafal LaSota, then 25, in the brutal slaying of their 13-year-old friend Aleksandra Firgan-Hewie, whose slight body had been slashed, stabbed and punctured with 37 knife wounds
"

2. The attempts to clean up:

"The jury has heard that six of Aleks’s 37 knife wounds would have been fatal: four punctured her chest, piercing her lungs, and two severed her jugular vein and carotid artery.

LaSota’s bedroom would have been raining with her blood.

Peel Regional Police Const. Andrew Kastelic is the Dexter of the forensics world, the blood splatter expert called to the crime scene to crawl on his hands and knees with a flashlight and inspect every corner for signs of the victim’s blood. After several days of examination, he testifies that while it was obvious that someone had tried to wipe down the room, he found Aleks’s blood had sprayed on almost every surface he encountered.

LaSota’s mattress, soaked in two areas with the dead girl’s blood, had been flipped over and covered with a navy Maple Leafs blanket.

There was blood spray both on and under the coffee table, on the night stands, shoe boxes, a speaker, the computer hard drive, the desk, the baseboards, the door and even on the curtains that had been turned backwards to hide the splatter, he says.

Just like the crime shows we see on TV, he explains that he’d sprayed Luminol on the south wall of the bedroom and it lit up with the blood that someone had tried to wipe away.

On the floor he’d found several wet shirts that smelled heavily of bleach. In the bathroom, an empty bottle of Javex was seized.

There were tiny blood spatters on the coffee table that had been covered by a tea mug that carried Liard’s fingerprints. Beside it was a plate of chicken bones, her fingerprints on that dish as well. LaSota’s fingerprints were found on the two garbage bags that contained Aleks’s body and the bloody items.

So much blood, so much death - it is all too much to absorb. And then there is more.

Crown attorney Brian McGuire shows Kastelic a black and white photo taken at the autopsy of that poor child, her porcelain skin pierced through her left cheek and her neck and over and over again through her chest.

“Severed arteries tend to gush,” the officer says, explaining why he expected to find more blood. “There were attempts to clean up the scene
"

3. Here's a pdf of the original essay:

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/suns-prod-im ... _Story.pdf

Note the similarities in Liard's handwriting, writing style and subject matter when compared to Knox's "little brother" story, or not dissimilarly, "Marie Pace".

Anyone who read either story would and should have been alarmed. Liard's teacher said if that had been handed in, she'd have reported it to the authorities at once.

I cannot see how those close to Knox and Sollecito could not have known, but chose to ignore what must have been incresaing signs of psychopathy.

But here's the difference:

When LaSota's mother found out about the incident, she confronted her son, forced him to confess, and called the police.

Knox and Sollecito's parents, on the other hand, helped them cover up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

User SomeLawyer has been issued a permanent ban by me.

Reasons:

1. Violation of Tuesday rule. (note: I know some people post from other time zones, and will allow those to go through as long as I feel those are genuine posters. Will delete anyone I catch trying to slip by though)

2. Use of multiple spam web proxies.

3. Troll argumentativeness.

Not that he added anything to the conversation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Some lawyer I think what may be more important than even the length of the sentence is having the murderer named and judged to be guilty in a public way. That is perhaps why Rudy's sentence seems to appear acceptable, at least no one saying he is innocent. He will always carry the label of one who participated in the crime,
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

malvern wrote:
An interesting case was on 48 Hours last night. The case of Nuora Jackson accused of stabbing her mother 50 times in her bedroom. It was a horrific crime complete with a bloody bedroom and no trace of DNA from Nuora!! The crime also included a staged break-in with a broken window, no cell phone activity and no real alibi. To watch Nuora it was difficult not believe her sincerity. She was convicted and sentenced to 20 years. No DNA no murder weapon and supporters who maintained she had a loving relationship with her mother.

I never understood the reasoning why one must leave DNA behind when one has a knife in their hand. Both AK and RS had a knife in their hand which might leave one free hand available to deposit DNA but already the chances are smaller then when you have 2 hands available. Besides who left DNA from strangling Meredith or causing the bruises and cuts on her face? Nobody.

There is RS's DNA on the clasp (not Rudy's) and it is rather obvious from the bend clasp that somebody was forcefully trying to remove the bra. Then look at the DNA evidence who could have performed that action. It is such a simplistic explanation for the presence of the DNA but still people make up the most wonderful contamination theories about some unknown person (with gloves!) picking up RS's DNA from the cigarette butt, bathroom, or door handle and then walking to the room and rub it off on exactly the bra clasp. Makes no sense.

Of course there is judge Hellmann who claims it is the most common thing in the world. With that kind of reasoning you might as well skip DNA evidence in any criminal case because who knows who picked it up from somewhere and somehow deposited it at the crime scene? Anything is possible :roll:

Quote:
In this context, it is probable that the DNA hypothetically belonging to Raffaele Sollecito may have been transported by others into the room and precisely onto the bra clasp, via contact with the hands or even contact between objects and clothing on which it was already present (for example inside the sink, as observed by Dr. Gino), as in fact this manner of transporting DNA is not such a very unusual occurrence. The fact that it is not an unusual occurrence is proven by studies cited by the expert team and also by the defence consultants, to which the consultants of the PM and the civil party made no objection as to their scientific validity, but only as to whether there was any concrete proof of contamination in the present context.
Top Profile 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
I have been looking at the bra-clasp Y-chromosome result here

http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Bra-clasp-results

My personal interpretation ( also at the above link ) is this :

<<

Raffaele's DNA is clearly present, the relevant peaks are all 3 times or more higher than the minor peaks. DYS456:13 is rare (1.9%).

Rudy matches 15 out of 16 Loci (but some RFU are very low), however for the statistics above, his markers are all quite common.

However Rudy does not account for some of the non-Raffaele significant peaks, e.g. DYS390 23^76; 24^107; DYS383 12^212; 14^65; DYS438 9^201, so there is significant evidence of contamination. Also DYS438 9^201 is quite rare (4.5% ).

DYS390 (and DYS383) show there are at least 2 other males, besides Rudy and Raffaele, present.

Luca Altieri's reference profile could be useful for interpreting this piece of evidence. If Luca has some of the unexplained alleles noted above (and/or is a good overall match), it would suggest a transfer of DNA from the door to the clasp ( because both Luca and Raffaele tried to break the door down, quite probably depositing significant quantities of DNA in the process ). Considering the door opens into Meredith's bedroom, it is not hard to imagine material falling from the door onto the bedroom floor, and then being transferred to the bra clasp.

Samples of dust from Meredith's bedroom floor, which certainly contaminated the bra-clasp during the 46 days it lay on the floor uncollected, should have been taken when the bra-clasp was collected. If results were similar to the bra-clasp result ( subtracting Meredith's profile ) this would have proved beyond all doubt that the evidence has no value. Alternatively if Raffaele's DNA was not found in dust samples, the evidence would have more value.

As it is, the evidence is not reliable, since contamination is not excluded, indeed it is proven, since it is inconceivable that two males in addition to Rudy and Raffaele participated in the attack, both leaving their DNA on the bra-clasp.

>>

Do you agree with the bolded text "there are at least 2 other males, besides Rudy and Raffaele, present" ?

I think this (and the stomach contents evidence) is in many ways the crux of the case. Oddly, Massei does not seem to address either the unexplained alleles, or the door as being an obvious source of Raffaele's DNA. It's a great pity there was no dust sample tested, but was Luca Altieri's profile ever obtained? It just possibly could be the key to the whole case, as I explain in the linked page. And it's still not too late to do this ( I assume he is still alive! ).


My recollection of Monica Napoleoni's testimony is that the 'profiles' of two other males you claim to be there are in fact stutter and do not represent two other unidentified males. I believe her, and not the defense or their surrogates.


No, only 4 of the 16 non-Raffaele peaks present (shown in bold) are in stutter positions ( and of these 4, some are too high to be stutter ). A stutter peak has length one unit shorter than the main peak. In a mixture, you should not assume a minor peak is stutter, since it can also be a genuine peak from a minor contributor. But that's not necessary in any case.

For DYS390 we have 21^41; 22^401; 23^76; 24^107
The main peak is length 22, the minor peaks are 23 and 24, both after the main peak.
So neither 23 nor 24 are stutter peaks.

Rudy can explain some of the other peaks ( for example DYS456 15^82 ), but not the ones I quote above. I take Rudy into account because we know his DNA was found elsewhere on the bra.

Quote:
Since Massei rules out the possibility of contamination, that leaves only two identifiable profiles, Guede's and Sollecito's, and I for one am going to leave it at that.


Don't you want to understand this evidence? Ok, I admit, a week ago I hadn't looked at it carefully myself. But when you do look, it's undeniable there are at least 2 other males present in the result, regardless of what Monica Napoleoni says. If Napoleoni said that she was either mistaken or lying. Please! Look at the evidence, not what others say about it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
One of the observations I have made about the case of Knox and Sollecito is how judges Micheli and Massei arrive at slightly different conclusions. Massei, that the murder was a hazing that went wrong under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and Micheli, that Amanda Knox was the deliberate instigator who influenced the love sick (and perverse) Raffaele Sollecito and her actions led to one inevitable outcome: the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I tend towards Micheli's verdict.

I believe that Massei bought, even subliminally, the contention that these were two 'normal, young kids' whose lives just took a wrong direction and the murder was more of an unforeseen event. An accident, almost.

This, unfortunately, created a hole in logic which Hellmann drove a bus right through. He, and the apologists for the defense, just couldn't wrap their heads around how two such 'normal, clean cut, kids', could just up and murder a room mate for no reason whatsoever.

I try not to use words like 'evil' when 'mental illness' and 'psychopathy' are perfectly fine, thank you. ...


As I mentioned above, the Knox defense was "I was not there" with an alibi that she was busy getting laid and stoned elsewhere.

This defense obviated the need for Knox to assert what her state of mind was while doing the killing.

It can be argued that your description of the Massei point of view would also support an argument that Knox was guilty of a "lesser included offense" in the killing of Ms. Kercher.

As to "psychopathy," I've read enough legal case records in my time for that term to elicit a small groan. I'm not saying that you are wrong in your analysis, but I am fairly confident that there are well trained mental health professionals who would disagree with you. I know that DSM-IV and ICD-10 avoid the term. From what I am informed, there are disputes within the commitees formulating DSM-V on whether the term should be used.

Ms. Kercher's murder already has enough of "expert" and "science" in it. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

@geebee2, I've looked at your evidence, and not being trained in forensics, say thanks, but no. Raffaele Sollecito's was the only DNA found on the bra clasp. Even if there were others, what is your point?

a) He was one of the attackers? Fine, when the others are found, the police can arrest them too.
b) I disagree with your singular pov on time of death based on stomach contents, for the reasons I have already given.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

@BMF 1950, I've already made it clear I'm not making a formal diagnosis of Ms. Knox's mental health, since I haven't examined her or seen her medical records.

But I will say that, based on her behaviour as observed and reported by multiple witnesses, she fits the classic profile of psychopathy.

As a lawyer, it's your job to cast doubt on the evidence.

In my personal and not, professional capacity, I have listed many ways in which she can be classified as such, make of it what you will.

What interests me here, now, and what I was writing about was the striking similarities and coincidences between the murders of Meredith Kercher and Aleksandra Firgin-Hewie (who was a Capricorn too, btw)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline RoseMontag


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:18 pm

Posts: 280

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
@geebee2, I've looked at your evidence, and not being trained in forensics, say thanks, but no. Raffaele Sollecito's was the only DNA found on the bra clasp. Even if there were others, what is your point?

a) He was one of the attackers? Fine, when the others are found, the police can arrest them too.
b) I disagree with your singular pov on time of death based on stomach contents, for the reasons I have already given.


The existence of the partial profiles points to contamination as a very real probability. Even if they were multiple attackers, how many men handled that bra clasp? It doesn't make much sense to me. Raffaele's defense team argued that the portion of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp was LCN. Even though his profiles are higher than the other unidentified profiles the amount of his DNA present is very minute and could be also the result of contamination.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Ergon wrote:
@geebee2, I've looked at your evidence, and not being trained in forensics, say thanks, but no. Raffaele Sollecito's was the only DNA found on the bra clasp. Even if there were others, what is your point?

a) He was one of the attackers? Fine, when the others are found, the police can arrest them too.
b) I disagree with your singular pov on time of death based on stomach contents, for the reasons I have already given.


The existence of the partial profiles points to contamination as a very real probability. Even if they were multiple attackers, how many men handled that bra clasp? It doesn't make much sense to me. Raffaele's defense team argued that the portion of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp was LCN. Even though his profiles are higher than the other unidentified profiles the amount of his DNA present is very minute and could be also the result of contamination.


"DNA doesn't fly" is a much quoted remark here. Still, I, like you, look forward to seeing how the Supreme Court deals with all outstanding matters. Will a retrial lead to a retesting of the knife, using newer, more accurate procedures?

Will the argument then still be A) Too low a sample and B) Contamination?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BMF1950


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm

Posts: 156

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
@BMF 1950, I've already made it clear I'm not making a formal diagnosis of Ms. Knox's mental health, since I haven't examined her or seen her medical records.

But I will say that, based on her behaviour as observed and reported by multiple witnesses, she fits the classic profile of psychopathy.

As a lawyer, it's your job to cast doubt on the evidence.

In my personal and not, professional capacity, I have listed many ways in which she can be classified as such, make of it what you will.

What interests me here, now, and what I was writing about was the striking similarities and coincidences between the murder of Meredith Kercher and Aleksandra Firgin-Hewie (who was a Capricorn too, btw)


For what it may be worth, I am a Capricorn; one of my adult daughters is a Cancer. :D

I am now at an age where a fair number of my law school colleagues are now judges. [Two are Supreme Court justices of their current states of residence. One is the Chief Administrative Judge of a Federal Agency. Who would have known?]

In informal discussions [often over lunch or a beer] I have learned that judging ain't all that easy when one is actually responsible for it. In fact, it is relatively easy to be an advocate -- the conclusions are foreordained in favor of your client.

As I have previously noted, I am agnostic on cases I have not been involved in. The foregoing is the reason.

Any "question" I pose will be more in the nature of mild "Socratic Method" common to American and Canadian law schools. I say "mild" because I am not using it as a method of pushing my viewpoint.


post script: I am recalling a lunch with a friend serving on the bench. She noted the difficulty she had when a party's testimony was quite believable based upon "demeanor," detail and consistency. This gave her two alternative possibilities -- the party was either telling the truth or was a "damned good actor." And there is no real way to figure out which one it is if the story is consistent with the evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:


As I mentioned above, the Knox defense was "I was not there" with an alibi that she was busy getting laid and stoned elsewhere.

This defense obviated the need for Knox to assert what her state of mind was while doing the killing.

It can be argued that your description of the Massei point of view would also support an argument that Knox was guilty of a "lesser included offense" in the killing of Ms. Kercher.


1. The blood and DNA evidence will show she was there and did kill Meredith Kercher. Corroboration of her alibi has had quite a few twists and turns, as you know, and we shall see what a new trial will bring up.

2. The defense is just that, a defense. A new trial is still a possibility, and she or her lawyer would be required to address a) her whereabouts and b) state of mind during the killing.

3. It can be argued that the Micheli, Massei and Hellmann judgements are all obsolete, though the Supreme Court or a new trial might still consider all the evidence, which is permissible under Italian Law. I also do not agree that Massei's belief might support a lesser killing verdict, since I feel you are using American, and not, Italian points of reference. There also is a possibility the sentence might be increased.

Of course, it also appears likely, the Americans will not honour an extradition request, that's in their DNA (sorry) Maybe Raffaele's 'book deal' is his fall back position in case he also wants to flee the Italian justice system as well?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline geebee2


Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:26 am

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
@geebee2, I've looked at your evidence, and not being trained in forensics, say thanks, but no. Raffaele Sollecito's was the only DNA found on the bra clasp. Even if there were others, what is your point?

a) He was one of the attackers? Fine, when the others are found, the police can arrest them too.


Well if there were others, contamination is proved ( and not just a theory ) or you have to suppose that Rudy, Raffaele and two other unidentified men (and Amanda?) all participated in the attack, getting their DNA on the bra or bra clasp. That's hard for me to believe. It's hard enough thinking 3 people came together together to commit the murder for no reason, let alone 5.

Quote:
b) I disagree with your singular pov on time of death based on stomach contents, for the reasons I have already given.


Did you see my response last week?

Here is a link to it: viewtopic.php?p=93387#p93387

I think you did, because you then asked a question, here

viewtopic.php?p=93396#p93396

to which ( it being past midnight - I feel like Cinderella :) ) I responded by pm, as follows:

geebee2 wrote:
Subject: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -

Ergon wrote:
Hi geebee2, rather than cut and paste at each other, I'll ask you this:

Do you consider the time frames given in the research you refer to apply to time after a meal is begun, or, time after the meal is finished? You seem to be saying the latter, even though every reference I have been able to find says it is after a meal has begun.

Are you saying that emptying began only after the last bite of the crumble was finished, you estimate around 7:30 pm. Is that correct?


Ergon

Unfortunately my posting time has ended for this week ( I had a rather long day, driving 120 miles to London, working a full day, driving back another 120 miles, then my circuit training and supper before I could post ), so I;m relpying by PM.

But yes.

Note I say on my timeline

"19:35 Start eating Apple crumble. Maybe some of the pizza has left the stomach, but not much."

Note I also say on my page "Another problem is the extended nature of the meal does not match typical trials, which generally use a meal consumed in a much shorter period of time ( less than 10 minutes )."

It's my belief that eating the Apple crumble would delay the time at which the stomach started to empty, and so it should be the time the meal was finished that "starts the clock" as it were. This really must be the case, otherwise, as you say, we would have to conclude that Meredith was murdered before she got home - impossible!

The reason would be that food should only pass through to the duodenum once it has been exposed to stomach juices (acid) for sufficient time. The stomach has a sensitive control system that tests for whether stomach emptying should start.

Note there are references that suggest the time for the stomach to start emptying can be less than 60 minutes - but it does depend on the food ( so the stomach "knows" what's in it! ). For example

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pa ... tying.html

says

Quote:
After consuming a typical solid meal, there is a lag time of 20 to 30 minutes in which there is minimal gastric emptying.


I think the start of stomach emptying is perhaps not very well defined, the point is that by about 80 minutes it should have started in earnest. The diagram here

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pa ... ansit.html

illustrates this.

Are you beginning to see why I claim that it's completely wrong to suppose that stomach emptying might not start for 3 hours? It's actually quite counter-intuitive when you think about it, even without referring to medical references. Just think about what you feel and observe after eating a meal!

Regards, until next Tuesday.


I also late sent another pm as follows:

geebee2 wrote:
Ergon

Later I did a bit more work on why the estimates for the time for stomach emptying to start show a fair range, and added another reference [8] "Lag Phase Quantification for Solid Gastric Emptying Studies"

http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Empty-Duodenum

http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/37/10/1639.short

Note that it's recognised thre is a difference between solids and liquids - liquids pass through with exponential decay, starting immediately, but solids have an inital Lag, and are then pass steadily to the duodenum ( linear emptying ). It's the solid food that we are interested in.


And that's where we are now on this, I believe.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

BMF1950 wrote:


For what it may be worth, I am a Capricorn; one of my adult daughters is a Cancer. :D

I am now at an age where a fair number of my law school colleagues are now judges. [Two are Supreme Court justices of their current states of residence. One is the Chief Administrative Judge of a Federal Agency. Who would have known?]

In informal discussions [often over lunch or a beer] I have learned that judging ain't all that easy when one is actually responsible for it. In fact, it is relatively easy to be an advocate -- the conclusions are foreordained in favor of your client.

As I have previously noted, I am agnostic on cases I have not been involved in. The foregoing is the reason.

Any "question" I pose will be more in the nature of mild "Socratic Method" common to American and Canadian law schools. I say "mild" because I am not using it as a method of pushing my viewpoint.


post script: I am recalling a lunch with a friend serving on the bench. She noted the difficulty she had when a party's testimony was quite believable based upon "demeanor," detail and consistency. This gave her two alternative possibilities -- the party was either telling the truth or was a "damned good actor." And there is no real way to figure out which one it is if the story is consistent with the evidence.


Oh, Gawd, I'm a Capricorn too, (as is Rudy Guede :) and see us two goats butting heads to the end of time (said in good humour of course)

By all means, use any method you wish to use, I'm certainly enjoying the conversation!

Your friend might then also say that if a person's demeanour, detail, and consistency showed their testimony to be unreliable, they were a) telling lies and b) a very poor actor. And that may highlight inconsistencies in the evidence?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

If the story is consistent with the evidence, why would a judge be having a problem?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 12 [ 2981 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

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

  

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


29,442,028 Views