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: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:30 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:30 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 12 of 12 [ 2981 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi Daoud, do post your nervous sheep pic here too, please? I think I'd like to reclaim a proper discussion of conspirology. We might need that in the time to come ;)


Hi Ergon,
Here you are:

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thank you for this wonderful website. I took some time to write this and I waited until Tuesday to register and post just in case its controversial. I have no intention of offending anyone here. I just have an observation.

I have been following this case for just a brief time on the online boards but I have followed in the news from the beginning. The one issue I have is with the talk about a public relations campaign. It just doesn't seem possible for a family with limited means to be able to control all of the major media.

I looked at the website Injustice in Perugia and they appear to be an independent organization that was started by a guy named Bruce Fischer. I remember hearing that website mentioned by Matt Lauer and I know an FBI agent was involved and he was on the news a lot as the appeal trial concluded. I thought it might be possible that these people were part of a PR campaign with the Knox family but when I look at their activities now, that does not appear to be the case. Injustice in Perugia has now moved on and created a new organization to help others that have been wrongfully convicted. Are the families of those people they are now helping paying for PR? I really doubt that.

You can take a look at what the organization is working on here:

http://www.injustice-Anywhere.org

They also have a very active discussion forum here:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org

We can all disagree with the conclusions made by the Injustice Anywhere group when it comes to Meredith but I agree with many issues they are working to correct. I think we all might need to take another look at the people we have been attacking all these years. I used to be filled with anger but now I am starting to see more clearly.

If these people came together as a PR machine for Knox, then why have they now moved on to other cases? Are we now going to accuse Bruce Fischer of being sexually attracted to Jason Puracal? I just think we need to take another look at the big picture, that's all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
Meredith wasn't using that handbag that evening. If AK doesn't have the rent money, her need is as large as RGs. The 'motive' for stealing the money might have been the pranking... not 'need' of money.

We do not know what, or how much the police questioned the money angle. Since it is so difficult to prove which one actually stole the money... why clutter the case even more?


dgfred, that doesn't mean that's not where Meredith kept her rent money. Knox didn't have the rent money in hand but it was in the bank. Guede had no money period. He could not pay his rent, Knox could. Big difference. Knox had no need, Guede did. Those are the facts. It's not a proven motive, but it's a legitimate one because the conditions were proven to exist.

As I said, I agree anything is possible. But bear in mind the whole concept of a prank is nothing more than speculation, so while you can attribute just about any aspect of the crime to it, there's no evidence to give it any credibility.

I also agree we don't know (or at least I don't) how much research was done wrt the money. I'm with you, don't clutter the case. But there are folks here and elsewhere who want to link money that Knox had to Meredith's money, suggesting it's evidence she stole the money. As long as people wish to pose that theory, we have to clutter the case and discuss it. And in truth, I agree with Cape and others in concept -- if you could prove the money Knox had was Meredith's rent money, that would go a long way to proving culpability. I can only assume the prosecution couldn't. Would be interesting to know if they were able to account for the money Knox had or simply can't prove one way or another.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Most likely can't prove one way or another... yet.

Meredith kept her money in her drawer. A prank is speculation, just as anything else in the case is too for the most part. The stolen money can be part of the prank, an actual theft, or just taken to further 'stage' the scene as being committed by a burgler.

Even if the money is proven stolen by AK at some point, it does NOT necessarily mean she committed the murder. The money is only ONE of the issues that could show motive/guilt.
The prosecution was after the murder charges... not the theft so much. In the end, if she/they were guilty of the murder... the theft of the money matters very little.
No way to show for certain who took the money unless one of the others tells what happened. Then you have to decide whether to believe them or not... just more clutter IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I don't disagree with anything you said, however, I do believe you are wrong to downplay the significance of proving who took the money. It would be a major piece of the case. Yes, wouldn't prove murder but it would strongly support some level of involvement. But agreed.. won't be proven so just more clutter. Amazing that we actually agree on something.
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 May 22, 2012 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
Thank you for this wonderful website. I took some time to write this and I waited until Tuesday to register and post just in case its controversial. I have no intention of offending anyone here. I just have an observation.

I have been following this case for just a brief time on the online boards but I have followed in the news from the beginning. The one issue I have is with the talk about a public relations campaign. It just doesn't seem possible for a family with limited means to be able to control all of the major media.

I looked at the website Injustice in Perugia and they appear to be an independent organization that was started by a guy named Bruce Fischer. I remember hearing that website mentioned by Matt Lauer and I know an FBI agent was involved and he was on the news a lot as the appeal trial concluded. I thought it might be possible that these people were part of a PR campaign with the Knox family but when I look at their activities now, that does not appear to be the case. Injustice in Perugia has now moved on and created a new organization to help others that have been wrongfully convicted. Are the families of those people they are now helping paying for PR? I really doubt that.

You can take a look at what the organization is working on here:

http://www.injustice-Anywhere.org

They also have a very active discussion forum here:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org

We can all disagree with the conclusions made by the Injustice Anywhere group when it comes to Meredith but I agree with many issues they are working to correct. I think we all might need to take another look at the people we have been attacking all these years. I used to be filled with anger but now I am starting to see more clearly.

If these people came together as a PR machine for Knox, then why have they now moved on to other cases? Are we now going to accuse Bruce Fischer of being sexually attracted to Jason Puracal? I just think we need to take another look at the big picture, that's all.


Hi, Maggie, and welcome to this forum. This is a very eclectic site, with many people who might even disagree with each other, but still believe that the sum of evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher is conclusive.

Regarding the PR campaign, then yes, there is ample evidence of that as well, and the use of sock puppets and false organizations to spam social web sites by Rove Republicans, Koch Tea Partiers and, PR Agencies is also, a well documented phenomenon.

Regarding Bruce Fischer, since you bring him up. I have no evidence whatsoever whether he is or is not in the pay of Gogerty Marriott or any other agency, so I will not go down there. He might even be a sincere believer in the innocence of Amanda Knox, and I wrote a long time ago that the beauty of PR is when it can convince people to work for them for FREE. Therefore, he is a very small Fish(er :) in the scheme of things, and in my opinion, too much attention has been given to him, in part because of his own actions. He said he wanted to move on, that he 'didn't want to address this issue any more' (2011) then launched another scatter gun attack on PMF on May 08 of this year.

So now he wants to branch out with his own Innocence Project? Sorry, that won't wash. There are many long established innocence groups who follow a rigid code of ethics to ensure that whatever work they do must be above reproach, and i support those groups whole heartedly. Fischer's IIP site would have been well received if it had not selectively released the defense documents it had been made privy to, if it had not altered a photograph of evidence they published, if it had not reportedly encouraged people to post all over the net under assumed names and tried to group edit edit wikipedia entries. May be his new effort to branch out into internet advocacy field is sincere. Maybe the donations he's soliciting for Francesco Sforza actually is reaching the intended recipient.

But the fact remains; he used his innocence site to make a personal attack on a named individual, Peter Quennell. I hold no brief for Peter, nor do I quarrel with Bruce's "reasons" for doing so, even though it seemed, er, personal.

So, if anyone wants to look at the template established by him as a model for Internet Advocacy of the presumed innocent, they might want to consider this: It didn't work. In fact, it turned off far more people than it ever convinced, just saying. And as I suggested, there already are many established Innocence projects that are worthy of support.
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 May 23, 2012 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree but ask yourself why, if it was an important clue, why wasn't Knox asked about the money found on her and why wasn't Guede asked about the money he spent partying for two days?



Guede went to a nightclub on the night of the murder and again the following night before leaving Perugia. How exactly, does going to a nightclub on two evenings, translate into "partying for two days?" Please leave your exaggerations and loaded terms at the door.

Second point. How much does it cost to get into a nightclub? Answer: Not very much. This therefore does not need to be explained. Listening to you though, one would think one needs to remortgage their house or rob a bank in order to raise enough money to get into a nightclub. It isn't expensive, so please stop trying to pretend it costs a fortune. This is added to the fact that there was nothing strange about Rudy's going to a nightclub (other then doing so right after helping murder someone that is ), since he was a regular at the Perugia nightclubs, going every week. There was therefore nothing particularly suspicious in his going there and no doubt, gained entry by the same means he had in all the previous weeks and months.

Francisco wrote:
Guede had no money period. He could not pay his rent, Knox could.


Please support statements like these instead of pulling them straight out of your arse! That means, you are required to support statements like "Guede had no money" and "couldn't pay his rent" with actual evidence. We don't appreciate 'fact invention'. This is especially the case when we know such invented facts like those above, to be completely false.

Francisco - After your arrival here, you virtually bombarded me with posts, PM's and emails asserting that you had no agenda in this case and preaching your objectivity. The examples above (I could give many more), demonstrate an anything but objective approach. Exaggerations are not objective. Loaded language is not objective. Asserting unsupported (invented) facts is not objective. Therefore, despite all your beseeching posts, emails and PM's I remain unconvinced on your 'objectivity'. To be persuaded, I need to start seeing some. Until then, with all due respect, I remain a skeptic.

_________________
"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 May 23, 2012 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
Thank you for this wonderful website. I took some time to write this and I waited until Tuesday to register and post just in case its controversial. I have no intention of offending anyone here. I just have an observation.

I have been following this case for just a brief time on the online boards but I have followed in the news from the beginning. The one issue I have is with the talk about a public relations campaign. It just doesn't seem possible for a family with limited means to be able to control all of the major media.

I looked at the website Injustice in Perugia and they appear to be an independent organization that was started by a guy named Bruce Fischer. I remember hearing that website mentioned by Matt Lauer and I know an FBI agent was involved and he was on the news a lot as the appeal trial concluded. I thought it might be possible that these people were part of a PR campaign with the Knox family but when I look at their activities now, that does not appear to be the case. Injustice in Perugia has now moved on and created a new organization to help others that have been wrongfully convicted. Are the families of those people they are now helping paying for PR? I really doubt that.


Welcome to PMF Maggie. As to whether there is any question as to the degree of involvement of a PR company in the Knox campaign, one only has to look at what the company itself says about it:

Quote:
Early in November 2007 the father of Amanda Knox called Gogerty Marriott to ask for assistance with the barrage of media calls the family was getting from around the world. His daughter, Amanda, had been arrested and imprisoned in Perugia, Italy for the murder of her British flat mate, Meredith Kercher.

From that day forward, there has been continuous intense pressure from national and international media to talk with members of the family about their daughter. Gogerty Marriott has sought to relieve as much of the media pressure from the family’s shoulders as possible. At the same time we balanced the family’s need to have the truth told about their daughter’s innocence with that of the legal constraints of her trial and now her appeal. All the media accounts and leaks of inaccurate information occurred within the framework of a markedly different legal system than that in the United States. At the same time, we were helping the family get the truth out about their daughter, we also tried to help them maintain some sense of normalcy in their lives.

Complicating the handling of media on such a broad scale is the difference in language and translation of key facts and legal issues, as well as the time differences and the ability to meet media deadlines. Gogerty Marriott’s work for the family has brought them in touch with all major U.S. news networks – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News, as well as independent programs such as Oprah Winfrey and a host of national and international magazines and newspapers.


http://www.gogertymarriott.com/showcase/amanda_knox/

Nuff said.

As for the likes of Fischer, the Knox campaign has attracted a range of 'supporters' who have their own agendas, using the Knox case to further their own careers, or for individuals such as Fischer, launch completely new ones. He isn't the first and he won't be the last.

It must also be noted, that there are two facets to the Knox PR campaign. One is Gogerty Stark Marriott who was engaged by Knox's father Curt Knox and the other is the FOA (Friends of Amanda) group sponsored by other Knox family members, Chris Mellas and Janet Huff (primarily, but not limited to).

_________________
"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 May 23, 2012 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Cape & Napia5 -

Get well soon, both of you! hugz-)

_________________
"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 May 23, 2012 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Not to forget Judge Michael "we set up websites" Heavey :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Cape & Napia5 -

Get well soon, both of you! hugz-)



I'm good, but a bit cranky, thank you, Michael.

Where is Zorba? Miss his cool, calming tones re: the PR people. I'd really enjoy his take too!!
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 May 23, 2012 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Not to forget Judge Michael "we set up websites" Heavey :)


Yes, indeed. Although, he's FOA rather then Marriott.

_________________
"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 May 23, 2012 12:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I'm good, but a bit cranky, thank you, Michael.

Where is Zorba? Miss his cool, calming tones re: the PR people. I'd really enjoy his take too!!


Glad to hear it. Hopefully, you'll feel less cranky when the sun shines on a new day :)

As for Zorba, he often takes periods out, as many do. Sometimes, one needs a break. Other times, life gets in the way...or moves on.

_________________
"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 May 23, 2012 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And hurray, I got my copy of "Meredith" today! Was referring to my Kindle copy till now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 5:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Francisco wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree but ask yourself why, if it was an important clue, why wasn't Knox asked about the money found on her and why wasn't Guede asked about the money he spent partying for two days?



Guede went to a nightclub on the night of the murder and again the following night before leaving Perugia. How exactly, does going to a nightclub on two evenings, translate into "partying for two days?" Please leave your exaggerations and loaded terms at the door.

Second point. How much does it cost to get into a nightclub? Answer: Not very much. This therefore does not need to be explained. Listening to you though, one would think one needs to remortgage their house or rob a bank in order to raise enough money to get into a nightclub. It isn't expensive, so please stop trying to pretend it costs a fortune. This is added to the fact that there was nothing strange about Rudy's going to a nightclub (other then doing so right after helping murder someone that is ), since he was a regular at the Perugia nightclubs, going every week. There was therefore nothing particularly suspicious in his going there and no doubt, gained entry by the same means he had in all the previous weeks and months.

Francisco wrote:
Guede had no money period. He could not pay his rent, Knox could.


Please support statements like these instead of pulling them straight out of your arse! That means, you are required to support statements like "Guede had no money" and "couldn't pay his rent" with actual evidence. We don't appreciate 'fact invention'. This is especially the case when we know such invented facts like those above, to be completely false.

Francisco - After your arrival here, you virtually bombarded me with posts, PM's and emails asserting that you had no agenda in this case and preaching your objectivity. The examples above (I could give many more), demonstrate an anything but objective approach. Exaggerations are not objective. Loaded language is not objective. Asserting unsupported (invented) facts is not objective. Therefore, despite all your beseeching posts, emails and PM's I remain unconvinced on your 'objectivity'. To be persuaded, I need to start seeing some. Until then, with all due respect, I remain a skeptic.


Coming from the king of sophistry it seems ironic if not hysterical that you demand of me to fully document each and every comment made. Lets get real here. Guede did not have his rent money. Heading out and partying at nightclubs for two straight days after participating in a murder is both costly and telling. I didn't say he needed a fortune to party and flee to Germany, but he certainly needed money, something he was notoriously short of. You object to my post, which is objective and spot on but have no issue with flights of fancy about pranks and other utterly baseless comments. I did not say this proved anything, I only said if there was anything to be interpreted regarding stolen money it would be that Guede was the more likely suspect. But I forgot.. you've taken to defending the lad these days.

I sent you perhaps half a dozen PM's mostly discussing the odd public split over this case. I hardly bombarded you and it certainly wasn't beseeching. You give yourself far to much credit. I honestly don't give a damn what you think of me at this point. Why bother discussing objectivity and honesty when you routinely display an alarming lack of both.

You want to talk about exaggerations, loaded language and inventing facts -- your bullshit about the TMB testing is a healthy does of all of the above. The tests WERE performed by Stefanoni, she DID fail to report the testing or the results and she DID finally admit the testing was done and proved negative. She DID NOT ever say there was insufficient material for testing and she herself testified to the use of TMB to eliminate false positives from luminol. Provide ONE piece of evidence from court testimony that substantiates the balderdash you've been spewing.

If you're looking for honesty and integrity from others, start practicing it yourself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 6:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
--- snip ---

Coming from the king of sophistry it seems ironic if not hysterical that you demand of me to fully document each and every comment made. Lets get real here. Guede did not have his rent money. Heading out and partying at nightclubs for two straight days after participating in a murder is both costly and telling.

---- snap ---


How much does it cost to enter the Domus? The entry to nightclubs is often free or cost little money. The nightclubs make profit mostly through selling drinks.

I've never read anywhere that Rudy Guede had trouble paying his rent. Who is the source for this statement?


Francisco wrote:
--- snip ---

I didn't say he needed a fortune to party and flee to Germany, but he certainly needed money, something he was notoriously short of

--- snap ---


Basically, you are saying that Rudy Guede spent more money than he could afford in the days after the murder. In order to come to that conclusion you would need to know how much he spent and how much he had available. So if you have any information that could shed light into this matter, please share it.

So far, the most incriminating clue we have regarding the stolen rent money is the deposit made by Amanda Knox the days after the murder. Maybe there is an innocent explanation for it, but I remain skeptical. Given the fact that it was a family friend who spread inadvertently the details of the deposit and the discussion that resulted from it, we can be sure that Amanda's family is well aware this incriminating detail is in public domain. In spite of it all they preferred to stay silent, which is highly unusual for them. Instead, Edda Mellas tried hard to draw the attention to Rudy Guede's finances by making unsubstantiated claims about his spending and his income.
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 May 23, 2012 1:07 pm   Post subject: TMB vs LUMINOL   

Ahem, re: TMB vs Luminol, brmull of PMF .org has this to say in reply to Chris Halkides assertions. Source: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewto ... 97#p117097

Quote:
"stilicho wrote:
I don't know but I am still trying to find out where Halkides and crew got the idea that TMB has to be positive for a Luminol-revealed print to be considered blood, especially when there's visible blood in several locations outside the "murder room".



Halkides seems to be the FOA guy who knows most about this stuff--as he should, being a biochemist. His error is to be too dogmatic and neglect some important real-world considerations. The post I'm referring to is here:

http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.ca/2 ... blood.html

Quote:
The murder of Meredith Kercher may have featured a misuse of the Kastle-Meyer test, a presumptive test for blood. The Kastle-Meyer chemical test relies upon hydrogen peroxide oxidizing phenolphthalin, which is colorless, to phenolphthalein, which is pink. ... The police released photos [of a pink bathroom] to the press that some observers, such as Judy Bachrach of Vanity Fair, thought was blood.



This is not a misuse of the test--it's a misconception about the photos, which I do not believe the police intended to release.

Quote:
Drano and bleach are two of several household products that can yield a false positive with luminol, as noted by Lt. Robin Bratton.


The good lieutenant was a shill for a company selling an alternative to luminol that is now out of business. The truth is that Drano and bleach will also yield a false positive with TMB.

In fact, if one just considers TMB to be similar to luminol in every way, but (under ideal circumstances) five times less sensitive, that's pretty much all you need to know.

Halkides goes on to present two "horror stories" in which persons were apparently falsely conviced on the basis of a presumptive test for blood. Unfortunately both of these cases used older tests, not luminol or TMB. So ignore all that.

Quote:
Dr. Sarah Gino noted in her testimony that TMB is negative about 50% of the time when luminol-positive areas are tested.


Dr. Gino is of course a defense consultant and her opinion of TMB sensitivity is much higher than what is reported in the literature.

Quote:
First, if [differences in sensitivity] were the only explanation for TMB giving a negative result, no forensic personnel would ever use TMB after using luminol: A negative result would not rule out the presence of blood, yet a positive result would still require a confirmatory test afterwards.


And in fact what Halkides said is true--there is no reason to use TMB after luminol. I have heard FOA say that TMB is used to confirm luminol findings every day by law enforcement agencies around the world. I haven't found any evidence of that.

Second, the window of dilution factors for which one would expect a positive luminol reaction but a negative TMB reaction is relatively small. Third, if one did have a sample which fell into this range, the luminol response would be weak, whereas Colonel Garofano remarked upon the sheer luminosity* of the footprints in the book Darkness Descending.

Garofano is actually an expert on blood testing, so it would have been nice to have him testify in this case. In any event, this is where Halkides gets tripped up. The 5x difference in sensivity is under ideal conditions. In reality, the blood was probably down in the pores of the stone. Luminol was applied and that blood made the luminol glow. Then, a swab was applied--presumbably to an area where the luminol was brightest--and that swab was sent back to Rome for DNA testing (and for some reason TMB--habit?). The problems are that the peroxide in the luminol reaction lessens the sensitivity of subsequent TMB testing. More importantly, if the blood is down in the crevices, swabbing along the surface will not capture it (or DNA). Finally there is a technical problem that occurs if TMB comes into contact with the Qiagen DNA extraction machine that is used by the scientific police which can lead to false negative DNA results. We don't know if that was an issue in this case.

Quote:
[L]aw enforcement personnel may have tracked luminol-positive material into Filomena’s room, for example.


I haven't seen the luminol photos from Filomena's room (has anyone?) but they are described as "blobs". A blob is not something that I see being tracked around. Without having seen them, my guess is that these blobs came off a sponge or something else that the killers had been using to clean.

Quote:
[T]he police found many luminol-positive areas in Sollecito’s flat. There is no reason to associate any of these regions with the murder, and Sarah Gino’s testimony suggests that luminol-positive areas are not uncommon in forensic investigations.


There are indeed a surprising number of luminol positive areas in Sollecito's flat. We have thus confirmed that Knox and Sollecito had a lot of sex. (Undiluted bodily fluids show up nicely with luminol).

Quote:
Ms. Comodi asked for the jury to decide whether or not the areas were blood. The jury should not have concluded that any luminol-positive area was blood


Even though the luminol spots can't be proven to be blood, circumstances strongly suggest that they are. The Massei court properly concluded that they were blood. Hellmann's report made plain he did not understand the issue.

Last edited by brmull on 17 May 2012, 19:53, edited 1 time in total.
brmull
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 May 23, 2012 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
Michael wrote:
Francisco wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree but ask yourself why, if it was an important clue, why wasn't Knox asked about the money found on her and why wasn't Guede asked about the money he spent partying for two days?



Guede went to a nightclub on the night of the murder and again the following night before leaving Perugia. How exactly, does going to a nightclub on two evenings, translate into "partying for two days?" Please leave your exaggerations and loaded terms at the door.

Second point. How much does it cost to get into a nightclub? Answer: Not very much. This therefore does not need to be explained. Listening to you though, one would think one needs to remortgage their house or rob a bank in order to raise enough money to get into a nightclub. It isn't expensive, so please stop trying to pretend it costs a fortune. This is added to the fact that there was nothing strange about Rudy's going to a nightclub (other then doing so right after helping murder someone that is ), since he was a regular at the Perugia nightclubs, going every week. There was therefore nothing particularly suspicious in his going there and no doubt, gained entry by the same means he had in all the previous weeks and months.

Francisco wrote:
Guede had no money period. He could not pay his rent, Knox could.


Please support statements like these instead of pulling them straight out of your arse! That means, you are required to support statements like "Guede had no money" and "couldn't pay his rent" with actual evidence. We don't appreciate 'fact invention'. This is especially the case when we know such invented facts like those above, to be completely false.

Francisco - After your arrival here, you virtually bombarded me with posts, PM's and emails asserting that you had no agenda in this case and preaching your objectivity. The examples above (I could give many more), demonstrate an anything but objective approach. Exaggerations are not objective. Loaded language is not objective. Asserting unsupported (invented) facts is not objective. Therefore, despite all your beseeching posts, emails and PM's I remain unconvinced on your 'objectivity'. To be persuaded, I need to start seeing some. Until then, with all due respect, I remain a skeptic.


Coming from the king of sophistry it seems ironic if not hysterical that you demand of me to fully document each and every comment made. Lets get real here. Guede did not have his rent money. Heading out and partying at nightclubs for two straight days after participating in a murder is both costly and telling. I didn't say he needed a fortune to party and flee to Germany, but he certainly needed money, something he was notoriously short of. You object to my post, which is objective and spot on but have no issue with flights of fancy about pranks and other utterly baseless comments. I did not say this proved anything, I only said if there was anything to be interpreted regarding stolen money it would be that Guede was the more likely suspect. But I forgot.. you've taken to defending the lad these days.

I sent you perhaps half a dozen PM's mostly discussing the odd public split over this case. I hardly bombarded you and it certainly wasn't beseeching. You give yourself far to much credit. I honestly don't give a damn what you think of me at this point. Why bother discussing objectivity and honesty when you routinely display an alarming lack of both.

You want to talk about exaggerations, loaded language and inventing facts -- your bullshit about the TMB testing is a healthy does of all of the above. The tests WERE performed by Stefanoni, she DID fail to report the testing or the results and she DID finally admit the testing was done and proved negative. She DID NOT ever say there was insufficient material for testing and she herself testified to the use of TMB to eliminate false positives from luminol. Provide ONE piece of evidence from court testimony that substantiates the balderdash you've been spewing.

If you're looking for honesty and integrity from others, start practicing it yourself.



You come here, to OUR forum making blind assertions. We don't let you get away with that and instead insist you support those assertions with some evidence or/and reasoning. You refuse to do so, instead simply repeating your blind assertions and this time, with added personal insults and rudeness towards the site Administrator.

Last week you did the same thing (although without insults) about TMB testing. I wrote out a factual response to you explaining why your assertions about TMB were incorrect and made it clear to you that TMB was a presumptive test, that it was far less sensitive then luminol and that it is intended for visible blood stains only. Instead of responding to that the following Tuesday with an acknowledgment of my post along with the posting of any proofs you had against any of my contained arguments, it was ignored and you instead leaped to a completely new subject where you thought you could win a victory, only making any comment on the TMB long after the Tuesday Rule on posting deadline had LONG passed. That is RUDE.

Whatever you imagine Dr Stefanoni did or did not testify, and really you have no idea what she didn't explain since her testimony lasted over two days and the transcript of that you do not have (although personally, it doesn't really matter in my view if she said there wasn't enough material or not, since I don't require her to STATE THE OBVIOUS) and you were not personally present during the testimony, it does not change the core FACTS that TMB testing is a PRESUMPTIVE blood test only, it is for VISIBLE blood only and it is FAR LESS SENSITIVE then luminol. These are FACTS not sophistry, and even with the world of Google at your fingertips, you made no attempt whatsoever, even with a week to prepare, to find a single peace of evidence to show my facts to be incorrect. Instead, I get insults and repeats of your assertions and loaded language.

Let me tell you what is required, in addition to what Nell has told you, as clearly you don't know. When you come here to OUR forum, you need to have your ducks in a row. That means, you need to be able to evidence the claims you come here making. If you want to assert Guede couldn't pay his rent, as fact, then you need to provide some proof of that instead of simply insisting it. Anyone can insist anything. Proving it is another matter. We are only interested in what you can prove.

And just as a little aside, so you get to know me better...BEWARE when I ask you to provide proof of an assertion, because I only do so when I know for a fact that there is proof of the opposite or that there is no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. A little case in point, just to example what I mean. You asserted as fact that Guede couldn't pay his rent for example. Were you not utterly ignorant of how things work in Italy, you would know that in Italy the unemployed automatically qualify for housing benefit and have their rents paid for them by the state. Had you also known anything of substance about Rudy's background, you would also know that his rich foster mother and sister had offered to step in and help him out with his rent should he have ever struggled. I also happen to know, that no claim was ever made during any of his trial hearings that he was unable to pay his rent, or evidence presented that showed that to be so. Instead, you took the mere fact that he was unemployed and then turned that, without any evidence to support it, into a FACT that he could not pay his rent and got offended when we requested you support it with some kind of evidence! It is therefore, easy to see why we here object when faced with this astonishing ignorance and arrogance. One can forgive ignorance, but not ignorance and arrogance together.

And if you unload personal insults at people here again, I will ban you. And that ban will be permanent.

_________________
"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 May 23, 2012 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Someone here recently inquired about the Frank Sfarzo trial. The hearing went ahead. The next hearing is set for July.

_________________
"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 Maria


Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I have added my review to Mr Kercher's book on Amazon reviews as I am a long time Amazon book buyer - hope I did it justice. I also reported the very offensive comment last night and can't see it there now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Anyone know what's happened to TJMK? My attempts to visit get me redirected to a site offering me free brick texture.

This may be due to a couple of comments posted by PQ and GR which were clealy defamatory to x ...

ET remove the name of the person (possibly?) libelled


Last edited by Daoud on Wed May 23, 2012 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

You've been dis-membered, Daoud. Your persona is non grata, and your IP requires years of psycho analysis before you can be whole again.

What did you do, say something to offend the Queen(ell)? That's ok, as long as they don't hang some honking big red sign over your name :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Really? (then I shall have to find some Isis to put me together again...)

I was over on Amazon.co.uk 'discussing' John Kercher's book with some Foakers, two of whom in particular kept referring to 'anti-Knox hate groups/sites' with monotonous regularity, which I, equally monotonously, insisted were non-existent.

Finally one of them mentioned two posts (without naming the site, but giving times and initials (PQ and GR)), and sure enough there on the first page, amongst the comments were the two posts stating that A Knox may have been molested as a child, and naming the person they thought to be the perpetrator.

So I suggested that these remarks went too far and should be removed, and an apology issued. The only further thing of substance I said, in my brief post, was that I was disappointed and disgusted that no-one else had complained.

What's even stranger is that a few days before I'd PM'd PQ on the other PMF to draw his attention to some pretty scurrilous remarks made about him (and Skeptical Bystander) in a Bruce Fisher article over at IIP (more reading material suggested by the ghouls on Amazon) - he never replied, so I don't know if he ever read it.

You may wish to check and see if my post is still there, (and more importantly PQ's and GR's posts - I'm not a lawyer, but accusing a named individual of child molestation strikes me as clearly libellous), to confirm that what I've said is accurate; all three comments were in reply to an article on the first page, and if I recall correctly, the first article posted - about John Kercher's book, but it may have been the second or third article down.

If you hadn't informed me of my ban, I'd still be under the illusion that TJMK was down, so thanks for the information, Ergon.

Having spent the last few days defending sites like TJMK and PMF from accusations of being 'hate sites', discovering these two posts was disconcerting, to say the least; being banned for expressing my opinion seems like overkill.

But in the absence of a retraction of the remarks and an apology, I wouldn't have wanted to remain a member, as this type of unsubstantiated abuse just poisons the well, which is a great shame.
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 May 23, 2012 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I checked, and yes, those quotes were still there, and the site IS up, not down. Yes, it does poison the well, and yes, it does not do the cause of Meredith Kercher any good.
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 May 23, 2012 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Those need removing from TJMK ASAP. I have little love either for Curt Knox or for Peter Quennell, but I posted to express my distaste when certain FOAKers called Peter Quennell a peadophile as that was unacceptable. Calling Curt Knox the same, even if it is in the guise of speculation, is just as unacceptable. When it comes to sexual assault, of anyone, 'speculation' and using it to label people on public forums is out of line, both legally and ethically. Without EVIDENCE, such things are mere slurs and have no place online, especially not on any sites dedicated to Meredith Kercher. There are some thoughts people should keep to themselves.

_________________
"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: Thu May 24, 2012 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Daoud wrote:
Really? (then I shall have to find some Isis to put me together again...)

I was over on Amazon.co.uk 'discussing' John Kercher's book with some Foakers, two of whom in particular kept referring to 'anti-Knox hate groups/sites' with monotonous regularity, which I, equally monotonously, insisted were non-existent.

Finally one of them mentioned two posts (without naming the site, but giving times and initials (PQ and GR)), and sure enough there on the first page, amongst the comments were the two posts stating that A Knox may have been molested as a child, and naming the person they thought to be the perpetrator.

So I suggested that these remarks went too far and should be removed, and an apology issued. The only further thing of substance I said, in my brief post, was that I was disappointed and disgusted that no-one else had complained.

What's even stranger is that a few days before I'd PM'd PQ on the other PMF to draw his attention to some pretty scurrilous remarks made about him (and Skeptical Bystander) in a Bruce Fisher article over at IIP (more reading material suggested by the ghouls on Amazon) - he never replied, so I don't know if he ever read it.

You may wish to check and see if my post is still there, (and more importantly PQ's and GR's posts - I'm not a lawyer, but accusing a named individual of child molestation strikes me as clearly libellous), to confirm that what I've said is accurate; all three comments were in reply to an article on the first page, and if I recall correctly, the first article posted - about John Kercher's book, but it may have been the second or third article down.

If you hadn't informed me of my ban, I'd still be under the illusion that TJMK was down, so thanks for the information, Ergon.

Having spent the last few days defending sites like TJMK and PMF from accusations of being 'hate sites', discovering these two posts was disconcerting, to say the least; being banned for expressing my opinion seems like overkill.

But in the absence of a retraction of the remarks and an apology, I wouldn't have wanted to remain a member, as this type of unsubstantiated abuse just poisons the well, which is a great shame.


I will clarify one thing, Daoud. If, as you say you can't log on after repeated attempts, and get strange messages "the system is offline" then you've been banned without notice, and I speak from experience :) because that's the m.o. there.

But if you can post, then no, you haven't been banned, my apologies. I checked again and your comment on Jeffski's review has just shown up. Try to log on and see what you get.

However the offensive comment by Grahame Rhodes is still up, and I am shocked that no one (that I can see) seems to have complained. I stopped posting there a long time before I ever was banned, because much as I appreciated the site as a resource, there were certain things I didn't like.

It also is sad that PQ identifies dot org as the source of that 'speculation'. There is a difference between speculating on Knox's psychology, and THAT.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Ergon,

The message I get when I attempt to visit is: 'This webpage has asked to redirect to http://www.3dstudio-max.com/download.php?id=38'
(I use the NoScript add on, which is what generates the message), and sure enough there I am on a page asking me if I want to download a 3d rendering of a brick wall - appropriate, eh?

So it looks like you're right and I've been given the Order of the Boot - my post, obviously, preceded my repeatedly running into a brick wall.

Has my comment disappeared?

Thanks for the information.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 1:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Photo shows the huge distance the Hellman report insists the 10lb rock
was thrown from, behind the fence to the left, through the window on the
right. The report states that rock caused the small mark (earlier shown)
on the inner shutter. Cites that primarily as evidence of the rock having
been hurled through the window.

Photo taken during later renovation of cottage to try to rent it -
building materials behind the fence area (what is otherwise a grassy knoll) ...

The singular naked bathmat footprint being present in the bathroom?
How do they illustrate that is of Guede? (Guede cleaned etc? (just the 1
footprint in the bathroom)). Report does nothing more than state it's
an impression of Guede.

That rock - that distance that shutter that window - the position of the
rock within the room -- zero traces of entry - whitewashed wall - no
scrapes of trainer on the wall - soft black earth below the window ...
The distance - the size of the rock is craziest

Must keep focussing on /highlighting the absolute insanity of the new case
- the case that freed Knox/Sollecito - the absolute failure of justice because
its insane to say all that --

they haven't constructed a plausible story of Guedes entry through that
window - they haven't constructed a plausible story of how his naked footprint
got on the bathmat - they insist it's his ...

Was thinking today that there must be a good chance of Sollecito at least
going back to prison - based on the case of pure bunk



Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu May 24, 2012 3:08 am, edited 10 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi, Daoud, no, your comment is still there on the first page: "Hi Olly,

About three quarters of ‘Meredith’ chronicles the various trials and discusses the evidence against the three accused.

Barbie Nadeau’s book is worth a read, but is very short..."

The brick wall it is otherwise...

But, you're in good company, with so many mainstays who stopped posting and pouring their hearts out.

The site "owners" should realize it was the volunteers contributions that made TJMK and PMF, yet when push came to shove, many found that loyalty was a one way street, and their work, undervalued.
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 May 24, 2012 2:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

But, we move on. So, ttrroonniicc, here's another question. Why do you think they transported the knife to the cottage? There had to be premeditation for something, clearly not murder, but as I speculated in My Grand Theory Of The Crime, the hazing rape prank (we know from reliable sources she'd done it before) had been planned since Lumumba fired her, they were there to meet Guede for drugs, and things escalated from there.

Any other theories are as always, welcome.
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 May 24, 2012 2:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And just look at your picture and the distance involved. Someone on Bruce Fischer's site actually wrote that Guede threw the 10 lb rock "like a bowling ball" through the window.

Those are the, not people, but LIES that we fight.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Daoud wrote:
Hi Ergon,

The message I get when I attempt to visit is: 'This webpage has asked to redirect to http://www.3dstudio-max.com/download.php?id=38'
(I use the NoScript add on, which is what generates the message), and sure enough there I am on a page asking me if I want to download a 3d rendering of a brick wall - appropriate, eh?

So it looks like you're right and I've been given the Order of the Boot - my post, obviously, preceded my repeatedly running into a brick wall.

Has my comment disappeared?

Thanks for the information.


Hi Daoud,

Yes, your comment has been deleted. Those of Grahame Rhodes and Peter Quennell speculating about Amanda Knox being abused as a child by Curt Knox are still on.

My personal opinion about this whole matter is that ...

1. Speculation is ok in my books as long as it is made clear that it is only that, a speculation. It is important to distinguish between fact and fiction and the speculation of child abuse is fiction as there is no evidence to support it.

2. I understand that people speculate about the motive behind Meredith Kercher's murder and they want to discuss their thoughts with others, no matter where it leads them. For me, Daoud's viewpoint is as good as any and I do not understand why it cannot be discussed openly and civilly at TJMK. There wasn't any need to ban Daoud for expressing his/her disagreement with these kind of speculations. A simple answer would have been suffice. What most bothers me is that Daoud is not even notified that he/she was banned and no comment from Peter Quennell why he considered it necessary to take this drastic action. The now ex-member is left in the dark about what actually caused the rift. Was it the tone of the comment? Was it that he/she didn't agree with the view expressed by others? It feels a bit odd after having contributed to the community for so long, in support of the cause of justice for Meredith Kercher.

I am sorry to hear you have been banned Daoud. The motive for your banning appears to be personal and I believe the most probable reason is that you openly criticised and disagreed with Peter Quennell. Clicking the ban button was quick and painless for him. It is the preferred method used at TJMK and PMF.org to "solve" disputes these days, without any formal warning.

Frank Sfarzo and Candace Dempsey censored hundreds and hundreds of comments to make the critical voices about Amanda Knox's innocence "disappear". They were both rightfully criticised for their actions. In the case of pmf.org and tjmk.org the same is true. We are not talking about an isolated case, to the contrary, it has become their modus operandi. Sad affair.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
But, we move on. So, ttrroonniicc, here's another question. Why do you think they transported the knife to the cottage? There had to be premeditation for something, clearly not murder, but as I speculated in My Grand Theory Of The Crime, the hazing rape prank (we know from reliable sources she'd done it before) had been planned since Lumumba fired her, they were there to meet Guede for drugs, and things escalated from there.

Any other theories are as always, welcome.

I think it's premeditation too. She had the knife in her "large green bag" when she was watching the cottage for Meredith Kercher to return (re: accredited witness Curatolo). What about the drugs and the fantastical movie they saw before embarking to the cottage. Fantasists. They were in a movie "come here I'll show you" as Kokomani reported Knox shouting at him while holding the knife upright in both hands. It's Pulp Fiction - they were enacting fantasy. If you measure out 32 cm as I had to do (only understanding inches), you see that the knife is huge - it's almost a cartoon knife ... She didn't need it for "protection", she was with Sollecito (who also had a knife) .. they were out to do something, to "get" Meredith Kercher (and I think it fits with the earlier reports of Knox "effectively kidnapping" "running into room with friends and masks" to "effectively kidnap someone" in a "hazing prank" ... fits with the "strange cap wearing" Sollecito (reported by Kokomani and Guede). A Clockwork Orange "droog". Earlier argument (according to Guede) and later hazing. A steady buildup of seething resentment. Lumumba had earlier dismissed Knox from her bar job. Meredith Kercher got that bar job .. Saw autopsy sketch of upwards wound from Knox's kitchen knife into Meredith Kerchers throat. Ugly. Impulsive or vicious? I think vicious. A vicious act. Jealous rage.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu May 24, 2012 3:03 am, edited 16 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, Daoud, no, your comment is still there on the first page: "Hi Olly,

About three quarters of ‘Meredith’ chronicles the various trials and discusses the evidence against the three accused.

Barbie Nadeau’s book is worth a read, but is very short..."

The brick wall it is otherwise...

But, you're in good company, with so many mainstays who stopped posting and pouring their hearts out.

The site "owners" should realize it was the volunteers contributions that made TJMK and PMF, yet when push came to shove, many found that loyalty was a one way street, and their work, undervalued.


Hi Ergon,

I don't think this is the comment Daoud referred to. There was another one made in response to the speculation about child abuse and this comment has been deleted. Daoud wrote that he/she disagreed with putting out such speculations and suggested an apology to Curt Knox would be in order.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
And just look at your picture and the distance involved. Someone on Bruce Fischer's site actually wrote that Guede threw the 10 lb rock "like a bowling ball" through the window.


Underhand. With one hand? It's olympic.

Ergon wrote:
not people, but LIES that we fight.

they call us a "hate site".
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I dont think that it is at all surprising when discussing the apparent abnormal psychological make-up of someone, that the possibility of childhood sexual abuse would raise its ugly head. This, sadly, is all too common a cause. And not just in girls. It can happen to anyone, and have devastating, life-long effects. As Ergon stated above, the psychology is one thing, speculating on WHO might be involved, is quite another. There is, and has been, no evidence at all to cause anyone to point a speculative finger in any direction here, and I feel it should be avoided.
I don't think you were out of line to point this out, Daoud.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Hi, Daoud, no, your comment is still there on the first page: "Hi Olly,

About three quarters of ‘Meredith’ chronicles the various trials and discusses the evidence against the three accused.

Barbie Nadeau’s book is worth a read, but is very short..."

The brick wall it is otherwise...

But, you're in good company, with so many mainstays who stopped posting and pouring their hearts out.

The site "owners" should realize it was the volunteers contributions that made TJMK and PMF, yet when push came to shove, many found that loyalty was a one way street, and their work, undervalued.




I don't think this is the comment Daoud referred to. There was another one made in response to the speculation about child abuse and this comment has been deleted. Daoud wrote that he/she disagreed with putting out such speculations and suggested an apology to Curt Knox would be in order.


Hi Nell & Ergon,
Someone on Amazon.co.uk copied & pasted my comment in one of their posts:

"This really puts the site way beyond the pale - I see no excuse for this whatsoever. In the absence of any evidence supporting such an odious accusation, I suggest these comments are both removed and apologised for, profusely and immediately."

The poster didn't include my last line which went something like this (I didn't keep a copy):
'I'm disappointed and disgusted that on-one here has so far complained'.

ET correct a typo


Last edited by Daoud on Thu May 24, 2012 5:48 am, 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 May 24, 2012 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I don't want to interrupt the train of thought here, but I just got to thinking about the morning after the murder.
Don't ask me why things hit me like they do, there's no explaining. But.....
Can you picture the Postal Police, having been presented with two phones that came from the cottage, pull up and see two people, who tell them that the cottage appeared to have been broken into, but nothing was taken, and there stand the police, holding the two phones.
Nothing's been taken? Where'd the phones come from? Is it any wonder they were suspected immediately?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 4:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Daoud wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Hi, Daoud, no, your comment is still there on the first page: "Hi Olly,

About three quarters of ‘Meredith’ chronicles the various trials and discusses the evidence against the three accused.

Barbie Nadeau’s book is worth a read, but is very short..."

The brick wall it is otherwise...

But, you're in good company, with so many mainstays who stopped posting and pouring their hearts out.

The site "owners" should realize it was the volunteers contributions that made TJMK and PMF, yet when push came to shove, many found that loyalty was a one way street, and their work, undervalued.




I don't think this is the comment Daoud referred to. There was another one made in response to the speculation about child abuse and this comment has been deleted. Daoud wrote that he/she disagreed with putting out such speculations and suggested an apology to Curt Knox would be in order.


Hi Nell & Ergon,
Someone on Amazon.co.uk copied & pasted my comment in one of their posts:

"This really puts the site way beyond the pale - I see no excuse for this whatsoever. In the absence of any evidence supporting such an odious accusation, I suggest these comments are both removed and apologised for, profusely and immediately."

The poster didn't include my last line which went something like this (I didn't keep a copy):
'I'm disappointed and disgusted that on-one here as so far complained'.


Hi Daoud,

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were talking about the comment you wrote at TJMK. That one is gone. Currently, there are 16 reviews published for "Meredith". Could you please indicate under which of these reviews the comment containing your post from TJMK was published? I would like to read the whole thing and couldn't find it. There are so many comments already.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 4:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I don't want to interrupt the train of thought here, but I just got to thinking about the morning after the murder.
Don't ask me why things hit me like they do, there's no explaining. But.....
Can you picture the Postal Police, having been presented with two phones that came from the cottage, pull up and see two people, who tell them that the cottage appeared to have been broken into, but nothing was taken, and there stand the police, holding the two phones.
Nothing's been taken? Where'd the phones come from? Is it any wonder they were suspected immediately?

Sollecito stated that. Why did he say it? Only explanation must be that he was trying to minimize the situation -
minimize the problem (impossibly).

Similarily - why did Knox tell the postal police that Meredith Kercher always locked her door?
Filomena, puzzled indicated that was incorrect.
To stop them opening it. She dreaded them opening it. Postponing inevitable discovery.

Sollecito stated that on the phone to the carabinieri. He didn't live there. He was an infrequent visitor.
How would he know? It was a presumption.
To delay investigation. To give him time to think and control the situation.

Google translate of Sollecito's call to the carabinieri
Ready hello, feel, huh ... someone entered the house smashing the window and put a lot of clutter. There is a locked door. The path is: Via della Pergola 7 in Perugia.

Basically they went in, they broke a glass? And as you know who came?

You see the signs, there are blood stains in the bathroom.

They haven't taken away anything. The problem is that the door is closed ... There is a lot of blood.

There is a locked door? What is the door locked?

ofa for roomies ... that is not there and we do not know where he is. Yes, yes we have tried to call but no answer anywhere.

Okay, now I send a patrol so we verify the situation.


Knox didn't know what he said; then didn't speak much italian. She was later stating there was a "small amount of blood" - not mentioning the door (earlier meeting Sollecito, she hadn't mentioned anything about the break-in - it was miraculously discovered by Sollecito and Knox on their return).


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu May 24, 2012 5:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I don't want to interrupt the train of thought here, but I just got to thinking about the morning after the murder.
Don't ask me why things hit me like they do, there's no explaining. But.....
Can you picture the Postal Police, having been presented with two phones that came from the cottage, pull up and see two people, who tell them that the cottage appeared to have been broken into, but nothing was taken, and there stand the police, holding the two phones.
Nothing's been taken? Where'd the phones come from? Is it any wonder they were suspected immediately?

Sollecito stated that. Why did he say it? Only explanation must be that he was trying to minimize the situation -
minimize the problem (impossibly).

Similarily - why did Knox tell the postal police that Meredith Kercher always locked her door?
Filomena, puzzled indicated that was incorrect.
To stop them opening it. She dreaded them opening it. Postponing inevitable discovery.

Sollecito stated that on the phone to the carabinieri. He didn't live there. He was an infrequent visitor.
How would he know? It was a presumption.
To delay investigation. To give him time to think and control the situation.


it's such an absurd situation, it CAN'T be anything else. Try, just for a minute, picturing them as innocent.
Broken window, door open, police pull up with phones. Of course you think break-in. You don't need to focus on the toilet and the 'evidence'. No need to point out anything other than the fact that the police are standing there with phones.
All the rest, to me is just posturing and delaying and attempting to control..
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I don't want to interrupt the train of thought here, but I just got to thinking about the morning after the murder.
Don't ask me why things hit me like they do, there's no explaining. But.....
Can you picture the Postal Police, having been presented with two phones that came from the cottage, pull up and see two people, who tell them that the cottage appeared to have been broken into, but nothing was taken, and there stand the police, holding the two phones.
Nothing's been taken? Where'd the phones come from? Is it any wonder they were suspected immediately?

Sollecito stated that. Why did he say it? Only explanation must be that he was trying to minimize the situation -
minimize the problem (impossibly).

Similarily - why did Knox tell the postal police that Meredith Kercher always locked her door?
Filomena, puzzled indicated that was incorrect.
To stop them opening it. She dreaded them opening it. Postponing inevitable discovery.

Sollecito stated that on the phone to the carabinieri. He didn't live there. He was an infrequent visitor.
How would he know? It was a presumption.
To delay investigation. To give him time to think and control the situation.


it's such an absurd situation, it CAN'T be anything else. Try, just for a minute, picturing them as innocent.
Broken window, door open, police pull up with phones. Of course you think break-in. You don't need to focus on the toilet and the 'evidence'. No need to point out anything other than the fact that the police are standing there with phones.
All the rest, to me is just posturing and delaying and attempting to control..


Sollecito "lots of blood" Knox "spots of blood" (took a shower in bathroom - didn't see problem with blood - stated she thought it was "a problem" of someone else (menstrual blood)). Saw shit in the toilet - mentioned it - didn't flush it (of course not - evidence of Guede). Had showered without bringing towel into bath-room - shuffled with bathmat back to her room ??? I think that was (her explanation) so as not to dampen the floor - but the REAL REASON - is to explain knox footprints set in blood in the corridor (that she knew about - her explanation in trial)

... just reviewing here. Knox returns to sollecito - mentions that there were those "spots of blood" ...
they return to the cottage (last stage of the cleanup re-checking). I think they'd split off earlier that
morning because of distrust/argument. Then - they discover the burglarization (because the door
to Filomenas room has amazingly become open) ..

GAAAAAAAAAAAH (I scream)
nw) huh-) sp)
will all induce brain seizure
being asked to walk around a disjointed fiction
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I don't want to interrupt the train of thought here, but I just got to thinking about the morning after the murder.
Don't ask me why things hit me like they do, there's no explaining. But.....
Can you picture the Postal Police, having been presented with two phones that came from the cottage, pull up and see two people, who tell them that the cottage appeared to have been broken into, but nothing was taken, and there stand the police, holding the two phones.
Nothing's been taken? Where'd the phones come from? Is it any wonder they were suspected immediately?


Absolutely. Filomena was concerned right away when she heard from the postal police about the phones. She informed them that Meredith was never without her English phone. When Paola became interested in the locked door and asked Filomena about it, she was genuinely worried and it beggars belief how Amanda Knox can claim to be innocent after first downplaying the locked door and later claiming to have panicked when finding the door locked. When the postal police arrived, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito didn't mention the locked door at all allthough they had claimed to be waiting outside for the carabinieri. In his phone call to the carabinieri, Raffaele Sollecito points out the locked door and the missing roommate. Another clue that his phone call to the carabinieri was made after the postal police arrived and not before like they claimed. Otherwise, he would have shown the postal police Meredith's locked door he claimed to have cracked in an attempt to break it down right before they arrived at the scene.

It is only when Filomena becomes aware of the locked door and the missing phones that she raises the alarm and insists the door to be broken down. This is one of the most incriminating contradictions in Amanda's tale of lies. Another one is how she downplayed her conflicts with Meredith, but confirmed them in court nonetheless during a spontaneous statement. Amanda even pointed out that once Meredith "borrowed" some condoms from her. The way Amanda dishes out against Meredith Kercher in her email and otherwise only consolidates my belief that she was jealous and harboured resentment towards Meredith Kercher who was popular and had dared to criticise her about her lack of common sense. Amanda Knox didn't show any sadness about the brutal death of Meredith Kercher, but claimed to have been "close" to her. Meredith Kercher's death didn't have any impact on her life, because on the 3rd of November, only one day after Meredith's lifeless body had been discovered, she was seen buying expensive lingerie together with her boyfriend, laughing and giggling in the store. While Meredith's friends were scared and kept together to comfort each other, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito enjoyed their lives to the fullest. They've probably never been better than between the time of the murder and the time they were arrested. Barbie Nadeau wrote in one of her articles that in the CCTV video footage from the store Raffaele Sollecito could be seen rubbing his groin against Amanda Knox. They must have been so grief stricken, these poor darlings.

Quote:
"But instead of somberly going in to buy the items she needed, she is shown on closed-circuit TV footage kissing Raffaele and laughing with him as they hold up various G-strings. In one still shot taken from the footage, Raffaele is standing behind Amanda with his hands on her hips and his groin pressed into her."

Source: Knox's strange behaviour by Barbie Nadeau


Quote:
Death in Perugia by John Follain
Page 70 - 71

While Filomena rummaged through her things, Paola went into the narrow corridor - a clothes horse that had been opened out next to the plastic bookcase made it even more cramped than usual - and nearly bumped into Amanda and Raffaele. They shook hands and introduced themselves.

'What about your room?' Paola asked Amanda bluntly.

'Everything's fine in my room,' Amanda replied.

Paola pointed to a door at the end of the corridor, a few feet behind Amanda and Raffaele. She didn't know whose it was.

'Have you looked in there?' Paola asked.

'No, that room's locked,' Amanda said.

'Why on earth is it locked?' Paola asked.

Amanda replied that the girl who lived there locked the door when she went out.

Puzzled, Paola went back to Filomena and asked: 'Filomena, does the other girl who lives here usually lock her door when she goes out?'

'No, absolutely not. What makes you think that? She's only ever locked it once and that was when she went home to London.'

'Well then open that door! Try another key,' Paola said.

Paola went back into the corridor. Amanda and Raffaele were still standing there. They gave her a key: 'See if this one works.'

Paola tried the key but it was no good. She saw someone else had tried to force the door.

'I've already tried to open it but I couldn't manage it,' Raffaele explained.

An agitated Filomena went into the sitting room and said she wanted to call the lawyer she worked for; she was worried the landlady would make her pay for the broken window.

'Let's all keep calm,' Batistelli tried to reassure her again. 'It's not as if we've found a body under the sofa.'

It was only then that he told them that, following an anonymous phone call, two mobile phones had been found in a nearby garden and one of them had been traced to Filomena. He showed her a note with two phone numbers.

At first they meant nothing to Filomena; she didn't know her own number by heart. But she checked on her own mobile and found out they were both Meredith's; she explained that she had given one of her SIM cards to Meredith so that she could make cheaper calls to Italian numbers.

'But where's Meredith?' Filomena asked.

'The door's closed,' Amanda said.

Filomena and Paola looked at each other, a sudden realisation dawning on them. 'We've got to open her door. Knock on it - wake her up. Maybe she's sleeping? But how can she be sleeping with all this racket going on?' Filomena felt her panic rising again.

But Batistelli was still fussing over how Meredith's phones had been found that morning 'But did you make an anonymous phone call?' he asked.

'No, I didn't do anything, but I'm worrying about this girl,' Filomena answered.

'Why's that?' Batistelli asked.

'Because I know her - forget about the Italian number. She often switches that one off but never her English one ... Look, this girl always has that phone shoved into her jeans - always. Her mother's ill and they talk to each other five, six or seven times a day. If Meredith hasn't got that phone, she can't possibly be all right. We've got to find her, you must open the door,' Filomena said, adding that she hadn't seen Meredith for a day now.

John Follain relied on the case file and on interviews with those involved and I find Paola and Filomena's natural reaction to the unfolding situation in stark contrast to the reactions from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Quote:
Massei Motivations Report (English Translation)
Page 91 - 93

In the already mentioned e-mail Amanda Knox thus writes:

"... Filomena's door was closed but when I opened it I saw that her room was in a mess and that the window was open and completely broken ... convinced that we had been robbed I went to Laura's room and looked quickly in, but it was spotless< I checked my room for things missing, which there were not. Then I knocked on Meredith’s *bedroom+ door. At first I thought she was asleep, so I knocked gently, but when she didn’t respond, I knocked louder and louder until I was really banging on her door and shouting her name. No response. Panicking I ran out to the terrace to see if I could see inside< Raffaele told me he wanted to see if he could break down Meredith’s door. He tried and the door was cracked but we couldn’t open it. It was then that we decided to call the police.... At first Raffaele called his sister for advice, and then called the police. I then called Filomena who said she would be on her way home immediately. While we were waiting, two plainclothes policemen came to our house. I showed them what I could and told them what I knew‛.

In this email, Meredith’s locked door therefore acquires a central importance,even fundamental, by which, however, for that scenario, it would have had to have occurred if Amanda and Raffaele had truly spent the night at Corso Garibaldi without having entered the house of Via della Pergola again but for the morning of November 2; precisely for this [84] logical requirement in this writing, to affirm their extraneity to the murder and to convince the recipients of the e-mail of this, Amanda cannot help but give central importance to this locked door and writes, therefore, that this fact induced her to run to the terrace, and to position herself on the window ledge to see if she could see something, and writes that this door being locked created in her a state of absolute panic, she "was panicking" and continues, writing that Raffaele tried to break down the door but couldn’t open it, which is how they came to decide to call the police (‚It was then that we decided to call the police‛), as well as to call Romanelli and tell her to come to the house.

Yet when the Postal Police arrived, the panic caused by that locked door was not expressed in any way and Amanda did not speak of that locked door in the phone conversation she had with Romanelli; it was instead Romanelli who asked Amanda about Meredith, as mentioned above.

Both Raffaele and Amanda drew attention to the broken glass and the disarray in Romanelli’s room; to the open front door; to various bloodstains in the bathroom. A behaviour that places itself in line with the staging created in Romanelli’s room [is this one]: someone entering through the bedroom window of Romanelli who, because of the broken glass, injured himself (spots of blood in the bathroom) and who then exited the house leaving the door open.

This is the interpretation of the story that Amanda and Raffaele wanted to offer, consistently with the staging created, expecting and hoping that the locked door of Meredith's room would be inserted into the interpretation [reading] of clues organised by them with the simulation of the burglary and in the call to 112 by Raffaele Sollecito, drawing attention to the locked door, the context in which he places it, and to the broken glass, the room in disarray, the blood stains. And in one of the calls exchanged with the 112 policeman, in response to the explanation given by Raffaele Sollecito, the policeman asked him this: So they cut themselves breaking the glass? (From the testimony of Cepittelli, hearing on February 14, 2009, page 74.)

Inspector Battistelli recalls that when he arrived with assistant Marzi ‚they told us they were waiting for the police because they had found the door open [85] when returning to the house in the morning and the window broken, and they took me to see the broken window in Romanelli’s room‛ (Hearing on February 6, 2009, page 64, pages 86, 87). Neither of them asked him to break down the door of Meredith’s room (page 114). Battistelli has also stated in the same hearing that it was Romanelli who noticed that Meredith’s door was locked (page 118).

On this point, it is possible that Battistelli’s memory is not precise. It does indicate how no importance was given to the locked door by Amanda and Raffaele when Battistelli arrived with Marzi shortly after 12:30 pm, and this is confirmed by Fabio Marzi, who recalled that "we were told that they were waiting for the Carabinieri because there had been a burglary inside the house ... Amanda told me that they had found the door open and there were bloodstains, which she showed me in the bathroom‛ (hearing on February 6, 2009, pages 122 and 123). The same Marzi also stated that ‚the problem of the locked room was raised when the other youngsters arrived‛ (p. 130).

This locked door in Meredith’s bedroom was also discussed by the young people who came to the house around 13:00 pm. Marco Zaroli, at the time Romanelli’s boyfriend, arrived with Luca Altieri, the boyfriend of Paola Grande. In the same hearing on February 6, 2009, he declared: ‚I believe it was one of the officers of the postal police that said there was a locked room and Amanda said however that Meredith was in the habit of locking the bedroom even to go to the shower and this reassured us‛. The same Zaroli has stated that it was Luca Altieri who asked about the door and the response about the normality of it being locked he got it from Amanda and we were reassured (p.181).

Luca Altieri also stated that when they arrived they saw the room of Romanelli in a mess and then Meredith's room locked with a key. They asked if this was normal and Raffaele, "translating Amanda’s answer told me that she usually locks the door even when she goes into the bathroom to take a shower ... so there was no concern arising about the fact that the door was locked‛ (p. 218, hearing on February 6, 2009, see also statements of Paola Grande, p. 254).

[86] The reassuring answers given by Amanda and Raffaele, which strongly clash with the panic that Amanda writes about in the e-mail of November 4, 2007 and also with the kick Raffaele Sollecito is alleged to have given to that door (on this point see also Luca Altieri’s statement, page 219, hearing on February 6, 2009).
The conduct of Filomena Romanelli when she came back to the house, saw the situation and learned that Meredith's door was locked was very different. Romanelli knew that Meredith locked the door to her room only if she was going away for a few days and that she had locked it only once, precisely when she had gone to England; therefore, disagreeing that Meredith normally locked her door, she was alarmed by the locked door (see also Luca Altieri, page 218). And the decision to break down the door of Meredith’s bedroom was made immediately.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Hi Daoud,

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were talking about the comment you wrote at TJMK. That one is gone. Currently, there are 16 reviews published for "Meredith". Could you please indicate under which of these reviews the comment containing your post from TJMK was published? I would like to read the whole thing and couldn't find it. There are so many comments already.


Hi Nell,

I've just read the comment Daoud was referring to on amazon.co.uk. The comment is under J. Barnett's ("jeffski") review (45 comments). The comment containing a quote from Daoud's (now deleted) post at TJMK is on p.4 of that comment thread (posted by Brago Kex on 23 May 2012 10:39:43 BDT)

Here is the link: Comments p.4

Hope this helps answer your question.
Top Profile 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Nell,
This should lead you directly to the comment which includes part of my deleted post:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/ROBLAUPG ... hisHelpful

Oops, I see the question has already been addressed by guermantes

ETA Sorry, I should have expressed myself more clearly - the lines quoted by Brago Kex referred to in the link I give above, are from my deleted post on TJMK


Last edited by Daoud on Thu May 24, 2012 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I don't want to interrupt the train of thought here, but I just got to thinking about the morning after the murder.
Don't ask me why things hit me like they do, there's no explaining. But.....
Can you picture the Postal Police, having been presented with two phones that came from the cottage, pull up and see two people, who tell them that the cottage appeared to have been broken into, but nothing was taken, and there stand the police, holding the two phones.
Nothing's been taken? Where'd the phones come from? Is it any wonder they were suspected immediately?

Sollecito stated that. Why did he say it? Only explanation must be that he was trying to minimize the situation -
minimize the problem (impossibly).

Similarily - why did Knox tell the postal police that Meredith Kercher always locked her door?
Filomena, puzzled indicated that was incorrect.
To stop them opening it. She dreaded them opening it. Postponing inevitable discovery.

Sollecito stated that on the phone to the carabinieri. He didn't live there. He was an infrequent visitor.
How would he know? It was a presumption.
To delay investigation. To give him time to think and control the situation.

Google translate of Sollecito's call to the carabinieri
Ready hello, feel, huh ... someone entered the house smashing the window and put a lot of clutter. There is a locked door. The path is: Via della Pergola 7 in Perugia.

Basically they went in, they broke a glass? And as you know who came?

You see the signs, there are blood stains in the bathroom.

They haven't taken away anything. The problem is that the door is closed ... There is a lot of blood.

There is a locked door? What is the door locked?

ofa for roomies ... that is not there and we do not know where he is. Yes, yes we have tried to call but no answer anywhere.

Okay, now I send a patrol so we verify the situation.


Knox didn't know what he said; then didn't speak much italian. She was later stating there was a "small amount of blood" - not mentioning the door (earlier meeting Sollecito, she hadn't mentioned anything about the break-in - it was miraculously discovered by Sollecito and Knox on their return).


Here is the phone call with subtitles. But there were two phone calls. This is only one of them.

Source: Sollecito chiama il 112: telefonata sottotitolata
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 5:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
John Follain relied on the case file and on interviews with those involved and I find Paola and Filomena's natural reaction to the unfolding situation in stark contrast to the reactions from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

good stuff Nell (x referencing the Follain with Massei too)
Follain interviews with multiple witnesses - Massei testimony of multiple witnesses
all managing to come up with a coherent colluding narrative
its astounding the size of the conspiracy against Knox and Soll. -- huge - all those
independent impartial people brainwashed - then the carabinieri - the postal police
the police investigators

Knox/Sollecito must be forgiven multiple lapses in memory / surrealism (what about the mop - water evaporates etc)
nuts behaviour - reacting to grief in the strangest ways -
but we have to accept it because they are quite plainly innocent - thats all

(screams again) I think I need a week off from this --- it's just too ridiculous - never really seen anything like it
a whole caucus of zombies I think -

They all know; in their primal brain accept that knox wielded the knife
but for some reason the caucus - surely a CULT - banded together, ask us to accept the insanity

just think - we don't see it now - but 18 months ago the MSM was wall to wall with this
people like Steve Moore spouting total 100% crud; bare faced lies on TV all the time
hell I'd believe in creationism (world created 6000 years ago) before I'd take on board that crap

shes an amazing girl - now an entire mythology surrounds her


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu May 24, 2012 6:15 am, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 6:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks, Nell for your excellent post.
Complete claptrap. No way anybody with half a brain could read this and come away with the opinion that they are innocent. Nothing they did that morning is in line with what an innocent person would do, think, say. Or know.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 7:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Daoud and Guermantes for linking to the comments on amazon.co.uk. Interesting how active the Knox groupies are in comment sections about books they've never cared to read.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 9:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Thanks, Nell for your excellent post.
Complete claptrap. No way anybody with half a brain could read this and come away with the opinion that they are innocent. Nothing they did that morning is in line with what an innocent person would do, think, say. Or know.


There are so many inconsistencies in Raffaele Sollecito's and Amanda Knox's stories that it is mind-boggling.

Take for example her email home: Amanda Knox describes in her email that Meredith was the only one unaccounted for before she even checked the rooms in the house. According to her email, she leaves the house - having found it with the main door open, blood in the bathroom and poo in the toilet - without checking the rooms first. She writes she assumed Meredith was sleeping. If she assumed that Meredith was sleeping, how exactly is that being unaccounted for?

Quote:
Excerpt from Amanda Knox's email home, 4th of November 2007

"when i entered i called out if anyone was there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there, they were still asleep. lauras door was open which meant she wasnt home, and filomenas door was also closed. my door was open like always and meredith door was closed, which to me weant she was sleeping."

"he suggested i call one of my roommates, so i called filomena. filomena had been at a party the night before with her boyfriend marco (not the same marco who lives downstairs but we'll call him marco-f as in filomena and the other can be marco-n as in neighbor). she also told me that laura wasnt at home and hadnt been because she was on business in rome. which meant the only one who had spent the night at our house last night was meredith, and she was as of yet unaccounted for."


Furthermore, Amanda Knox describes how she entered with Raffaele Sollecito the house and even though everything looked "perfectly normal" according to her, she looked for signs of a burglary before they found the broken window in Filomena's room.

Quote:
Excerpt from Amanda's email home, 4th of November 2007

"the living room/kitchen was fine. looked perfectly normal. i was checking for signs of our things missing, should there have been a burglar in our house the night before."



Then she describes in her email how she checked the house. She writes how she called Meredith's name, how she knocked on the door, but she doesn't mention with one word having tried to open the door and find it locked. That should be the most important part of her story, explaining to her audience what triggered her panic. The open front door didn't trigger her panic, the blood in the bathroom didn't trigger it and about the poo in the toilet Amanda Knox only started to worry when it began to sink; the locked door was the final trigger and she missed to mention it in her all-explaining email.

Quote:
Excerpt from Amanda Knox's email home, 4th of November 2007

"at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently, but when she didnt respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle."


Quote:
Excerpt from Amanda Knox's email home, 4th of November 2007

"i ran outside and down to our neighbors door. the lights were out but i banged ont he door anyway. i wanted to ask them if they had heard anything the night before, but no one was home."

It is my opinion that Amanda was worried about Meredith's scream and she wanted to investigate if the neighbours had heard anything before the police had a chance to question them. Reading her email, it appears she already assumed a crime had taken place and she had the poo in the toilet to prove it. Her train of thought is illogical, but it makes a lot of sense if you assume her to be guilty.

Another fascinating detail is the cracked door; cracked, because they tried to break it down. But they don't mention it to police when they arrive, instead they show them the broken window in Filomena's room. How embarrassing the situation must have been when Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox admitted to already have tried to break down the door, without mentioning it to the arriving police officers. Instead, Amanda Knox told them Meredith would lock her door even when she went to the bathroom. So why try to break it down then?

Quote:
Excerpt from Amanda Knox's email home, 4th of November 2007

" in the living room raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and cracked the door, but we couldnt open it. it was then that we decided to call the cops. there are two types of cops in italy, carbanieri (local, dealing with traffic and domestic calls) and the police investigaters."


I also note from Amanda Knox's email that she covers everything before and after the call to the carabinieri, but without including the call itself in her email. That is another interesting omission.

The full text of the incriminating email can be found in the category In their own words.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Sorry, pure gossip, and kind of morbid too:

Amanda Knox voted one of sexiest women in world
Thursday, 24 May 2012
The family of murdered British student Meredith Kercher will today learn that the woman once convicted of her murder has been voted one of the sexiest women in the world.
Amanda Knox was placed 92 in Maxim magazine’s Hot 100, a year after being cleared of Meredith’s murder in Perugia, Italy, where she was studying at the time of her killing in 2007.
It comes after Meredith’s father John (69) suffered two suspected strokes since his daughter was murdered.
Knox was 11 places behind Pippa Middleton (28) who came in number at 81 with the winner, voted for by US voters being Israeli model Bar Refaeli.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/enter ... 62657.html
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 May 24, 2012 1:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ava wrote:
Sorry, pure gossip, and kind of morbid too:

Amanda Knox voted one of sexiest women in world
Thursday, 24 May 2012
The family of murdered British student Meredith Kercher will today learn that the woman once convicted of her murder has been voted one of the sexiest women in the world.
Amanda Knox was placed 92 in Maxim magazine’s Hot 100, a year after being cleared of Meredith’s murder in Perugia, Italy, where she was studying at the time of her killing in 2007.
It comes after Meredith’s father John (69) suffered two suspected strokes since his daughter was murdered.
Knox was 11 places behind Pippa Middleton (28) who came in number at 81 with the winner, voted for by US voters being Israeli model Bar Refaeli.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/enter ... 62657.html


I think the definition of 'sexy' has changed since my time, Ava, but since you remind me :) In my opinion, the sexiest woman of ALL time, certainly the most beautiful, was the actress Ava Gardner. Married to Frank Siinatra, relationships with Howard Hughes and Ernest Hemingway, she lived a passionate and very full life, very unlike many two-dimensional 'celebrities' today. She ended up in London, where one day in 1975 doing door to door sales I knocked on her flat and there she was. I babbled incoherently, but she was very kind, and gave me a glass of water. She was 53, and if anything, even more stunning in real life than in the movies.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 1:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell, it only takes one, reasoned post like yours above for the average reader to see how pervasive the FOAKER spin actually is. You've shown the facts, the time-line, the witness statements, the email home, basically, the evidence of what was presented in determining the guilt of Knox and Sollecito.
Boards like PMF shouldn't have even been necessary. Meredith's family should not have to struggle so hard, fight so long and suffer so much in the search for justice for their beloved daughter.

The facts are there. The evidence is there. The section "In Their Own Words" is so aptly named.
It is not our interpretations and opinions that damn them both. They did it to themselves.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Ava wrote:
Sorry, pure gossip, and kind of morbid too:

Amanda Knox voted one of sexiest women in world
Thursday, 24 May 2012
The family of murdered British student Meredith Kercher will today learn that the woman once convicted of her murder has been voted one of the sexiest women in the world.
Amanda Knox was placed 92 in Maxim magazine’s Hot 100, a year after being cleared of Meredith’s murder in Perugia, Italy, where she was studying at the time of her killing in 2007.
It comes after Meredith’s father John (69) suffered two suspected strokes since his daughter was murdered.
Knox was 11 places behind Pippa Middleton (28) who came in number at 81 with the winner, voted for by US voters being Israeli model Bar Refaeli.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/enter ... 62657.html


I think the definition of 'sexy' has changed since my time, Ava, but since you remind me :) In my opinion, the sexiest woman of ALL time, certainly the most beautiful, was the actress Ava Gardner. Married to Frank Siinatra, relationships with Howard Hughes and Ernest Hemingway, she lived a passionate and very full life, very unlike many two-dimensional 'celebrities' today. She ended up in London, where one day in 1975 doing door to door sales I knocked on her flat and there she was. I babbled incoherently, but she was very kind, and gave me a glass of water. She was 53, and if anything, even more stunning in real life than in the movies.


That's a cute anecdote, Ergon! :)
I was astonished that Amanda still seems to be in the mind of people (publishers) out there, kind of hoped she had fallen into oblivion...
It's also rather disturbing that being a murderess (or murder suspect in the eyes of some) got her in a list of 'sexy women', isn't it. Sigh.
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 May 24, 2012 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Here's the timeline that shows how things developed:
October, 2007: - Giacomo, the guitar playing neighbour Amanda fancies, takes up with Meredith.
- Meredith tells her friends she had words with Amanda.
October 30, 2007: - Lumumba fires Amanda as waitress and gives Meredith a job bartending one night a week.
October 31, 2007: - Amanda tries all day to get together with Meredith for Halloween. Meredith declines and goes off with her English friends instead.
November 1, 2007: 8:15 pm or so, Amanda is told she isn't needed at work that night.
: 9:30 pm: Curatolo observes them outside the cottage.
: sometime after that, they enter the flat with Rudy Guede. Amanda has a kitchen knife in her bag. Raffaele as always, has his custom made knife on him.
: 10:13 pm: an inadvertent call is made from Meredith's English phone to Abbey, her English bank. I do not believe she made that call, because if she did, she would have entered the country code and prefix for an international call. The number, possibly the first in her contacts list, must have been bumped accidentally. The Sony Ericsson model is notoriously easy to 'bump dial' unless the key lock is engaged. Filomena testified Meredith always carried that phone in her jeans pocket, in case her mother should call. Or, it may have fallen off the table during a struggle, I do not know. But I do believe that the attack was underway at 10:13 pm.

And I believe that the whole thing was initiated by Amanda, in a drug fueled jealous rage, and there was premeditation, an assault that was formed in her mind as early as October 30th.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 8:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Oh, I bet those missing diary pages from that month would be highly interesting to read.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I saw Michael's wonderful contest for John Kercher's book. I am new to the forum and I am not seeing the contest entries anywhere. Can one of the forum veterans direct me to the right place? I would love to see what you have all created for Meredith. Will there be a group vote or will Michael pick a winner? If there is still time maybe I could submit an entry as well. Thanks!
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 May 24, 2012 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

You're always welcome to try as well, Maggie. How's the project to buy a new apartment for Bruce and Sarah, er, Frank Sfarzo coming along? Just kidding, of course.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
You're always welcome to try as well, Maggie. How's the project to buy a new apartment for Bruce and Sarah, er, Frank Sfarzo coming along? Just kidding, of course.


I don't think I understand your reply. I have not been involved in any projects to help "buy a new apartment" for anyone. Is that posted somewhere here as well? I think you may have missed my question. Where can I go to view the entries for Michael's project? I was also wondering if we were all going to vote on the entries.

If there is a place here to help others in need of shelter, can you show me that as well. I will do my best to give a small donation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Here's the timeline that shows how things developed:
October, 2007: - Giacomo, the guitar playing neighbour Amanda fancies, takes up with Meredith.
- Meredith tells her friends she had words with Amanda.
October 30, 2007: - Lumumba fires Amanda as waitress and gives Meredith a job bartending one night a week.
October 31, 2007: - Amanda tries all day to get together with Meredith for Halloween. Meredith declines and goes off with her English friends instead.
November 1, 2007: 8:15 pm or so, Amanda is told she isn't needed at work that night.
: 9:30 pm: Curatolo observes them outside the cottage.
: sometime after that, they enter the flat with Rudy Guede. Amanda has a kitchen knife in her bag. Raffaele as always, has his custom made knife on him.
: 10:13 pm: an inadvertent call is made from Meredith's English phone to Abbey, her English bank. I do not believe she made that call, because if she did, she would have entered the country code and prefix for an international call. The number, possibly the first in her contacts list, must have been bumped accidentally. The Sony Ericsson model is notoriously easy to 'bump dial' unless the key lock is engaged. Filomena testified Meredith always carried that phone in her jeans pocket, in case her mother should call. Or, it may have fallen off the table during a struggle, I do not know. But I do believe that the attack was underway at 10:13 pm.

And I believe that the whole thing was initiated by Amanda, in a drug fueled jealous rage, and there was premeditation, an assault that was formed in her mind as early as October 30th.


Hi Ergon,

I would like to elaborate on your remark that Amanda was fired as a waitress for those who might come across your comment and aren't familiar with the details of this case: Patrick Lumumba didn't fire Amanda Knox and he didn't get to employ Meredith Kercher, because she was killed before having the opportunity to work in his club. I once read an interview with Patrick Lumumba in which he said that he found Amanda Knox useless as a waitress, because she wasn't waitering and flirted heavily with the clients instead whenever the opportunity arose. For that reason he demoted her from working inside the bar to handing out flyers in the street. He had spoken to Meredith and asked her to work in his bar. I remember from his interview that Meredith didn't seem too keen on the job, he had to convince her. He had only nice things to say about Meredith Kercher, how kind and friendly she was. Patrick Lumumba said she told him that she knew how to prepare mojitos and this is how his idea of a ladies night in his club was born, with Meredith preparing mojitos. They planned to do this as a test run. From what I understand they still hadn't reached an agreement about Meredith working at his bar on a regular basis. They had only planned the test run.

That is how I remember it. I will have to look if I can still find the full interview. It was very insightful.

Re Amanda Knox's job at the bar: The bottom line is that Amanda Knox had a relatively easy job which was waitering in a bar and she managed to not live up to the expectations - again. I remember that when Amanda Knox described her job in Germany that she mostly read her Harry Potter book, because there was nothing to do for her and she complained that she was bored. I can assure you that in Germany - no matter how bored you are - you are not allowed to read magazines or books to kill the time on the job. Such behaviour is a reason for dismissal. Her uncle landed her the internship in the Bundestag that many students would have looked forward to, but Amanda Knox wasn't even appreciative for this privilege. She got that job through good connections, not because of her own merit. What a girl to be proud of! She gets a highly sought after position and instead of making the most of it, she reads for two - three days a book while there and then disappears without further notice. I would have been in such trouble if I would have done that when I was her age!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
You're always welcome to try as well, Maggie. How's the project to buy a new apartment for Bruce and Sarah, er, Frank Sfarzo coming along? Just kidding, of course.


I don't think I understand your reply. I have not been involved in any projects to help "buy a new apartment" for anyone. Is that posted somewhere here as well? I think you may have missed my question. Where can I go to view the entries for Michael's project? I was also wondering if we were all going to vote on the entries.

If there is a place here to help others in need of shelter, can you show me that as well. I will do my best to give a small donation.


Hi Maggie,

To my knowledge there aren't any entries yet. Many of us - me included - are still waiting for John Kercher's book to be delivered. My order has been delayed already twice even though I ordered the book weeks before its release date. They've given me the 6th of June as the new dispatch date, apparently there was a too high demand to satisfy all orders. So I didn't even had a chance to read John Kercher's book yet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
Oh, I bet those missing diary pages from that month would be highly interesting to read.


I absolutely agree. She probably pulled those pages out, because they were incriminating. I suspect Amanda Knox let off a lot of steam in her diary. Sophie Purton's account of the conversation between Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher (as told to her by Meredith) about Giacomo Silenzi is an eye opener. Amanda Knox missed out after declaring he was more into her than into Meredith. Then the job offer from Patrick Lumumba to Meredith Kercher while at the same time demoting Amanda. That Meredith Kercher didn't respond to any of Amanda Knox's text messages and phone calls, basically ignoring her completely and not inviting her to come along, might have been the final straw.
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 May 24, 2012 11:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
I saw Michael's wonderful contest for John Kercher's book. I am new to the forum and I am not seeing the contest entries anywhere. Can one of the forum veterans direct me to the right place? I would love to see what you have all created for Meredith. Will there be a group vote or will Michael pick a winner? If there is still time maybe I could submit an entry as well. Thanks!


The contest still stands. Although, whilst I've not announced it, I've abandoned the deadline. This is due to the fact that shortly after the launch of the contest, a major site malfunction caused the gallery to go down and the gallery is something I consider to be needed for the contest. Worse, the site malfunction has caused many other technical issues behind the scenes which I've been battling with and those have taken priority. Because of these issues, I was planning on abandoning it as a contest and simply writing the book page myself. That said, if any member here would like to offer a review of the book for use on the page, they are most welcome to do so.

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


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

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Maggie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
You're always welcome to try as well, Maggie. How's the project to buy a new apartment for Bruce and Sarah, er, Frank Sfarzo coming along? Just kidding, of course.


I don't think I understand your reply. I have not been involved in any projects to help "buy a new apartment" for anyone. Is that posted somewhere here as well? I think you may have missed my question. Where can I go to view the entries for Michael's project? I was also wondering if we were all going to vote on the entries.

If there is a place here to help others in need of shelter, can you show me that as well. I will do my best to give a small donation.


Hi Maggie,

To my knowledge there aren't any entries yet. Many of us - me included - are still waiting for John Kercher's book to be delivered. My order has been delayed already twice even though I ordered the book weeks before its release date. They've given me the 6th of June as the new dispatch date, apparently there was a too high demand to satisfy all orders. So I didn't even had a chance to read John Kercher's book yet.



Thank you Nell,

I went ahead and bought the Kindle version. I used to be totally against Kindle. I find it very relaxing to sit down with a good book and a glass of wine. I have realized that an extra glass of wine (or 2) makes Kindle reading acceptable. :)

I understand that people want to read the book but isn't this the time to be promoting it? The book was written by Meredith's father, and this group is here to support Meredith, so why would anyone here need to read the book before deciding to promote it? The promotional window is already closing.

I am a bit disappointed that there are no entries. I thought I was just missing the area on the forum where they were being displayed. I will get to work on mine.
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 May 24, 2012 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Nell, ttrroonniicc posted a DM article then it got edited out, where Lumumba told Knox she was no longer working inside but had to hand out flyers. He also told her he was hiring Meredith for Mojito Wednedsays or something. This was on October 30, and it is my contention this was the spark that set events in motion.
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 May 24, 2012 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
I am a bit disappointed that there are no entries. I thought I was just missing the area on the forum where they were being displayed. I will get to work on mine.


I very much look forward to reading it.

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


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

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Maggie wrote:
I saw Michael's wonderful contest for John Kercher's book. I am new to the forum and I am not seeing the contest entries anywhere. Can one of the forum veterans direct me to the right place? I would love to see what you have all created for Meredith. Will there be a group vote or will Michael pick a winner? If there is still time maybe I could submit an entry as well. Thanks!


The contest still stands. Although, whilst I've not announced it, I've abandoned the deadline. This is due to the fact that shortly after the launch of the contest, a major site malfunction caused the gallery to go down and the gallery is something I consider to be needed for the contest. Worse, the site malfunction has caused many other technical issues behind the scenes which I've been battling with and those have taken priority. Because of these issues, I was planning on abandoning it as a contest and simply writing the book page myself. That said, if any member here would like to offer a review of the book for use on the page, they are most welcome to do so.


Thank you Michael,

Your idea was wonderful. Its unfortunate that the gallery is giving you trouble. Your hard work keeping the forum up and running has had no bearing on anyone else here working on a promotional page. The gallery is nice to have but every photo in the world that involves this case is available on Google. It looks like you were let down on this one Michael.

Its unfortunate that you are left to do all of the work on the promotional page. I will see if I can write a review that you might be able work with.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It's a bit late here and I must be off to bed. Forgive me if I sound negative. I will awake refreshed in the morning and get to work on a review and see if I can create some artwork. Nite all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
You're always welcome to try as well, Maggie. How's the project to buy a new apartment for Bruce and Sarah, er, Frank Sfarzo coming along? Just kidding, of course.


I don't think I understand your reply. I have not been involved in any projects to help "buy a new apartment" for anyone. Is that posted somewhere here as well? I think you may have missed my question. Where can I go to view the entries for Michael's project? I was also wondering if we were all going to vote on the entries.

If there is a place here to help others in need of shelter, can you show me that as well. I will do my best to give a small donation.


Hi, Maggie. Welcome to the board. A word to the wise. You better stay here with us where it is safe. Offering to make donations to people whom you don't know can get you in a world of trouble with the unscrupulous of the world.
Here, nothing is expected from you except for complete honesty. Can't beat it!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Maggie wrote:
Ergon wrote:
You're always welcome to try as well, Maggie. How's the project to buy a new apartment for Bruce and Sarah, er, Frank Sfarzo coming along? Just kidding, of course.


I don't think I understand your reply. I have not been involved in any projects to help "buy a new apartment" for anyone. Is that posted somewhere here as well? I think you may have missed my question. Where can I go to view the entries for Michael's project? I was also wondering if we were all going to vote on the entries.

If there is a place here to help others in need of shelter, can you show me that as well. I will do my best to give a small donation.


Hi, Maggie. Welcome to the board. A word to the wise. You better stay here with us where it is safe. Offering to make donations to people whom you don't know can get you in a world of trouble with the unscrupulous of the world.
Here, nothing is expected from you except for complete honesty. Can't beat it!


Thank you Napia5,

I was asking if there was a place here on this forum to help others that needed shelter. I was confused by Ergon's comments. Ergon has not replied so I am still unsure what he is talking about.
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 May 24, 2012 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
Your idea was wonderful. Its unfortunate that the gallery is giving you trouble. Your hard work keeping the forum up and running has had no bearing on anyone else here working on a promotional page. The gallery is nice to have but every photo in the world that involves this case is available on Google. It looks like you were let down on this one Michael.


It has a great deal of bearing if the images that will illustrate the Book Review page are all hotlinked from the gallery and so means it depends on it. It has even more bearing still, if the corrupted modules I've been battling spread and corrupt the Book Review Page (as well as numerous other parts of the Admin Control Panel and User Control Panel).

_________________
"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: Thu May 24, 2012 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

@Maggie, you came here praising (and linking to) Bruce Fischer's new venture but aren't aware of his collection for "Frank Sfarzo"? Well, now you know, I'm sure they'll appreciate your donation. And thanks for offering to contribute to the Meredith Kercher project as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Maggie wrote:
Your idea was wonderful. Its unfortunate that the gallery is giving you trouble. Your hard work keeping the forum up and running has had no bearing on anyone else here working on a promotional page. The gallery is nice to have but every photo in the world that involves this case is available on Google. It looks like you were let down on this one Michael.


It has a great deal of bearing if the images that will illustrate the Book Review page are all hotlinked from the gallery and so means it depends on it. It has even more bearing still, if the corrupted modules I've been battling spread and corrupt the Book Review Page (as well as numerous other parts of the Admin Control Panel and User Control Panel).


There are countless free websites that you can upload photos to and create hotlinks that can be used anywhere online. People here should apologize for dropping the ball on the project. Everyone needs to step up and help you out. Sounds like this board is in dire straits. I hope you can save it. I must go too bed. Too much wine and too tired. Time is approaching 1. Much too late for me. Your efforts are admirable Michael. Nite.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
@Maggie, you came here praising (and linking to) Bruce Fischer's new venture but aren't aware of his collection for "Frank Sfarzo"? Well, now you know, I'm sure they'll appreciate your donation. And thanks for offering to contribute to the Meredith Kercher project as well.


Thank you Ergon,

I don't see a collection for Frank on the Injustice Anywhere website. Is he in need of shelter? Are Bruce and Sarah homeless as well? I'm not sure I praised anyone, I just observed that the actions of others went against many of the public relations claims I have read over the years. I have much less anger these days and I am learning to look deeper into a persons motivations before coming to conclusions.
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 May 24, 2012 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And thanks for posting too, Maggie. See you on Tuesday, sans passive aggressive FOAKER debating points ok? First warning :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
Michael wrote:
Maggie wrote:
Your idea was wonderful. Its unfortunate that the gallery is giving you trouble. Your hard work keeping the forum up and running has had no bearing on anyone else here working on a promotional page. The gallery is nice to have but every photo in the world that involves this case is available on Google. It looks like you were let down on this one Michael.


It has a great deal of bearing if the images that will illustrate the Book Review page are all hotlinked from the gallery and so means it depends on it. It has even more bearing still, if the corrupted modules I've been battling spread and corrupt the Book Review Page (as well as numerous other parts of the Admin Control Panel and User Control Panel).


There are countless free websites that you can upload photos to and create hotlinks that can be used anywhere online. People here should apologize for dropping the ball on the project. Everyone needs to step up and help you out. Sounds like this board is in dire straits. I hope you can save it. I must go too bed. Too much wine and too tired. Time is approaching 1. Much too late for me. Your efforts are admirable Michael. Nite.


Who's dropping the ball? Who should apologise? For what exactly?

To respond to your former comment made in response to mine: I would like to know exactly what I am promoting, so I should read the book before I can go into specifics. Otherwise it's like writing a review on a book you've never read.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
And thanks for posting too, Maggie. See you on Tuesday, sans passive aggressive FOAKER debating points ok? First warning :)



You consider discussion about public relations a Friends of Amanda talking point? You brought up the topic, not me. I am really being warned? Is this a playground? I am discussing the project for Meredith. That is not a Tuesday topic is it? From the number of project entries so far it doesn't look like its an active topic for any day of the week on this forum! Sorry, thats the wine talking. Night Ergon.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Oh, and Michael, I humbly apologize for having absolutely no talent whatsoever!
Remember, it took me two weeks to learn to use the quote button here properly.
Good night, Maggie, enjoy your whine!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Is this Maggie the new type of troll? Maybe not and that she can surprise us with a wonderful project!
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ava wrote:
Sorry, pure gossip, and kind of morbid too:

Amanda Knox voted one of sexiest women in world
Thursday, 24 May 2012
The family of murdered British student Meredith Kercher will today learn that the woman once convicted of her murder has been voted one of the sexiest women in the world.
Amanda Knox was placed 92 in Maxim magazine’s Hot 100, a year after being cleared of Meredith’s murder in Perugia, Italy, where she was studying at the time of her killing in 2007.
It comes after Meredith’s father John (69) suffered two suspected strokes since his daughter was murdered.
Knox was 11 places behind Pippa Middleton (28) who came in number at 81 with the winner, voted for by US voters being Israeli model Bar Refaeli.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/enter ... 62657.html


Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Whoever said that a picture's worth a thousand words sure knew what they were talking about!
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 May 25, 2012 2:46 am   Post subject: WARNING: SPIRITUAL CONTENT!   

I had a call from someone who asked about a dream they had about Amanda Knox. Here's my reply, which I'd like to share with you.

Hi, ...,

Thanks for your question. Please don't mind that I post my answer in the main thread as well, without revealing your name or dream. There are many people on these sites who have voiced similar thoughts and shared them with me privately, because they didn't want to be ridiculed by (skeptics).

That is a very perceptive dream. There are things that happen in the material plane, and things that happen in the spiritual plane.

Yes, there are shifts taking place in the spiritual dimension, that affect us all. The supermoon, the two eclipses, May and June, are astrological reflections of that. This is a time when we must all, even Amanda Knox, consider what we have done with our lives, and what direction we want to take after.

I did say a long time back there would be all sorts of surprises in court. I did say there was a spiritual focus on Italy that only the Italian people could resolve, but until then, there would be reminders. The Vesuvio eruption, the tragic bombing of the school in Puglia, the Concordia disaster, the Bologna earthquake. Yes, those were reminders, that the rational can ignore or explain away, or even, sadly, be offended by.

I asked this before: why do some people attach to this case in a deeper way than they do for others? I mean, there's a Casey Anthony movie just announced. Who cares? Well yes, for poor Caylee Anthony, but you know what I mean. It's the spiritual dimension that is now focused, not on Meredith Kercher's murder, but, the whole idea of justice. And, another word for justice would be, karma. That is the meaning of your dream.

For the Kerchers, and for all of you who care for the case: Meredith's spirit is at peace. Whatever the outcome of the trial, we should also be at peace. Is Amanda Knox at peace? No, she is not, nor will she ever be, until she faces up to her karma. She is now in a very difficult year of a nine year cycle, #2, which brings emotional turmoil. But her horoscope also shows powerful friends, as I said before, and it shows she is lucky. Therefore, after her birthday this year, she will enter a #3 cycle, calculated thusly: 09+07+2+0+1+2=21=3. This is a cycle of fortune, that lasts till her next birthday, in 2013. That will be a #4 year, change of location ;)

I am not going to predict the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court. It can go either way, and whatever inkling I have, I will keep to myself. Though I hope there is an announcement from the Supreme Court before July 09, 2012. To the United States, I say this: stop interfering in the trial or sending messages about whether you will or will not extradite Amanda. You will have enough problems to worry about on your own very shortly. To the people of Italy: I wish them well, but, I also wish for Justice for Meredith Kercher.

And to Amanda Knox, I say, please get help. The only way you can be free of your karma is to pay the price now. Otherwise, you will be in a prison of your own making till you are 41 years old.

Sincerely,
(A)Ergon
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jim

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:40 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:48 am   Post subject: Re: WARNING: SPIRITUAL CONTENT!   

Ergon wrote:
I had a call from someone who asked about a dream they had about Amanda Knox. Here's my reply, which I'd like to share with you.

Hi, ...,

Thanks for your question. Please don't mind that I post my answer in the main thread as well, without revealing your name or dream. There are many people on these sites who have voiced similar thoughts and shared them with me privately, because they didn't want to be ridiculed by (skeptics).

That is a very perceptive dream. There are things that happen in the material plane, and things that happen in the spiritual plane.

Yes, there are shifts taking place in the spiritual dimension, that affect us all. The supermoon, the two eclipses, May and June, are astrological reflections of that. This is a time when we must all, even Amanda Knox, consider what we have done with our lives, and what direction we want to take after.

I did say a long time back there would be all sorts of surprises in court. I did say there was a spiritual focus on Italy that only the Italian people could resolve, but until then, there would be reminders. The Vesuvio eruption, the tragic bombing of the school in Puglia, the Concordia disaster, the Bologna earthquake. Yes, those were reminders, that the rational can ignore or explain away, or even, sadly, be offended by.

I asked this before: why do some people attach to this case in a deeper way than they do for others? I mean, there's a Casey Anthony movie just announced. Who cares? Well yes, for poor Caylee Anthony, but you know what I mean. It's the spiritual dimension that is now focused, not on Meredith Kercher's murder, but, the whole idea of justice. And, another word for justice would be, karma. That is the meaning of your dream.

For the Kerchers, and for all of you who care for the case: Meredith's spirit is at peace. Whatever the outcome of the trial, we should also be at peace. Is Amanda Knox at peace? No, she is not, nor will she ever be, until she faces up to her karma. She is now in a very difficult year of a nine year cycle, #2, which brings emotional turmoil. But her horoscope also shows powerful friends, as I said before, and it shows she is lucky. Therefore, after her birthday this year, she will enter a #3 cycle, calculated thusly: 09+07+2+0+1+2=21=3. This is a cycle of fortune, that lasts till her next birthday, in 2013. That will be a #4 year, change of location ;)

I am not going to predict the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court. It can go either way, and whatever inkling I have, I will keep to myself. Though I hope there is an announcement from the Supreme Court before July 09, 2012. To the United States, I say this: stop interfering in the trial or sending messages about whether you will or will not extradite Amanda. You will have enough problems to worry about on your own very shortly. To the people of Italy: I wish them well, but, I also wish for Justice for Meredith Kercher.

And to Amanda Knox, I say, please get help. The only way you can be free of your karma is to pay the price now. Otherwise, you will be in a prison of your own making till you are 41 years old.

Sincerely,
(A)Ergon



Please, I am begging you to stop allowing this nonsense to be posted on this site. Perugia Murder File was created for Meredith Kercher, not to discuss quackery. For God's sake!

Ergon hopes that the Supreme Court in Italy rules on the case before Amanda's birthday because the stars tell him that Amanda will go into a cycle of fortune at that time. Are you bleeping kidding me???

Come up people! I know the others here think this is insane. Speak up! Speak up for Meredith! Discuss the facts of the case, not this crap!

I hope John Kercher doesn't read these posts by Ergon. They are truly embarrassing to everyone that hat supported PMF for all these years. Shame on anyone that refuses to speak up!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello, Jim. Welcome to the board. Now, piss off, will you?
Ergon certainly needs no defense from me, but, as I see it, he has an incredible, factual, thorough hold on the evidence of this sad case. I wouldn't argue with his knowledge.
That his spiritual sense happens to be in alignment is, in my opinion, a plus.
I'm a newer poster, but must say that I find nothing offensive about his beliefs.
If you are not interested, I suggest that you ignore his posts. I, for one, don't intend to.
I enjoy his take on things.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:16 am   Post subject: Re: WARNING: SPIRITUAL CONTENT!   

whoever wrote:
<snip>

this is a troll

just wade here with an opinion why don't you
many people agree with astrology as being almost a science
ergon does not over-do it it's just another flavor of posting
everyone posts in a certain way - ergon happens to know
a lot about astrology ------------
ergon is a mod moderating this group - doing it very well
you are wading in here - we have had "maggie" here today
with 10 posts saying we don't address the case -
drunkenly talking about herself or ZERO.
We address the case in depth - and you are sitting on a pile of thousands
of posts and continual discussion -

I think this is a disruptive attack -
You are a FOA troll and so is maggie
there is nothing to complain about - you are accusing us of
nothing - there is always progressive discussion and many experts
here on the case -

drop it
- butt out
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:40 am   Post subject: Re: WARNING: SPIRITUAL CONTENT!   

Jim wrote:
Please, I am begging you to stop allowing this nonsense to be posted on this site. Perugia Murder File was created for Meredith Kercher, not to discuss quackery. For God's sake!

Ergon hopes that the Supreme Court in Italy rules on the case before Amanda's birthday because the stars tell him that Amanda will go into a cycle of fortune at that time. Are you bleeping kidding me???

Come up people! I know the others here think this is insane. Speak up! Speak up for Meredith! Discuss the facts of the case, not this crap!

I hope John Kercher doesn't read these posts by Ergon. They are truly embarrassing to everyone that hat supported PMF for all these years. Shame on anyone that refuses to speak up!


The only thing I can say is that numerology and astrology are considered pseudosciences. I don't know nothing about it and I am not particularly interested in either, but apparently many other users are. I would like to believe that decisions at the Italian Supreme Court are based on merit and evidence and not on the position of the stars, but I don't see no reason to attack Ergon constantly for offering his spiritual view. His posts are not offending anyone, so I don't see no harm done. Many theories about Meredith Kercher's murder have been published in the past years and we don't have to agree with all of them. Nobody forces his view upon you, so what's the problem?

We are all free to make our own decisions and to have our own opinions. This forum allows you to freely and openly discuss matters related to the case and you are welcome to openly disagree with whatever is written here, but please keep it polite. Thank you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
I would like to elaborate on your remark that Amanda was fired as a waitress for those who might come across your comment and aren't familiar with the details of this case: Patrick Lumumba didn't fire Amanda Knox and he didn't get to employ Meredith Kercher, because she was killed before having the opportunity to work in his club.

Lengthy interview with Lumumba in the Daily Mail - less than a month after the murder - must have been
shortly after Lumumba was released - Although Lumumba later stated he wasn't beaten by the police.

Possibility he fired Knox in that text message
Shortly after that, Knox murdered Meredith Kercher who had her job - who was ignoring her

maybe some discussion of it -
I know that the story of the text message is reasonably certain

Knox: "The second signed statement states << I met him on the evening of the first of November, after having sent him a message replying to his, with the words 'see you' ['ci vediamo', lit. "we'll see each other""

What was the text message from Lumumba - was she fired then?

"you're not needed" .. was Knox's return text message confirmed? She wouldn't admit she was fired?
Lumumba here appears to say she was fired - 2 stages - demoted to giving out fliers then fired.

Some excerpts here:







Article still stands: DAILY MAIL


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri May 25, 2012 5:27 am, edited 8 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jim

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:40 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:02 am   Post subject: Re: WARNING: SPIRITUAL CONTENT!   

Nell wrote:
Jim wrote:
Please, I am begging you to stop allowing this nonsense to be posted on this site. Perugia Murder File was created for Meredith Kercher, not to discuss quackery. For God's sake!

Ergon hopes that the Supreme Court in Italy rules on the case before Amanda's birthday because the stars tell him that Amanda will go into a cycle of fortune at that time. Are you bleeping kidding me???

Come up people! I know the others here think this is insane. Speak up! Speak up for Meredith! Discuss the facts of the case, not this crap!

I hope John Kercher doesn't read these posts by Ergon. They are truly embarrassing to everyone that hat supported PMF for all these years. Shame on anyone that refuses to speak up!


The only thing I can say is that numerology and astrology are considered pseudosciences. I don't know nothing about it and I am not particularly interested in either, but apparently many other users are. I would like to believe that decisions at the Italian Supreme Court are based on merit and evidence and not on the position of the stars, but I don't see no reason to attack Ergon constantly for offering his spiritual view. His posts are not offending anyone, so I don't see no harm done. Many theories about Meredith Kercher's murder have been published in the past years and we don't have to agree with all of them. Nobody forces his view upon you, so what's the problem?

We are all free to make our own decisions and to have our own opinions. This forum allows you to freely and openly discuss matters related to the case and you are welcome to openly disagree with whatever is written here, but please keep it polite. Thank you.


Okay I understand your position here. You think that Ergon's posts are nonsense but he has every right to post them. Okay.

Here's a theory I think fits into the same category as Ergon's. It discusses the case and fits well within the guidelines of your post. You set the rules so I see no reason for this to be deleted.

Knox was released from prison in October 2011. I was praying to the Kool-Aid man that this would not happen. September is the month of the lime. This flavor signifies safety for the masses. This would lead me to believe that Knox would never be released in September. October is the month of blue raspberry. Blue raspberry is the rebellious flavor that stands against the heavy hand of the law. Blue raspberry Kool-Aid man wants to break down walls. This signifies that Knox would see light when the Kool-Aid man blasts a gaping hole in her prison cell, causing everyone in the prison to shout "Oh Yeah!" As we saw, Blue Raspberry proved to be very kind to Knox.

I am hoping that the Supreme court rules in June or September. We already know that September doesn't fare well for Knox but June would be even more of a problem for her. June is the month of the mixed berries. Mixed berries signify personal demons. These demons prey on the guilty causing them to come clean and beg for forgiveness of their sins. If the Supreme Court rules in June, Mixed Berry Kool-Aid man will break down Knox's bedroom wall and bombard her with mixed berries until she comes clean for her sins. Of course she will never be clean because mixed berries stain everything! We can only hope that mixed berries rule the day. God forbid the day that Knox is saved once again by Blue raspberry Kool-aid man! If this happens we can only hope that Kool-Aid man is charged with culunnia!


Last edited by Jim on Fri May 25, 2012 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:08 am   Post subject: Re: WARNING: SPIRITUAL CONTENT!   

Jim wrote:
...


I think you should be banned
Top Profile 

Offline Jim

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:40 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:10 am   Post subject: Re: WARNING: SPIRITUAL CONTENT!   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Jim wrote:
Nell wrote:
Jim wrote:
Please, I am begging you to stop allowing this nonsense to be posted on this site. Perugia Murder File was created for Meredith Kercher, not to discuss quackery. For God's sake!

Ergon hopes that the Supreme Court in Italy rules on the case before Amanda's birthday because the stars tell him that Amanda will go into a cycle of fortune at that time. Are you bleeping kidding me???

Come up people! I know the others here think this is insane. Speak up! Speak up for Meredith! Discuss the facts of the case, not this crap!

I hope John Kercher doesn't read these posts by Ergon. They are truly embarrassing to everyone that hat supported PMF for all these years. Shame on anyone that refuses to speak up!


The only thing I can say is that numerology and astrology are considered pseudosciences. I don't know nothing about it and I am not particularly interested in either, but apparently many other users are. I would like to believe that decisions at the Italian Supreme Court are based on merit and evidence and not on the position of the stars, but I don't see no reason to attack Ergon constantly for offering his spiritual view. His posts are not offending anyone, so I don't see no harm done. Many theories about Meredith Kercher's murder have been published in the past years and we don't have to agree with all of them. Nobody forces his view upon you, so what's the problem?

We are all free to make our own decisions and to have our own opinions. This forum allows you to freely and openly discuss matters related to the case and you are welcome to openly disagree with whatever is written here, but please keep it polite. Thank you.


Okay I understand your position here. You think that Ergon's posts are nonsense but he has every right to post them. Okay.

Here's a theory I think fits into the same category as Ergon's. It discusses the case and fits well within the guidelines of your post. You set the rules so I see no reason for this to be deleted.

Knox was released from prison in October 2011. I was praying to the Kool-Aid man that this would not happen. September is the month of the lime. This flavor signifies safety for the masses. This would lead me to believe that Knox would never be released in September. October is the month of blue raspberry. Blue raspberry is the rebellious flavor that stands against the heavy hand of the law. Blue raspberry Kool-Aid man wants to break down walls. This signifies that Knox would see light when the Kool-Aid man blasts a gaping hole in her prison cell, causing everyone in the prison to shout "Oh Yeah!" As we saw, Blue Raspberry proved to be very kind to Knox.

I am hoping that the Supreme court rules in June or September. We already know that September doesn't fare well for Knox but June would be even more of a problem for her. June is the month of the mixed berries. Mixed berries signify personal demons. These demons prey on the guilty causing them to come clean and beg for forgiveness of their sins. If the Supreme Court rules in June, Mixed Berry Kool-Aid man will break down her bedroom wall and bombard her with mixed berries until she comes clean for her sins. Of course she will never be clean because mixed berries stain everything! We can only hope that mixed berries rule the day. God forbid the day that Knox is saved once again by Blue raspberry Kool-aid man! If this happens we can only hope that Kool-Aid man is charged with culunnia!


I think you should be banned


I think you deserve a visit from Mixed Berry Kool-Aid man!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jim

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:40 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


Well, I guess you better remove the "Amanda was fired" talking point from the PMF dry erase board then. Wow, so many talking points have already been erased. Amanda was arrested, blood soaked bathroom, mixed blood, Amanda's clothes are missing, Raffeale's shoe print in the murder room, Raffaele said they were at a party, Harry Potter book, Raffaele called the police after the postals arrived, Raffeale still doesn't defend Amanda, The media was controlled by a PR superhuman force that controlled the minds of all network anchors, and the list goes on.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


I agree completely, Nell. Patrick was trying to build a business. He felt Meredith would be a draw, that's obvious.
Since she was a friend of Knox, and would probably be bringing in friends and new customers, and he was obviously displeased by Knox's behavior, the diplomatic thing to do was 'demote' her to flyers. While not actually firing her in the strictest sense, he was keeping the peace, in a way, by limiting her access to customers, still allowing her a position, but securing her out of the mainstream. Call it what you want, I think it's obvious he wanted her out of there.


Last edited by Napia5 on Fri May 25, 2012 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:30 am   Post subject: Re: WARNING: SPIRITUAL CONTENT!   

Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

Okay I understand your position here. You think that Ergon's posts are nonsense but he has every right to post them. Okay.

--- snap ---

First, I don't appreciate people who put words into my mouth. To call Ergon's posts nonsense was your word choice, not mine. I recommend you read the many posts Ergon has written and you will see that he is a valued and knowledgeable member who has contributed a lot to this community. Secondly, I asked you to be polite.


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

Here's a theory I think fits into the same category as Ergon's. It discusses the case and fits well within the guidelines of your post. You set the rules so I see no reason for this to be deleted.

--- snap ---

I don't set any rules, I tried to talk some sense into you.

Your post is meant to disrupt and ridicule and that is offensive. You should have known better.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Jim wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


Well, I guess you better remove the "Amanda was fired" talking point from the PMF dry erase board then. Wow, so many talking points have already been erased. Amanda was arrested, blood soaked bathroom, mixed blood, Amanda's clothes are missing, Raffeale's shoe print in the murder room, Raffaele said they were at a party, Harry Potter book, Raffaele called the police after the postals arrived, Raffeale still doesn't defend Amanda, The media was controlled by a PR superhuman force that controlled the minds of all network anchors, and the list goes on.


Why don't you scroll up the page to her email? Do you care to explain how a straight A honour student can write such an embarrassing email? I haven't counted all the errors yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more spelling mistakes than words in the whole thing. What about her "panic"? Do you care to expand? What about the cracked door? What about the mixed blood (yeah, you heard me, mixed blood)? Why did Amanda bleed? Why can't she remember that she bled? It couldn't have been before the murder, because the bathroom was clean, so it must have happened during the attack or after. Amanda Knox left her blood in the bathroom and her blood resulted in multiple mixed blood samples.

Slow day at IIP?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


I agree completely, Nell. Patrick was trying to build a business. He felt Meredith would be a draw, that's obvious.
Since she was a friend of Knox, and would probably be bringing in friends and new customers, and he was obviously displeased by Knox's behavior, the diplomatic thing to do was 'demote' her to flyers. While not actually firing her in the strictest sense, he was keeping the peace, in a way, by limiting her access to customers, still allowing her a position, but securing her out of the mainstream. Call it what you want, I think it's obvious he wanted her out of there.


Absolutely. Maybe he even hoped she would move on to another job. It is unpleasant to be demoted while someone else is getting "your" job. It seems almost as if Patrick Lumumba was too nice to fire her. He didn't have the heart to do it.

The way Patrick Lumumba described Meredith reminds me again that the only person who ever said something nasty about Meredith Kercher has been Amanda Knox. Telling, isn't it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

all thats a bit garbled - I hope you get the essence of what I'm positing
maybe I should start editing/finalising posts offline & not on the fly --
there have just sort of given up on my multiple edit cycle (it being 7am)

Jim is now being flippant - complete troll
should be banned
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

I think it was a standing offer, she would have worked at the bar had she lived.

That's my understanding too.

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Nell wrote:
Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.


Right ...
Since you read what I originally posted - sorry again - keep modifying posts -
I have been looking at what Knox replied "see you later" (the translation of that has always been disputed)
trying to figure that -

was that actual text ever recovered? The text from lumumba must have still been on her phone but was the text
sent back to lumumba? or did she just state what she sent. I am asking this because at an early stage (in interview with the police)
she had a story of actually meeting Lumumba later .. on the basketball courts - the created story that she went back to the
cottage with Lumumba --

I have only just realised that the "see you later" text is a text from AK to Lumumba - had always thought it was from Lumumba to
Knox -

If I remember correctly, the police questioned her if she saw someone that night which Amanda Knox declined. But the police had found a text message on her phone that - due to Amanda's poor Italian - was understood as "see you later" instead of "good bye". She meant to say "see you", but without implying she was going to meet him later. She was questioned about having send text messages which Amanda Knox declined. She claimed she didn't remember having send any. The police then showed her the text message she had sent to Patrick Lumumba that said "see you later" (in Italian). This is when Amanda Knox accused him of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I believe Amanda Knox had deleted the message she had received from Patrick Lumumba from her phone. Anyway, she could have just asked them to question Patrick Lumumba who could have confirmed that he didn't meet her that night. There was no need for Amanda Knox to accuse him of murder and it wasn't a logical thing to do, unless she wanted to throw police off her own track.


ttrroonniicc wrote:
nell wrote:
I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


I think she flew into a jealous rage. I think the timescale fits .. within hours. Message received - Knox Sollecito stalking the cottage waiting with knives

~ 10 Meredith Kercher dead -- I still think what I stated now - Lumumbas text was firing Knox. A trigger - Knox storming back to Soll. Raging - going out - back to the cottage with the kitchen knife ...

I don't agree with you Nell.

With what exactly don't you agree? I agree with what you wrote. I believe Amanda Knox was jealous of Meredith and judging by the wounds Meredith suffered, I can only describe that as someone being in a rage. It is shocking how Amanda Knox turned on Meredith, despite the fact that Meredith had helped Amanda Knox to settle in and introduced her to her friends. Amanda Knox on the other hand is always described as demanding attention and not very caring at all. What a stark contrast these two women were.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


I agree completely, Nell. Patrick was trying to build a business. He felt Meredith would be a draw, that's obvious.
Since she was a friend of Knox, and would probably be bringing in friends and new customers, and he was obviously displeased by Knox's behavior, the diplomatic thing to do was 'demote' her to flyers. While not actually firing her in the strictest sense, he was keeping the peace, in a way, by limiting her access to customers, still allowing her a position, but securing her out of the mainstream. Call it what you want, I think it's obvious he wanted her out of there.


Absolutely. Maybe he even hoped she would move on to another job. It is unpleasant to be demoted while someone else is getting "your" job. It seems almost as if Patrick Lumumba was too nice to fire her. He didn't have the heart to do it.

The way Patrick Lumumba described Meredith reminds me again that the only person who ever said something nasty about Meredith Kercher has been Amanda Knox. Telling, isn't it?

It sure is telling. I haven't ever been able to find out too much about the workings at the bar. Maybe you know, or have read. I know that business was at times, slow. Did Patrick have another waitress to pick up the slack when Knox was placed outside? Patrick wanted Meredith to come in when he had a female DJ to make drinks on occasion, so it doesn't sound like he was offering her a full-time position. Did he have a person before Knox who handed out flyers, or was he simply trying to adjust to the times and create different spaces for the people he had in his employ?
I'd find it interesting to know these things, because, if it were apparent to Knox that she was being sidelined and a newly developed opportunity was being offered to Meredith, it sure would be humiliating.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
--- snip ---

Jim is now being flippant - complete troll
should be banned

--- snap ---


I am not a fan of drastic measures, but of course, if Jim keeps disrupting the peace of the forum he will be warned and ultimately banned.

As I suspected, they have a slow day at IIP and are following what is written here blow-by-blow.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


I agree completely, Nell. Patrick was trying to build a business. He felt Meredith would be a draw, that's obvious.
Since she was a friend of Knox, and would probably be bringing in friends and new customers, and he was obviously displeased by Knox's behavior, the diplomatic thing to do was 'demote' her to flyers. While not actually firing her in the strictest sense, he was keeping the peace, in a way, by limiting her access to customers, still allowing her a position, but securing her out of the mainstream. Call it what you want, I think it's obvious he wanted her out of there.


Absolutely. Maybe he even hoped she would move on to another job. It is unpleasant to be demoted while someone else is getting "your" job. It seems almost as if Patrick Lumumba was too nice to fire her. He didn't have the heart to do it.

The way Patrick Lumumba described Meredith reminds me again that the only person who ever said something nasty about Meredith Kercher has been Amanda Knox. Telling, isn't it?

It sure is telling. I haven't ever been able to find out too much about the workings at the bar. Maybe you know, or have read. I know that business was at times, slow. Did Patrick have another waitress to pick up the slack when Knox was placed outside? Patrick wanted Meredith to come in when he had a female DJ to make drinks on occasion, so it doesn't sound like he was offering her a full-time position. Did he have a person before Knox who handed out flyers, or was he simply trying to adjust to the times and create different spaces for the people he had in his employ?
I'd find it interesting to know these things, because, if it were apparent to Knox that she was being sidelined and a newly developed opportunity was being offered to Meredith, it sure would be humiliating.


Hi Napia,

I am going to answer to that later, I have to leave now for a few hours. I will be back later.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jim

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 3:40 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 8:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Jim wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


Well, I guess you better remove the "Amanda was fired" talking point from the PMF dry erase board then. Wow, so many talking points have already been erased. Amanda was arrested, blood soaked bathroom, mixed blood, Amanda's clothes are missing, Raffeale's shoe print in the murder room, Raffaele said they were at a party, Harry Potter book, Raffaele called the police after the postals arrived, Raffeale still doesn't defend Amanda, The media was controlled by a PR superhuman force that controlled the minds of all network anchors, and the list goes on.


Why don't you scroll up the page to her email? Do you care to explain how a straight A honour student can write such an embarrassing email? I haven't counted all the errors yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more spelling mistakes than words in the whole thing. What about her "panic"? Do you care to expand? What about the cracked door? What about the mixed blood (yeah, you heard me, mixed blood)? Why did Amanda bleed? Why can't she remember that she bled? It couldn't have been before the murder, because the bathroom was clean, so it must have happened during the attack or after. Amanda Knox left her blood in the bathroom and her blood resulted in multiple mixed blood samples.

Slow day at IIP?


Please do me a favor and prove mixed blood. There were no samples taken in the bathroom that were mixed blood. There is absolutely no proof of mixed blood anywhere in the cottage. that is a fact, but go ahead try to prove it.

You wrote: "It couldn't have been before the murder, because the bathroom was clean"

What the hell does that even mean? Its logic like this that makes me laugh out loud. Have you seen the photo of the tap? There is a small droplet of blood diluted in water. Its not glaring at all. Look at it from the standpoint that you do not know a murder took place. Of course when you look at evidence knowing someone was murdered, it changes your perspective. You will notice small droplets. and shoe prints on tile. Guede's prints were not seen by the postal police going down the hall. Why? Because they weren't looking for blood! They walked right over the prints and saw nothing. Why is it so shocking that no one noticed the small droplet on the tap?

Was the bathroom sterilized and secured from use before the murder? Is it not possible that Amanda used the bathroom after it was cleaned? How well was the bathroom cleaned? You take non incriminating evidence and take giant leaps to reach your conclusions.

Amanda explained where the blood came from. The blood was not left on the tap on the night of the murder because Amanda was not there (Go ahead, pull a Machine tactic, tell me that she confessed she was there. Its so effective when you all do that). She was examined at the police station. She was completely fine.

Can you explain how the postal police, missed all of that blood evidence when they refused to kick in Meredith's door? They were right by the bathroom. Its a small cottage, they saw everything. Nothing alarmed them at all. What about the others that were in the cottage before the murder was discovered? Why didn't they see the blood evidence? After you think about that for a while, tell me why it is such a shock that Amanda took a shower?

What about the cracked door? Yeah, it was cracked. Raffaele explained that.

What about her panic? Why don't you "expand?"

After a few sleepless nights, Amanda had a few issues with spelling. That opens the door for people like you to make fun of her but it doesnt make her a murderer. Stop with the nonsense.

Its time to ban me because I know this case inside and out. I will shred you to pieces if you debate me on it. You have convinced yourself that you are correct, refusing to open your eyes to the truth. Its sad but thankfully there are only a few of you left and no one pays any attention to you except me. Sorry I find you fun to watch.

Michael wont debate anyone. He will constantly change his position and when he is pushed into a corner he will ban the person that beat him. We see it time and time again.

You people are pathetic. If you have any guts at all you will debate this case with me but we all know that will never happen because it will blow up your fantasy world. We can't have that now can we.

After you answer my questions above, tell me one thing that this group has ever done for Meredith or her family? Anything at all. You goof balls couldn't even do some silly artwork to promote John Kercher's book.

Finally, how in the hell can you support Ergon's quackery? I am baffled by that. Why do you think people like Stint7 left? They can't stand that garbage. You lost everyone. You have 4 people that post multiple posts in a week. Its over hang it up. You lost.



Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: For ignoring the Tuesday Rule and blatant trolling. Thanks for stopping by.
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 May 25, 2012 9:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
Michael wrote:
Maggie wrote:
Your idea was wonderful. Its unfortunate that the gallery is giving you trouble. Your hard work keeping the forum up and running has had no bearing on anyone else here working on a promotional page. The gallery is nice to have but every photo in the world that involves this case is available on Google. It looks like you were let down on this one Michael.


It has a great deal of bearing if the images that will illustrate the Book Review page are all hotlinked from the gallery and so means it depends on it. It has even more bearing still, if the corrupted modules I've been battling spread and corrupt the Book Review Page (as well as numerous other parts of the Admin Control Panel and User Control Panel).


There are countless free websites that you can upload photos to and create hotlinks that can be used anywhere online. People here should apologize for dropping the ball on the project. Everyone needs to step up and help you out. Sounds like this board is in dire straits. I hope you can save it. I must go too bed. Too much wine and too tired. Time is approaching 1. Much too late for me. Your efforts are admirable Michael. Nite.



If the illustrations are part of a major PMF project, then they must be housed HERE, not on some third party hosting site. In the first year or two of PMF, all our images used to be housed on a third party hosting site. That site then went permanently offline and all the images were lost . Never 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 Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 9:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
It sure is telling. I haven't ever been able to find out too much about the workings at the bar. Maybe you know, or have read. I know that business was at times, slow. Did Patrick have another waitress to pick up the slack when Knox was placed outside? Patrick wanted Meredith to come in when he had a female DJ to make drinks on occasion, so it doesn't sound like he was offering her a full-time position. Did he have a person before Knox who handed out flyers, or was he simply trying to adjust to the times and create different spaces for the people he had in his employ?
I'd find it interesting to know these things, because, if it were apparent to Knox that she was being sidelined and a newly developed opportunity was being offered to Meredith, it sure would be humiliating.


Hi Napia,

From what I understand the bar Le Chic was a starting business. I've never read about any other employees and because business was often slow, I have to assume Amanda might have been the only employee working there.

There is a bit of information in Darkness Descending:

Quote:
Darkness Descending by Paul Russel, Graham Johnson and Luciano Garofano

Page 151 - 152

After a month of partying, Amanda's funds were running low. As for many students from similar backgrounds, money was a constant worry. She wasn't exactly broke, though, and her rent of 300 euros wasn't a critical problem just yet. She had worked two jobs back in Seattle and saved prudently to fund her year abroad. She had the generous punters of the World Cup bar, in the port area of Seattle, to thank for much of her study-abroad fund - she had made good tips, grafting and flirting hard in equal measure. She had also worked in a second-rate art gallery to pay her fees. Now, once again, she needed a top-up and some pocket money. So she trawled the bars looking for work.

She inquired at the Bear's Lair pub, run by an attractive English woman called Lucy Rigby, a 33-year-old from Shrewsbury, and her 36-year-old Argentine husband, Esteban Pascual. They had just hired someone but directed Amanda to a new bar down by the law courts called Le Chic, which their friend Patrick Lumumba had just opened. Amanda combined her first visit with an opportunity for a drink, dragging Meredith along. Ironically, Patrick was more impressed by the English girl and would have hired her without hesitation if she had been looking. Meredith pointed out the special make of Polish vodka Patrick kept behind the bar.

'I used it myself instead of rum when I was a barmaid making mojitos back in Britain,' Meredith told him. Patrick was surprised she was English as her skin was so dark.

'As she and Amanda headed off to chat with the rest of their group of girlfriends,' Patrick recalled, 'I thought how close-knit they all seemed. It was a Latin and reggae night, and they danced happily, attracting the attention of all the guys around them.' After getting his attention, Amanda asked for a job. The next day Patrick hired Amanda to collect glasses for two shifts a week from 20:00 to 03:00.

[...]

Page 155 - 157

Amanda stumbled into work tired.

Patrick Lumumba began to get bored of Amanda's 'people friendly' approach to work.

'She spent more time chatting than serving. I'd tell her I needed her to serve more drinks but she was looking for the tips. We had different mentalities,' Patrick would say later, feeling more confident speaking in French than in English or Italian.

'Every time I looked round she was flirting with a different guy. You know it's hard sometimes to impose discipline. It's not my style anyway. But she wasn't doing her job.' Patrick told how the men would become rowdy when he asked Amanda to go back to work. He was told to mind his own business.

Patrick points to his wife and four-year-old child. 'I'm a faithful man, you know. My wife trusts me, but with Amanda it was different. She felt threatened.' As his faith in Amanda slipped, Lumumba wished that he'd given Meredith the job.

'Meredith, yes, I liked her. We joked about the Polish vodka chewed by bisons. She could make a cocktail with it.' Lumumba points at a shelf of drinks against the wall. 'It's that one, the Zubrowka. Amanda was jealous of little things like that. Meredith had a sparkly personality.'

His partner Aleksandra thought that Amanda was cold and seemed like a girl determined to get her way. She was in left in no doubt that if Amanda put her claws into Patrick, she wouldn't think twice about pushing her aside.

Patrick Lumumba was not a cruel man. He didn't want to hurt Amanda's feelings by sacking her. As a natural diplomat he was also weary of the negative vibe that could be created amongst his fickle student clientele if he treated Amanda harshly. He decided to put up with her. Even though she'd ask to leave early all the time and got into work late so she could call her American boyfriend. 'They were very much in love or so it looked. He sent her presents and she lit up when she mentioned him.'

Amanda wound Patrick up again by further mixing business with pleasure. She invited Sollecito to drink rum and pear juice while she waited tables. Patrick couldn't believe she was two-timing her American boyfriend. 'But she flirted all the time, she was on the lookout for men all the time. Even when she was going out with Sollecito, that didn't stop her.'

Meredith and Amanda's relationship had grown cooler but one night at a party he threw in the club for his employees, Meredith popped in and made everyone two rounds of her special mojitos.

'She was sparkly and cheery and lifted everyone's spirits. I bumped into her again in town soon after. I asked her if she wanted to have a spell behind the bar when I next had a female DJ playing, as a kind of ladies' night. She jumped at the chance, although she'd stopped coming into Le Chic, and I heard she wasn't hanging out with Amanda much either. I wasn't surprised. The two couldn't have been more different.'

Amanda, meanwhile, was becoming increasingly erratic. 'She smoked, she drank, she flirted, everything a young woman should do. But she wasn't stable, she would fly into a rage and then apologize. She didn't get a lot of sleep. A bit over the top really. I told her I'd asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, "Fine", and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory.'

The situation got worse. One night Patrick spotted Amanda in the middle of his crammed dancefloor. Instead of trying to serve the growing queue for rum cocktails, she was whispering sweet nothings to her latest male partner, her chest pressed against his, their mouths just millimeters apart, seemingly unaware of the chaos ensuing around her. 'I never actually fired her, although I came very close. There was no reason for her doing this to me. I just want to know why, what is it she was hiding. She knows what happened because you simply don't lie if you don't know what's true.'

[...]

Page 163 - 164

The tension was building up at work. Amanda was sick of Lumumba glowering at her and mumbling under his breath when she didn't move fast enough. Though she didn't care that much, she could do without the office politics. When she arrived at Le Chic later that night she collected a few glasses to show willing, but when the club filled up, she conveniently lost herself in the crowd and began chatting to boys as usual.

At midnight Patrick did his usual rounds, taking in all three floors of the heaving bar. When he found dirty tables overflowing with empties and ashtrays in every room, his patience finally ran out. He told Amanda she could no longer work in the bar. He was firm but fair. Though he was angry, his nature prevented him from showing it. He was also conscious of Amanda's social power - she was popular and had a certain sway amongst the in-crowd that paid his wages. Patrick tried to soften the blow by telling Amanda that she could carry on handing out club flyers, if she was stuck for money, to tide her over until she found something better. Amanda simply looked at him blankly and walked away.


It seems to me that Amanda was treated with kindness and fairly, but she was highly irresponsible for her age and also arrogant.

If this account is true, than I have no doubt that losing her job to Meredith was the final straw for her. She had already lost Giacomo to Meredith despite Amanda boasting that she had him in her pocket. Now an employer who also happened to prefer Meredith over her. Ouch.

Interestingly, Darkness Descending also states that Rudy Guede was into Amanda only until he saw Meredith Kercher for the first time. Again: ouch.
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 May 25, 2012 10:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Now the troll has been banned, I will respond to the few actual points he bothered to raise:

Jim wrote:
Please do me a favor and prove mixed blood. There were no samples taken in the bathroom that were mixed blood. There is absolutely no proof of mixed blood anywhere in the cottage. that is a fact, but go ahead try to prove it.


Since we know Knox (thanks to her own testimony) bled in the cottage on the night of the murder, and unless she was capeable of targetted bleeding (ie, bleeding on the tap and only on the tap), then it is inceivable that her blood was not mixed with Meredith's. Knox's DNA found in Meredith's blood serves as confirmation. Were none of Knox's blood found in the cottage and were it not dated to the night of the murder, THEN might have a point.

Jim wrote:
You will notice small droplets. and shoe prints on tile. Guede's prints were not seen by the postal police going down the hall. Why? Because they weren't looking for blood! They walked right over the prints and saw nothing. Why is it so shocking that no one noticed the small droplet on the tap?


The footprints were faint. The blood in the bathroom was not. EVERYONE noticed the blood in the bathroom.


Jim wrote:
Was the bathroom sterilized and secured from use before the murder? Is it not possible that Amanda used the bathroom after it was cleaned? How well was the bathroom cleaned? You take non incriminating evidence and take giant leaps to reach your conclusions.


Of course Knox used the bathroom after it was cleaned. That was done deliberately in order to contaminate the crime scene. Filomena's comment was one of disbelief (who also saw the blood in the bathroom) - "how could she use that bathroom with all that blood in there?".


Jim wrote:
Amanda explained where the blood came from. The blood was not left on the tap on the night of the murder because Amanda was not there (Go ahead, pull a Machine tactic, tell me that she confessed she was there. Its so effective when you all do that). She was examined at the police station. She was completely fine.


Amanda DIDN'T explain where the blood had come from! She first of all said she thought it may have come from her ear, but she then found the blood was dry and ruled out that possibility. After she herself ruled that out as a possibility, she made no further suggestions as to how her blood may have innocently arrived on the tap. Worse, she dated its arriving there to the evening of the murder.

Jim wrote:
Can you explain how the postal police, missed all of that blood evidence when they refused to kick in Meredith's door? They were right by the bathroom. Its a small cottage, they saw everything. Nothing alarmed them at all. What about the others that were in the cottage before the murder was discovered? Why didn't they see the blood evidence? After you think about that for a while, tell me why it is such a shock that Amanda took a shower?


They didn't miss it, they'd been shown it by Knox and Sollecito. It wasn't enough to make them think there'd been a murder and that was the WHOLE POINT of the partial clean-up and staging. They were not residents of the cottage, they were not to be expected to know what was entirely out of the norm. A resident like Amanda however, should have known. And let's remember, Knox and Sollecito didn't even tell the Postal Police about the locked door, let alone ask them to kick it down!

Jim wrote:
Amanda explained where the blood came from. The blood was not left on the tap on the night of the murder because Amanda was not there (Go ahead, pull a Machine tactic, tell me that she confessed she was there. Its so effective when you all do that). She was examined at the police station. She was completely fine.


'Fine' is a concept. A bash on the nose resulting in a nosebleed or a ripped out earing resulting in a bleeding ear wouldn't have been found in the police examination. We also know, from the sworn testimony of multiple witnesses, Knox had an abrasive injury to her throat indicating her involvement in some form of violence.

Jim wrote:
What about the cracked door? Yeah, it was cracked. Raffaele explained that.


Yet strangely, neither Raffaele nor Amanda explained it to the Postal Police when they arrived, nor to Filomena and her friends. In fact, their whole reason for cracking the door seemed to have suddenly vanished as they desperately tried to convince everyone that it was perfectly normal for Meredith to lock her door. Therefore, it's hardly explained, is it?

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

Please do me a favor and prove mixed blood. There were no samples taken in the bathroom that were mixed blood. There is absolutely no proof of mixed blood anywhere in the cottage. that is a fact, but go ahead try to prove it.

--- snap ---

Forensic experts for the prosecution testified that Amanda Knox's and Meredith's blood had mingled. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the scientific police, confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings. DNA expert Luciano Garofano also stated that Knox's blood was mixed with Meredith's blood and that there was copious blood loss by Knox.

Dr. Luciano Garofano in Darkness Descending:

Quote:
Darkness Descending by Paul Russel, Graham Johnson and Luciano Garofano

Page 371

However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA. In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda's DNA than Meredith's. Amanda has been bleeding. Nor is it old blood, as the defence might say, because blood decays fast. We have the same result on the cotton-bud box. The light switch was over-scrubbed, but from the film the way the way the cotton-bud box was handled was definitely good enough. There too we have mixed blood. So that's pretty significant for Amanda. Unfortunately for her, she bled at the same time Meredith was bleeding. That's a lot to explain.

Page 372

Look at the electropherograms, there's a lot of Amanda's DNA there, and of course there's a blob of Amanda's blood on the tap.

So we have those three key pieces of DNA evidence against Amanda Knox: the tap with her blood on it; the basin with her and Meredith's blood mixed, and the cotton-bud box with her and Meredith's blood on them.




Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

You wrote: "It couldn't have been before the murder, because the bathroom was clean"

What the hell does that even mean? Its logic like this that makes me laugh out loud. Have you seen the photo of the tap? There is a small droplet of blood diluted in water. Its not glaring at all. Look at it from the standpoint that you do not know a murder took place. Of course when you look at evidence knowing someone was murdered, it changes your perspective. You will notice small droplets. and shoe prints on tile. Guede's prints were not seen by the postal police going down the hall. Why? Because they weren't looking for blood! They walked right over the prints and saw nothing. Why is it so shocking that no one noticed the small droplet on the tap?

--- snap ---

What's your point? Amanda Knox did notice the blood on the tap. She wrote about it in her email. The only problem is that she didn't know it was hers, otherwise she would have cleaned it together with her bloody footprints.

Quote:
Darkness Descending by Paul Russel, Graham Johnson and Luciano Garofano

Page 372

Amanda's own bloodstain on the tap is recent. It is dry, but has not been touched or cleaned. There is no fingerprint in it.



Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

Was the bathroom sterilized and secured from use before the murder? Is it not possible that Amanda used the bathroom after it was cleaned? How well was the bathroom cleaned? You take non incriminating evidence and take giant leaps to reach your conclusions.

--- snap ---

So are you saying Amanda bled after the murder on Meredith's blood without knowing she was bleeding. Your theories are very bizarre.


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

Amanda explained where the blood came from. The blood was not left on the tap on the night of the murder because Amanda was not there (Go ahead, pull a Machine tactic, tell me that she confessed she was there. Its so effective when you all do that). She was examined at the police station. She was completely fine.

--- snap ---

Amanda Knox never gave an explanation for her blood in the bathroom. To the contrary, she touched it and wondered where it came from. She didn't know it was hers.


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

Can you explain how the postal police, missed all of that blood evidence when they refused to kick in Meredith's door? They were right by the bathroom. Its a small cottage, they saw everything. Nothing alarmed them at all. What about the others that were in the cottage before the murder was discovered? Why didn't they see the blood evidence? After you think about that for a while, tell me why it is such a shock that Amanda took a shower?

--- snap ---

Did Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito show police Meredith's locked door and the bathroom or did they try to draw their attention to Filomena's room with the broken window, speculating a burglar must have entered the house in their absence? The postal police didn't know Meredith Kercher was "missing", because Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito failed to mention it. How can you omit the fact that you are worried about your "missing" roommate if you have tried to break down her door only a few minutes before?


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

What about the cracked door? Yeah, it was cracked. Raffaele explained that.

--- snap ---

Yeah, he admitted to his attempt to break it down before the postal police arrived because he was worried about Meredith. While Amanda was running around the house to check if she could peek in from the terrace or something. Just too bad that their worries seem to have disappeared once the postal police arrived. Amanda Knox declared in front of a group of people that Meredith locked her door even when she went to the bathroom. She doesn't express once concern for Meredith Kercher while the postal police is inside the house.


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

What about her panic? Why don't you "expand?"

--- snap ---

You sound like Knox: 'No, you smell!'


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

After a few sleepless nights, Amanda had a few issues with spelling.

--- snap ---

Comedy Gold!


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

Its time to ban me because I know this case inside and out. I will shred you to pieces if you debate me on it.

--- snap ---

You are a drama queen, just like Knox.


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

Its sad but thankfully there are only a few of you left and no one pays any attention to you except me. Sorry I find you fun to watch.

--- snap ---

I'm glad. I have one question though: How many times do you think the Massei motivations report has been downloaded? More than 11800 times. How many times has Amanda Knox's appeal document been downloaded? 21 times and I downloaded it three times.


Jim wrote:
--- snip ---

You lost.

--- snap ---

You wish. The reason you come back here to bother us is because it upsets you that despite the acquittal she is not considered innocent by most. Her acquittal has to be tolerated and accepted as a miscarriage of justice unless it is overturned by the Supreme Court. She's no heroine. She got lucky and everybody knows it, even you.

I am not bothered by your drivel at all. You have given me the opportunity to explain part of the evidence that incriminates her.

th-)


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

Offline FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well done team.

They have 30 pages of posts mocking PMF. It's an outrage!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello to all...May I say, I haven't been here lately, but that's only due to not feeling up to par.

I will be here to the end, however.

Napia, I feel for you. No question, smoking is the hardest * drug * to give up. I myself am on Chantix. It doesn't work for everyone, but I do say it's worth a try. So far, it's working for me. ( At the mo, they're doing a HUGE ad campaign against smoking, here in California. It's very. very scary.

I am going to answer Fransisco...I'm rather annoyed at you, Fransisco, calling Michael the King of Sophistery. That's the last thing he is. Michael does NOT need me, or anyone else, to * stick* up for him. He is recognized for being the go to person for facts, and well seasoned debate. The Machine, who has his own style, is also very conversant for the facts.

I should be feeling a bit better by Saturday, and will go into my answers on Saturday..as I see you've been given leeway as to the Tuesday rule.

I will say this. The money is a 900 lb elephant in the room. It defies normal explanation. In fact, it has red flags all over it. Charlie Wilkes, in fact, squiggles like crazy, and had finally admitted that he spoke to Mellas about it, and Chris * can't remember* and says he doesn't know of any money sent to Knox..who, btw, worked a number of jobs, in order to fund her stay in Europe. Knox needed to work, actively sought work, was furious when demoted. She had gone through almost half her savings, in less than 6 weeks. And, she intended staying in Europe for a year.

Why woud she steal Meredith'smoney? Payback? Spiteful? Necessity? Anger? All apply here. Even if you believe n innocence, Fransisco, Knox is a callous, unfeeling, jealous individual. Does that make her a Killer? No. It makes for a disturbed individual. That's all.

However, take the lies, the mixed DNA, the STAGED break in, well, that's a whole different ball of wax.

Why do YOU think, the Police were so suspicious of Knox? At that point, they didn't know her, just questioned her, trying to get the thruth. And, what did they get? They got Raffaele, saying Knox told him a **** of s**t. That he didn't trust her, etc. And then? Why, Knox immediately blames Patrick. Not just blames him..but, to press home his guilt adds* HE'S BAD, HE DID IT, I'M SCARED OF HIM.

Fransisco, cops LOVE to let witnesses, possible suspects talk, and talk and talk. Has Knox gotten away with it? Possibly. But, in the minds of people who can put together a picture, and all the inconsistencies, she's guilty.

It's not one thing. It's the myriad of lies, the evidence, and yes, the character of the people involved. Because, when a person has shown no empathy, ( Knox) motive ( jealousy) drugs( Knox) and escalating destructive behaviour..well.

And, who else..Fransisco? Knifing, strangulation is a very PERSONAL way of killing someone. There is no question more than one person is involved. Guede did not cover up his involvement. But, there was a cover up. The * Bath mat boogie* is indicitive of so much.

If nothing else, I ask you to listen again to the tape of Knox..listen to the voice syntax. Listen to the cadence. A she tries to explain. Perhaps someone will link the tape to Fransisco. The one where Knox's voice trembles, becomes strong, and is so obviously , well, it defies innocence. It sends chills. I refuse to accept that you are unintelligent. Because, you do not seem to be one of the love lorn swain. Listen with a dispassionate ear.

The fact that you can feel empathy, and wish me well, gives me hope, that you can see the obvious. There have been cases, where I have believed someone innocent. Perhaps wanted to. A terrible childhood. etc.

The sad truth here, though, is this. Had Knox been overweight, bespectacled, mousy, OLDER, there would NOT be this overwrought outpouring of hysteria. Is this the consequence of * Hollywood*? In a word, yes.

People just DO NOT want to believe, that an attractive, * girl next door * type, is capable of such a heinous crime. After all, who can one trust then? Why, it could be any girlfriend or boyfriend, or friend of our children. That's beyond frightening.

Wishing you well, Napia. Hurry back, Zorba. And, Fransisco. Don't even try to put down Michael. He is respected, whether you like it or not, as being one of the most informed on this case. To argue otherwise, puts you in the minority of basically one.

Both sides agree on this. In fact, JREF went down the moment Michael was banned. There were other posters , who added zing and zest. Tree horn was amazing, as well. As was Fiona. and a few others.

On the innocenti side, well. they had Justinian. ( LOL)..RWVB BOWL, or something. He did take time out to post, when not busy with animal porn..Ya know?

I DO NOT liken you to that lot, and look forward to answering any questions, ( possibilities? ) you may have. But, I tll you now, the stolen money is very important.

Cheers.

More about the money later. For me, it was pivotal.

_________________
"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: Fri May 25, 2012 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Great post cape. Good to hear from you again. The money is an elephant in the room, no doubt. The silence from the Melloxes about the cash deposit is deafening. It wasn't any trouble for them to forward Charlie Wilkes Amanda Knox's bank statements when it suited them to muzzle down the rumours Amanda Knox needed urgently money for her stay in Italy, but then they fell silent when the cash deposit raised some eyebrows. It remains an interesting topic.

I am surprised how quick Amanda Knox went through her funds. What else other than alcohol and drugs is so costly that it will eat half of your funds away in just a couple of weeks?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

WELL!!!!!!! THANK YOU, MAGGIE ( Thatcher? and JIMBO.)

I needed a laugh, and you both gave it.

What a sorry pair. Ineffectual about covers it. Umm, Knox can do with out you lot. Is it any wonder the groupies haven't been * thanked?) More harm Than GOOD.

Disappear. Your bleatings have worn thin. NOBODY cares. Not the groupies, not us. Nor KNOX. You have NO points to make, you make no sense. John Kercher wrote a beautiful memorial to his daughter, THE VICTIM. Anything you mention, is a testimony to your ugliness. Be ashamed. If it was YOUR daughter, your sister, your mother, your sister, they want would want you to STFU. Because, you're DAMAGED GOODS.

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

Offline FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

How was Guede funding himself in the 6 months before the murder?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Well done team.

They have 30 pages of posts mocking PMF. It's an outrage!


Only 30? It's quiet over there, isn't it?
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 May 25, 2012 11:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony -

Before you even get started, you are aware of the Tuesday FOAKer Rule we have here?

_________________
"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 FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Great post cape. Good to hear from you again. The money is an elephant in the room, no doubt. The silence from the Melloxes about the cash deposit is deafening. It wasn't any trouble for them to forward Charlie Wilkes Amanda Knox's bank statements when it suited them to muzzle down the rumours Amanda Knox needed urgently money for her stay in Italy, but then they fell silent when the cash deposit raised some eyebrows. It's remains an interesting topic.

I am surprised how quick Amanda Knox went through her funds. What else other than alcohol and drugs is so costly that it will eat half of your funds away in just a couple of weeks?


Good post Nell.

How do we know Knox burnt through her cash? The drugs and alcohol is probable but do we have any witnesses who saw Knox blowing money on drugs and alcohol? Did Laura or Filomena or anyone testify about that? Do we have her bank statement showing half her funds depleated in just a couple weeks?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
FatTony -

Before you even get started, you are aware of the Tuesday FOAKer Rule we have here?


Hi Michael

Lovely website. I'm not a FOAKer though.
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 May 25, 2012 11:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

In regard to Guede's income. It should be pointed out, that until very recently before the murder, Rudy had been working and earning an income, so he had whatever he'd put aside from that. Italy also has an amazing thing called the 'Welfare State', whereby the unemployed are paid benefits, both for living expenses and for housing. Rudy also had a lot of friends in Perugia who helped him out along with a wealthy foster family.

Believe it or not, in Italy, the unemployed don't have to turn to a life of crime in order to get by.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Michael wrote:
FatTony -

Before you even get started, you are aware of the Tuesday FOAKer Rule we have here?


Hi Michael

Lovely website. I'm not a FOAKer though.



Thank you. It's the membership that make it what it is. You understand, should you declare yourself to not be a FOAKer and then are found to be one, that is an instaban? It's to do with our rather picky rules about members being here to engage in good faith and all that. Just so you know.

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
How was Guede funding himself in the 6 months before the murder?


We know with absolute certainty that he couldn't rely on donations like Curt Knox who was fired from Macy's and struggled for many many months finding an employment.

Rudy Guede has been working to make a living and for the time he was unemployed he could rely on something called a social safety net.
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 May 25, 2012 11:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Nell wrote:
Great post cape. Good to hear from you again. The money is an elephant in the room, no doubt. The silence from the Melloxes about the cash deposit is deafening. It wasn't any trouble for them to forward Charlie Wilkes Amanda Knox's bank statements when it suited them to muzzle down the rumours Amanda Knox needed urgently money for her stay in Italy, but then they fell silent when the cash deposit raised some eyebrows. It's remains an interesting topic.

I am surprised how quick Amanda Knox went through her funds. What else other than alcohol and drugs is so costly that it will eat half of your funds away in just a couple of weeks?


Good post Nell.

How do we know Knox burnt through her cash? The drugs and alcohol is probable but do we have any witnesses who saw Knox blowing money on drugs and alcohol? Did Laura or Filomena or anyone testify about that? Do we have her bank statement showing half her funds depleated in just a couple weeks?


One only need look and see what she started with, what she ended with and how long it was meant to last her along with the exchange rate. It's basic maths.

Knox herself has admitted to drug taking.

_________________
"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 FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
FatTony wrote:
Michael wrote:
FatTony -

Before you even get started, you are aware of the Tuesday FOAKer Rule we have here?


Hi Michael

Lovely website. I'm not a FOAKer though.



Thank you. It's the membership that make it what it is. You understand, should you declare yourself to not be a FOAKer and then are found to be one, that is an instaban? It's to do with our rather picky rules about members being here to engage in good faith and all that. Just so you know.


Ok.

So he had been working and had some savings and was on welfare. That makes sense.
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 May 25, 2012 11:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Cape wrote:
Hello to all...May I say, I haven't been here lately, but that's only due to not feeling up to par.

I will be here to the end, however.


Great to see you, Cape....I hope you are on the mend!!! :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Ok.

So he had been working and had some savings and was on welfare. That makes sense.


As well as a circle of friends and family who helped him out.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Uffa.........A username like * Fat Tony*...Like * Joey Wagons* "

You wanna talka Italian a me? Please.

Stint. I love ya. I miss you.

FAT TONY. Hmm. Lose some weight. Maybe then you can get A REAL WOMAN. Don't you get it? Knox likes wimpy, THIN guys. That she can manipulate.

AND, wannabe Italian guy usernames don't cut it. They're a dime a dozen. FFS.

Zit's not about thaat you're FAT.It's about that you're STUPID. Juice, man. Juice. You'll live longer, and that the REAL Italians won't be embarrassed about you.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
How was Guede funding himself in the 6 months before the murder?


In the 6 months before? He was working for a living.

Rudy started off as a student at college, but left as he didn't like the course. He then worked as a carer to a 100 year old lady for a year. After that, he worked as a barman in a strip club for some months. He quit that job and worked as a gardener until September 2007.

_________________
"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: Fri May 25, 2012 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Nell wrote:
Great post cape. Good to hear from you again. The money is an elephant in the room, no doubt. The silence from the Melloxes about the cash deposit is deafening. It wasn't any trouble for them to forward Charlie Wilkes Amanda Knox's bank statements when it suited them to muzzle down the rumours Amanda Knox needed urgently money for her stay in Italy, but then they fell silent when the cash deposit raised some eyebrows. It's remains an interesting topic.

I am surprised how quick Amanda Knox went through her funds. What else other than alcohol and drugs is so costly that it will eat half of your funds away in just a couple of weeks?


Good post Nell.

How do we know Knox burnt through her cash? The drugs and alcohol is probable but do we have any witnesses who saw Knox blowing money on drugs and alcohol? Did Laura or Filomena or anyone testify about that? Do we have her bank statement showing half her funds depleated in just a couple weeks?


It has been reported.

Charlie Wilkes who had been given access to her bank statements stated that on the 5th November of 2007 she had not even 4,500$ left. That would have been a bit more than 3,000 euros. In Italy, you will need at least 300-400 euros a month for food and other items, but it will require a lot of self discipline that I don't think Amanda Knox had. She didn't seem to be prudent at all in her spending. She wasted more than 60$ alone on a piece of underwear. Her spending doesn't resemble that of a person who's on a tight budget. She had money left for approximately 4 months and this is a kind interpretation of her financial situation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

This is very interesting. If he's not a thief and didn't take the cash, why is his DNA found on her handbag?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
FatTony wrote:
Nell wrote:
Great post cape. Good to hear from you again. The money is an elephant in the room, no doubt. The silence from the Melloxes about the cash deposit is deafening. It wasn't any trouble for them to forward Charlie Wilkes Amanda Knox's bank statements when it suited them to muzzle down the rumours Amanda Knox needed urgently money for her stay in Italy, but then they fell silent when the cash deposit raised some eyebrows. It's remains an interesting topic.

I am surprised how quick Amanda Knox went through her funds. What else other than alcohol and drugs is so costly that it will eat half of your funds away in just a couple of weeks?


Good post Nell.

How do we know Knox burnt through her cash? The drugs and alcohol is probable but do we have any witnesses who saw Knox blowing money on drugs and alcohol? Did Laura or Filomena or anyone testify about that? Do we have her bank statement showing half her funds depleated in just a couple weeks?


It has been reported.

Charlie Wilkes who had been given access to her bank statements stated that on the 5th November of 2007 she had not even 4,500$ left. That would have been a bit more than 3,000 euros. In Italy, you will need at least 300-400 euros a month for food and other items, but it will require a lot of self discipline that I don't think Amanda Knox had. She didn't seem to be prudent at all in her spending. She wasted more than 60$ alone on a piece of underwear. Her spending doesn't resemble that of a person who's on a tight budget. She had money left for approximately 4 months and this is a kind interpretation of her financial situation.


Why did she buy underwear after the murder?
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 May 25, 2012 12:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
This is very interesting. If he's not a thief and didn't take the cash, why is his DNA found on her handbag?


Because he picked it up to move it. The positioning of his fingerprints on it show however, he didn't open it. That is why he was acquitted in his trial of theft.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Why did she buy underwear after the murder?


To have "hot sex" with Sollecito, apparently.

_________________
"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 FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
FatTony wrote:
Why did she buy underwear after the murder?


To have "hot sex" with Sollecito, apparently.


So the underwear was needed in order to have sex?
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 May 25, 2012 12:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony -

It is normal practice that new posters post something by way of introduction. As opposed to just launching in unannounced. That would be considered polite.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Michael wrote:
FatTony wrote:
Why did she buy underwear after the murder?


To have "hot sex" with Sollecito, apparently.


So the underwear was needed in order to have sex?


Wanted.

_________________
"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 FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
FatTony -

It is normal practice that new posters post something by way of introduction. As opposed to just launching in unannounced. That would be considered polite.


Ok. No worries Michael. I'll have to save that for another visit. You've been very helpful. I learnt Rudy wasn't a thief and lived off savings, welfare, friends and family. I learnt Rudy moved the handbag but didn't steal the cash. I learnt that Knox had blown through her cash on drugs & alcohol and spent $60 buying underwear.

Bye Team. Have a great day
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thank you Michael. k-((

S'plain to me, now, the influx of idiots?

Hmm. Not completely well, at the mo. A few more weeks. However, I'm here for the long haul. I will. NOT have you denigrated. Why? Simple, really. 'm not an idiot. I have a long legal background. I knowthe truth when I see it, read it, understand it.

Trolls? It goes with the the Territory. As I understand it, pedophiles will add their voices to certain causes. And, in the same vein, people who have no empathy, who have had problems with the police, or, who are lonely, have had no real love interests, cling to some unreal love interests, love, have an unreal interest, expectation, of a dream.

Is it sad? Yes. In the same way, we have cases, of torture, murder, of a woman acting in concert with a boyfriend, husband, killing and torturing, obtaining sex slaves, to appease, keeping a love ineterst alive.

This need, is unbearably sad. it exists, in all of it's needs. The inablity of the groupies, the Foakers. to ackowledge their lack of normal relationships, and therefore their need to identify, acknowledge their need for an unknown murderess because she looks like an available sex object ( the stanger on the train) speaks volumes.

Any loving, NORMAL person MUST question, why blame an inn cent person? Why, lie? Why, dislike being clean? Why, sleep around with strangers? Why, claim a fondness with Nazis? Why, sing during a trial> Why, be so callous? Why, eat pizza during a Memorial?

Why..not Offer CONDOLENCES?

Add up all the instances of a COLD HEARTED BITCH? Knox hated Merdith, was jealous of her.

In the name of G-d, groupies. Ask yourselves. Would you REALLY want your son or daughter to have this kind of person in your loved one'sl lives?

If the answer is NO............Right. If yes..You're a stone's throw of being in jail yourselves.

Knox is a MURDERESS. Justice doesn't always get it right. Argue DNA, argue evidence. Argue EXCUSES. Go with debate. Go with * your gut*..........go with * she's a young gal, she's attractive*

Go with * Your reasoning is warped * Go with, everything that COPS ARE USED TO UNDERSTANDING, ARE USED TO HEARING, THEIR EXPERIENCE

Understamd, Knox lied, Knox is guilty, put aside excuses, and LOOK AT THE OVETWHELMING EVIDENCE, Te first verdict was correct.
Is it sad? Absolutely. Knox, an ordinary student, caught in an ugly storm, with an an abherrant partner, causing a nightmate for loving parents.

WHERE is the sympathy for the victims family? SHAME..........SHAME.........SHAME.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Ok. No worries Michael. I'll have to save that for another visit. You've been very helpful. I learnt Rudy wasn't a thief and lived off savings, welfare, friends and family. I learnt Rudy moved the handbag but didn't steal the cash. I learnt that Knox had blown through her cash on drugs & alcohol and spent $60 buying underwear.

Bye Team. Have a great day


Thanks for the drive-by. Don't forget Rudy living off of his wages. There seems to be some, who appear to have a desperate need to never acknowledge that Rudy Guede ever worked. The fact is, Guede ALWAYS worked and his being out of work the final month before the murder was the exception, not the rule.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Fat Tony. Here's some Dear Abby Advice. Lose some weight. Get to know a REAL woman. Be careful.

A Knox woman might get high, get angry with you, and you might get carried away in a body bag.. You sound just deperate enough to almost welcome that.

Uffa. What some virgins will do for some nookie. A praying mantis comes to mind. Please value yourself a little more.

Can't you do better? OK/ Maybe all you have to do is to invest in a pair of tangerine pants, and sling a guitar around you rneck.

Are you prepared to clean up a murder scene? I suppose, FAT TONY, it all depends just how desperate you are, to lose tpir virginty. Safer I think, to lose some weight, eat healthy, jog, and find someone who doesn't worship Nazis.

Just sayin/

_________________
"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 May 25, 2012 12:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Can we PLEASE hope to get some CLASSY Trolls? Some. with semblance of niceties?

Why do we get uncouth, stupid, blowhards?

It's so boring. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

_________________
"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: Fri May 25, 2012 1:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
This is very interesting. If he's not a thief and didn't take the cash, why is his DNA found on her handbag?


It is undisputed that he touched the bag, but Meredith kept her rent money in a drawer. Amanda Knox knew that and she knew Meredith had already withdrawn the rent money from her bank account. Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede did not know these details. Any of the three could have taken the money, but Amanda's deposit is suspicious and it is likely the stolen rent money. What a coincidence that Rudy Guede mentioned a row over money between Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher. It is possible that Amanda Knox stole the money even before the attack took place without the knowledge of Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito.

I have a question for you: Do you believe Rudy Guede stole Filomena's make up? Why would he steal make up? Why not her laptop? Why would he put Filomena's room upside down without taking anything except for her make up?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Why did she buy underwear after the murder?


Relevant is not that she bought underwear, but the price she paid for it. Being a student and on a tight budget with insufficient funds to survive for another 10 months in Italy, it surprises that she would even consider spending so much money on one piece of underwear. You can buy a multipack of underwear for a few euros in any supermarket chain. I am not against buying nice lingerie, but she couldn't afford it and the captured images from the video footage from the store show the pair flirting and high-spirited, almost celebrating.

All things considered, I would expect them to be exhausted and shocked after having a roommate (and "friend") murdered in her own home, next door to Amanda's. The knowledge of having taking a shower in a bathroom with blood that stemmed from life-threatening injuries of my friend who I shared a house with would make me sick for a very long time. I would be scared, because I would not know the motive for the crime and fear I might be the next target. Amanda's lack of concern and erratic behaviour directly after the murder is very alarming and was noticed by everyone.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Can we PLEASE hope to get some CLASSY Trolls? Some. with semblance of niceties?

Why do we get uncouth, stupid, blowhards?

It's so boring. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


Oh cape, classy trolls are difficult to get. Amanda Knox doesn't attract sophisticated individuals.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
--- snip ---

Jim is now being flippant - complete troll
should be banned

--- snap ---


I am not a fan of drastic measures, but of course, if Jim keeps disrupting the peace of the forum he will be warned and ultimately banned.

As I suspected, they have a slow day at IIP and are following what is written here blow-by-blow.


Nell, the reason there are trolls is because your latest analysis are great, just reading AK's own words is enough, otherwise just ask statement analysis.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zopi wrote:
Nell wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
--- snip ---

Jim is now being flippant - complete troll
should be banned

--- snap ---


I am not a fan of drastic measures, but of course, if Jim keeps disrupting the peace of the forum he will be warned and ultimately banned.

As I suspected, they have a slow day at IIP and are following what is written here blow-by-blow.


Nell, the reason there are trolls is because your latest analysis are great, just reading AK's own words is enough, otherwise just ask statement analysis.


I'm with you, Zopi, Nell nails it every time. And "It's In Their Own Words." That's the important thing. Nell presents the FACTS, the EVIDENCE. The STATMENTS. Foaker spin requires someone to attempt to interpret exactly what the little love-doves meant, or what could have possibly happened, or strawmen to explain and fritter away inconsistencies.
Not here. Not ever.
I personally would pick up my marbles and go home, if, just once, I had an AHA moment, where I considered the facts and said, "Well, aha, she couldn't have done it, because......".
There is no one fact, no group of facts, no evidence presented, no story told, no accurate accounting that puts them off the hook, or even into the realm of reasonable doubt.
Cape's big gorilla is the money. I agree it's important. My personal gorilla is the lie Sollecito told about the knife.
I have a suggestion for you trolls. Go to the "In Their Own Words" section. Read Sollecito's diary with regard to his panic about the knife.. His consoling conversation with his attorney and how he comforts himself when he comes up with the lie. Don't take my word for it. Take HIS, take Sollecito's. Go argue with him what he actually meant.
I sure ain't buying 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: Fri May 25, 2012 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
I have a question for you: Do you believe Rudy Guede stole Filomena's make up? Why would he steal make up? Why not her laptop? Why would he put Filomena's room upside down without taking anything except for her make up?


Perhaps Amanda wanted to cover up the scrape on her neck?
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 May 25, 2012 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

To correct "Fat Tony", there aren't '30 pages attacking PMF' on Amazon Co.Uk, but 30 pages written by just three posters attacking John Kercher's book.

They are truly pathetic.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Zopi wrote:
Nell wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
--- snip ---

Jim is now being flippant - complete troll
should be banned

--- snap ---


I am not a fan of drastic measures, but of course, if Jim keeps disrupting the peace of the forum he will be warned and ultimately banned.

As I suspected, they have a slow day at IIP and are following what is written here blow-by-blow.


Nell, the reason there are trolls is because your latest analysis are great, just reading AK's own words is enough, otherwise just ask statement analysis.


I'm with you, Zopi, Nell nails it every time. And "It's In Their Own Words." That's the important thing. Nell presents the FACTS, the EVIDENCE. The STATMENTS. Foaker spin requires someone to attempt to interpret exactly what the little love-doves meant, or what could have possibly happened, or strawmen to explain and fritter away inconsistencies.
Not here. Not ever.
I personally would pick up my marbles and go home, if, just once, I had an AHA moment, where I considered the facts and said, "Well, aha, she couldn't have done it, because......".
There is no one fact, no group of facts, no evidence presented, no story told, no accurate accounting that puts them off the hook, or even into the realm of reasonable doubt.
Cape's big gorilla is the money. I agree it's important. My personal gorilla is the lie Sollecito told about the knife.
I have a suggestion for you trolls. Go to the "In Their Own Words" section. Read Sollecito's diary with regard to his panic about the knife.. His consoling conversation with his attorney and how he comforts himself when he comes up with the lie. Don't take my word for it. Take HIS, take Sollecito's. Go argue with him what he actually meant.
I sure ain't buying it.

there are so many gorillas, like "i knew it wasnt mine because the stains on the mat were too big for just droplets from my ear, and when i touched the blood in the sink it was caked on already"... who would touch somebody's else blood?
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zopi wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Zopi wrote:
Nell wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
--- snip ---

Jim is now being flippant - complete troll
should be banned

--- snap ---


I am not a fan of drastic measures, but of course, if Jim keeps disrupting the peace of the forum he will be warned and ultimately banned.

As I suspected, they have a slow day at IIP and are following what is written here blow-by-blow.


Nell, the reason there are trolls is because your latest analysis are great, just reading AK's own words is enough, otherwise just ask statement analysis.


I'm with you, Zopi, Nell nails it every time. And "It's In Their Own Words." That's the important thing. Nell presents the FACTS, the EVIDENCE. The STATMENTS. Foaker spin requires someone to attempt to interpret exactly what the little love-doves meant, or what could have possibly happened, or strawmen to explain and fritter away inconsistencies.
Not here. Not ever.
I personally would pick up my marbles and go home, if, just once, I had an AHA moment, where I considered the facts and said, "Well, aha, she couldn't have done it, because......".
There is no one fact, no group of facts, no evidence presented, no story told, no accurate accounting that puts them off the hook, or even into the realm of reasonable doubt.
Cape's big gorilla is the money. I agree it's important. My personal gorilla is the lie Sollecito told about the knife.
I have a suggestion for you trolls. Go to the "In Their Own Words" section. Read Sollecito's diary with regard to his panic about the knife.. His consoling conversation with his attorney and how he comforts himself when he comes up with the lie. Don't take my word for it. Take HIS, take Sollecito's. Go argue with him what he actually meant.
I sure ain't buying it.

there are so many gorillas, like "i knew it wasnt mine because the stains on the mat were too big for just droplets from my ear, and when i touched the blood in the sink it was caked on already"... who would touch somebody's else blood?


....who would touch somebody else's blood? Perhaps somebody who had their hands in it the night before.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


I agree completely, Nell. Patrick was trying to build a business. He felt Meredith would be a draw, that's obvious.
Since she was a friend of Knox, and would probably be bringing in friends and new customers, and he was obviously displeased by Knox's behavior, the diplomatic thing to do was 'demote' her to flyers. While not actually firing her in the strictest sense, he was keeping the peace, in a way, by limiting her access to customers, still allowing her a position, but securing her out of the mainstream. Call it what you want, I think it's obvious he wanted her out of there.


Absolutely. Maybe he even hoped she would move on to another job. It is unpleasant to be demoted while someone else is getting "your" job. It seems almost as if Patrick Lumumba was too nice to fire her. He didn't have the heart to do it.

The way Patrick Lumumba described Meredith reminds me again that the only person who ever said something nasty about Meredith Kercher has been Amanda Knox. Telling, isn't it?


Well, it's not Tuesday and if you feel the need for banning me because I ask this question then go for it.. I suspect it would please Michael anyway.

Exactly what and when did Knox say something nasty about Meredith?


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Done! For REPEATEDLY refusing to abide by the Tuesday Rule.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
Well, it's not Tuesday and if you feel the need for banning me because I ask this question then go for it.. I suspect it would please Michael anyway.

Exactly what and when did Knox say something nasty about Meredith?

Knox killed Meredith. Knox was still saying snide things about Meredith in the trial. Knox was intensely jealous of Meredith.
Knox still maintains her aspect of a perfect persona - grade A student ... did you see her lengthy email???

It's also worth reading Knox's email then to see the offhand - unfeeling way she described Meredith (even post mortem)
she had absolutely no regard for Meredith - she was jealous and resentful of Meredith - Hatred, spite, drugs and alcohol
led to her killing Meredith.

the tone of that email? she's not distraught - she's more excited to relate her role (an adventure)

she and her family are whiter than white
and that 10 pound rock flew 12 feet & through a shuttered window in the dead of night


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri May 25, 2012 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:
I have a question for you: Do you believe Rudy Guede stole Filomena's make up? Why would he steal make up? Why not her laptop? Why would he put Filomena's room upside down without taking anything except for her make up?


Perhaps Amanda wanted to cover up the scrape on her neck?

that was a theory & very probable if you compare the scratch photographed the morning after and the scratch photographed by the police 1 week later -

a deep red gouge - vertical - next to her adams apple - not as chris mellas etc. said unashamedly "a hickey" (did her lawyers? - no.)

It was very noticeable - people noticed it. It was striking and it wasn't there the day before according to those people around Knox.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri May 25, 2012 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:12 pm   Post subject: ASTROLOGICAL CONTENT - and a warning too   

The last time we had a drive by like last night's we saw Bruce Fischer had egged on his troops to show up here 'while Michael's away'. How dumb is it, Brucie, to post that on a public thread?

Of course, after a PR fiasco like having pro Knox partisans spam Amazon reviews of John Kercher's Meredith (many of them not even having read the book) and attacking a murder victim's father then the first order of business is of course, to change the subject.

It helps, of course, that Brucie is so transparent. I actually feel sorry for one so inept he must telegraph his moves through his website IIP. He raises the issue of no one having made up a promotion page for the book then sure enough 'Maggie' shows up expressing sympathy and fake tears about that. To let you know, Maggie, I saw right through you, but was kinda amused, tell you the truth.

Fischer posts an attack on 'Ergon's Astrology' on his website, falsely representing what I said, then here comes another brand new member 'Jim' worrying about the integrity of this site for carrying my musings. Thanks, Jim, but we have many committed members here who are the judge of that, and not you.

That this happens after I suggest that genuine innocence projects might not want to associate with Fischer's brand of internet advocacy, given his ahem, behaviour egging on others to spam social media and make personal attacks instead of presenting arguments for innocence is I am sure, purely coincidental and not for having struck a nerve.

Regarding Astrology, it's Psycho-Astrology, I'm presenting here, thank you very much. Not daily horoscopes, not predictions, though there's nothing wrong with them either. But what I did do, was say that Astrology might be a useful adjunct to Psychology, that it has a very long history that many psychologists and medical doctors have found useful, to see the statistical correlations between certain planetary placements and mental illness, or criminal psychology, for example, and I am sharing their research with you, because it is relevant to the topic at hand. And if you want to debate about that, then do your homework, instead of arriving with talking points, and if you don't know, ask respectful questions instead of dogmatic assertions. I have no tolerance for fools.

I never said Astrology proves Knox and Sollecito's guilt. Only that it points to their involvement, make of it what you will. I never presented a formal diagnosis of their psychological makeup, just what the standard textbooks say about certain astrological placements, and I gave references too. I never said the planets at the time proved their involvement, just pointed to a period of escalating, drug fueled violence. We have the two lovebirds to thank for presenting so much actual proof of their criminal psychoses through their ACTIONS, and not, the musings of yours truly.

If anything, I think my article on Mental illness and Psychopathy offended the Knoxii so much more than anything astrological, because it showed, so clearly, a checklist of behaviours that mirrored the lovebird's psychopathic pathology.

There was so much more I could have said, but didn't, because I was on other forums at the time that er, suppress dissent. I actually wanted to warn people the Hellmann court would rule the way it did, but was actively discouraged from doing so. Yet they can't take away the fact that I published, a week before his appearance, that Rudy Guede would begin to redeem himself in court. And he did, when he finally placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime. And when I said there would be 'bombshells in court' that was pointing to the October 03 verdict, and it only was when Manuela Comodi spoke of an 'ill wind' that the Skeptics finally began to wake up.

Here, we actually have people who tolerate dissent, who do not back down from anonymous threats of legal action, do not ban or delete comments without giving reason, and even if we do not belong to the sites that made such claims, are appalled when named people are accused of child molestation, and say so, even when the person might be on 'our side'. it lowers the tone, but all that needs be done is remove the comment, and I am puzzled it has not been, when others' have. This does not take away from the good work otherwise of TJMK, PMF .ORG or .NET. So don't bother crowing.

Here, we will respect those who genuinely believe in Knox's innocence and come here honestly. No 'concerned citizens', please. All we ask is that you respect the Tuesday rule. Blatant trollism or sock puppetry, debate in bad faith, will earn an instant ban from me, and I'm letting the members know: please don't reply with a quote if it's that blatant, because I will be deleting their comments as well, and your replies might be lost. Reply separately, please.

Speaking of Psycho-Astrology, it is heartening to see many of the things I saw in their horoscopes now validated by subsequent findings, or surfacing again from past articles.. We know that Knox had been fired, and had a grudge against Meredith. We know that she pulled a prank at University which closely mirrored the attack on Meredith. We know that Knox may be bisexual, and this is not a moral judgement; I am only saying this as having shown up clearly in her horoscope, along with violent tendencies, rape fetishes, and alcohol and drug addiction. The same sources that confirmed the rape prank also confirmed her sexual voraciousness, which again is fine, but when the media started interviewing students who knew her and made honest statements about how they felt there was something wrong with her, the University of Washington clamped down on them and Gogerty Marriott told the media outlets that any such interviews would lead to them being denied access to the Knox family. Yep, indeed, and of far more importance than any astrological viewpoints.

If there is a reason I am still here, it has to do with the continuing unfolding of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's psychology. Yes, I HAVE written about both of them. There still is a lot unfolding. I always say the future is uncharted territory, but it is not fixed, it depends on our actions. But, certain environments can be so fixed that outcomes, sadly, become inevitable. We would like to think the Supreme Court will rule only on the merits of the appeal, but everyone knows that political considerations and corruption have influenced these decisions before, and may do so again. Why, then, shoot the astrological messenger?

I am NOT making a prediction. (Though I hope some of you did not invest in Facebook stock or bet on the wrong team at the Super Bowl; I got that right but only share that sort of stuff with family who are into that sort of thing :) The Supreme Court will make a ruling whenever it does, and the outcome will be whatever it will be.

I use the analogy of a surfer. They sit, balanced on the ocean swells, feeling the rhythmic movement of the planet beneath them. When they have been there long enough, they know the wave that is coming at them.

There is a wave coming at us. It will require magickal alchemical thinking to survive this, but the sheer joy of riding that wave, will always be there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: ASTROLOGICAL CONTENT - and a warning too   

Ergon wrote:
The last time we had a drive by like last night's we saw Bruce Fischer had egged on his troops to show up here 'while Michael's away'. How dumb is it, Brucie, to post that on a public thread?

Of course, after a PR fiasco like having pro Knox partisans spam Amazon reviews of John Kercher's Meredith (many of them not even having read the book) and attacking a murder victim's father then the first order of business is of course, to change the subject.

It helps, of course, that Brucie is so transparent. I actually feel sorry for one so inept he must telegraph his moves through his website IIP. He raises the issue of no one having made up a promotion page for the book then sure enough 'Maggie' shows up expressing sympathy and fake tears about that. To let you know, Maggie, I saw right through you, but was kinda amused, tell you the truth.

Fischer posts an attack on 'Ergon's Astrology' on his website, falsely representing what I said, then here comes another brand new member 'Jim' worrying about the integrity of this site for carrying my musings. Thanks, Jim, but we have many committed members here who are the judge of that, and not you.

That this happens after I suggest that genuine innocence projects might not want to associate with Fischer's brand of internet advocacy, given his ahem, behaviour egging on others to spam social media and make personal attacks instead of presenting arguments for innocence is I am sure, purely coincidental and not for having struck a nerve.

Regarding Astrology, it's Psycho-Astrology, I'm presenting here, thank you very much. Not daily horoscopes, not predictions, though there's nothing wrong with them either. But what I did do, was say that Astrology might be a useful adjunct to Psychology, that it has a very long history that many psychologists and medical doctors have found useful, to see the statistical correlations between certain planetary placements and mental illness, or criminal psychology, for example, and I am sharing their research with you, because it is relevant to the topic at hand. And if you want to debate about that, then do your homework, instead of arriving with talking points, and if you don't know, ask respectful questions instead of dogmatic assertions. I have no tolerance for fools.

I never said Astrology proves Knox and Sollecito's guilt. Only that it points to their involvement, make of it what you will. I never presented a formal diagnosis of their psychological makeup, just what the standard textbooks say about certain astrological placements, and I gave references too. I never said the planets at the time proved their involvement, just pointed to a period of escalating, drug fueled violence. We have the two lovebirds to thank for presenting so much actual proof of their criminal psychoses through their ACTIONS, and not, the musings of yours truly.

If anything, I think my article on Mental illness and Psychopathy offended the Knoxii so much more than anything astrological, because it showed, so clearly, a checklist of behaviours that mirrored the lovebird's psychopathic pathology.

There was so much more I could have said, but didn't, because I was on other forums at the time that er, suppress dissent. I actually wanted to warn people the Hellmann court would rule the way it did, but was actively discouraged from doing so. Yet they can't take away the fact that I published, a week before his appearance, that Rudy Guede would begin to redeem himself in court. And he did, when he finally placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime. And when I said there would be 'bombshells in court' that was pointing to the October 03 verdict, and it only was when Manuela Comodi spoke of an 'ill wind' that the Skeptics finally began to wake up.

Here, we actually have people who tolerate dissent, who do not back down from anonymous threats of legal action, do not ban or delete comments without giving reason, and even if we do not belong to the sites that made such claims, are appalled when named people are accused of child molestation, and say so, even when the person might be on 'our side'. it lowers the tone, but all that needs be done is remove the comment, and I am puzzled it has not been, when others' have. This does not take away from the good work otherwise of TJMK, PMF .ORG or .NET. So don't bother crowing.

Here, we will respect those who genuinely believe in Knox's innocence and come here honestly. No 'concerned citizens', please. All we ask is that you respect the Tuesday rule. Blatant trollism or sock puppetry, debate in bad faith, will earn an instant ban from me, and I'm letting the members know: please don't reply with a quote if it's that blatant, because I will be deleting their comments as well, and your replies might be lost. Reply separately, please.

Speaking of Psycho-Astrology, it is heartening to see many of the things I saw in their horoscopes now validated by subsequent findings, or surfacing again from past articles.. We know that Knox had been fired, and had a grudge against Meredith. We know that she pulled a prank at University which closely mirrored the attack on Meredith. We know that Knox may be bisexual, and this is not a moral judgement; I am only saying this as having shown up clearly in her horoscope, along with violent tendencies, rape fetishes, and alcohol and drug addiction. The same sources that confirmed the rape prank also confirmed her sexual voraciousness, which again is fine, but when the media started interviewing students who knew her and made honest statements about how they felt there was something wrong with her, the University of Washington clamped down on them and Gogerty Marriott told the media outlets that any such interviews would lead to them being denied access to the Knox family. Yep, indeed, and of far more importance than any astrological viewpoints.

If there is a reason I am still here, it has to do with the continuing unfolding of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's psychology. Yes, I HAVE written about both of them. There still is a lot unfolding. I always say the future is uncharted territory, but it is not fixed, it depends on our actions. But, certain environments can be so fixed that outcomes, sadly, become inevitable. We would like to think the Supreme Court will rule only on the merits of the appeal, but everyone knows that political considerations and corruption have influenced these decisions before, and may do so again. Why, then, shoot the astrological messenger?

I am NOT making a prediction. (Though I hope some of you did not invest in Facebook stock or bet on the wrong team at the Super Bowl; I got that right but only share that sort of stuff with family who are into that sort of thing :) The Supreme Court will make a ruling whenever it does, and the outcome will be whatever it will be.

I use the analogy of a surfer. They sit, balanced on the ocean swells, feeling the rhythmic movement of the planet beneath them. When they have been there long enough, they know the wave that is coming at them.

There is a wave coming at us. It will require magickal alchemical thinking to survive this, but the sheer joy of riding that wave, will always be there.



I think transparency is great. Whether you agree with him or not Bruce Fischer seems to be upfront and not secretive at all. I don't think that fits the title of "dumb" in any way.

Isnt it possible that people read what Fischer writes and then they decide to come here to post? Why do you assume that Fischer has anything to do with it? Your post says Fischer posts on a public forum, then others come here to post. Does Fischer suggest that others come here? Does he encourage others to come here? I have not seen anything of the sort from him?

I would imagine that you would not have to ban trolls if you let people sign up and speak freely here. It seems like your rules invite troll behavior. If you ban me, that would be 5 of your last 10 new members. That's not good Ergon. Please consider listening to differing opinions. My life changed when I released my anger. It works, I promise.

Michael mentioned that Amanda testified that she bled in the cottage on the night of the murder. Can you post up that testimony please? That's an interesting development to say the least.

As for the rest of your post, I can't follow it at all. Does Knox's horoscope really suggest that she is bisexual? Really?


picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: Breaking the Tuesday Rule. Second and final formal warning.
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 May 25, 2012 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
I think transparency is great. Whether you agree with him or not Bruce Fischer seems to be upfront and not secretive at all. I don't think that fits the title of "dumb" in any way.


Only, he isn't transparent, is he? Half of his discussion forum is closed off to the public, viewable only by the faithful. And he has never disclosed his connections to the FOA and Knox family (and nobody buys his claim that he has none).

Maggie wrote:
Isnt it possible that people read what Fischer writes and then they decide to come here to post? Why do you assume that Fischer has anything to do with it? Your post says Fischer posts on a public forum, then others come here to post. Does Fischer suggest that others come here? Does he encourage others to come here? I have not seen anything of the sort from him?


Fischer has a well documented track record of encouraging his members to flood sites he feels aren't toeing the party line. Indeed, he even has canned speeches on his site, specifically for his members to copy and paste into the comment sections of articles he's dispatched them to to spam/troll. And yes, he has sent them here before. Of course, individual Knox sympathisers have a degree of autonomy on where and when they strike....in that sense, it's structured rather like Al Quaida.

Maggie wrote:
I would imagine that you would not have to ban trolls if you let people sign up and speak freely here. It seems like your rules invite troll behavior. If you ban me, that would be 5 of your last 10 new members. That's not good Ergon. Please consider listening to differing opinions. My life changed when I released my anger. It works, I promise.


Tell me Maggie, are people who question Knox's innocence free to register and openly debate on Fischer's forums? As it stands, FOAKers are permitted to sign-up and post on PMF. All we ask, is that in doing so, they are honest about who and what they are, they obey the forum rules and restrict their posting to Tuesdays. There are very good reasons for these rules. We are the ONLY site that specialises in this case that allows both sides to join and debate...no other site can claim that. It may not be enough for you, but you will find no site that allows more or even as much, anywhere on the Web.


Maggie wrote:
Michael mentioned that Amanda testified that she bled in the cottage on the night of the murder. Can you post up that testimony please? That's an interesting development to say the least.


Neither Knox herself nor her defence have ever denied that it was her blood on the tap. Knox herself on the stand in her trial confirmed that the blood was not there the afternoon before the murder and was already dry by the morning after the murder. Therefore, she herself dated it to being deposited during the evening of the murder. You can find her testimony in the 'In Their Own Words' section.

And now, I will say the same to you as I said to FatTony. You came here under the claim you were not a Knox supporter. Should that be found to be false, that is an instaban offence.

_________________
"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 May 25, 2012 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

User Maggie has just earned her second warning, and two posts deleted. They added nothing to the discussion. If she posts again here before Tuesday, she will be banned.
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 May 25, 2012 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Sorry Ergon, I'd forgotten you'd restricted Maggie to Tuesday posting only.

That said, I do think there's value in leaving my response to Maggie's post and the contained quotes in place. There are some things it allowed me the opportunity to say that needed to be said.

_________________
"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 May 25, 2012 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Not at all, Michael. I look forward to debating with her on Tuesdays.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Maggie wrote:
I think transparency is great. Whether you agree with him or not Bruce Fischer seems to be upfront and not secretive at all. I don't think that fits the title of "dumb" in any way.


Only, he isn't transparent, is he? Half of his discussion forum is closed off to the public, viewable only by the faithful. And he has never disclosed his connections to the FOA and Knox family (and nobody buys his claim that he has none).

Maggie wrote:
Isnt it possible that people read what Fischer writes and then they decide to come here to post? Why do you assume that Fischer has anything to do with it? Your post says Fischer posts on a public forum, then others come here to post. Does Fischer suggest that others come here? Does he encourage others to come here? I have not seen anything of the sort from him?


Fischer has a well documented track record of encouraging his members to flood sites he feels aren't toeing the party line. Indeed, he even has canned speeches on his site, specifically for his members to copy and paste into the comment sections of articles he's dispatched them to to spam/troll. And yes, he has sent them here before. Of course, individual Knox sympathisers have a degree of autonomy on where and when they strike....in that sense, it's structured rather like Al Quaida.

Maggie wrote:
I would imagine that you would not have to ban trolls if you let people sign up and speak freely here. It seems like your rules invite troll behavior. If you ban me, that would be 5 of your last 10 new members. That's not good Ergon. Please consider listening to differing opinions. My life changed when I released my anger. It works, I promise.


Tell me Maggie, are people who question Knox's innocence free to register and openly debate on Fischer's forums? As it stands, FOAKers are permitted to sign-up and post on PMF. All we ask, is that in doing so, they are honest about who and what they are, they obey the forum rules and restrict their posting to Tuesdays. There are very good reasons for these rules. We are the ONLY site that specialises in this case that allows both sides to join and debate...no other site can claim that. It may not be enough for you, but you will find no site that allows more or even as much, anywhere on the Web.


Maggie wrote:
Michael mentioned that Amanda testified that she bled in the cottage on the night of the murder. Can you post up that testimony please? That's an interesting development to say the least.


Neither Knox herself nor her defence have ever denied that it was her blood on the tap. Knox herself on the stand in her trial confirmed that the blood was not there the afternoon before the murder and was already dry by the morning after the murder. Therefore, she herself dated it to being deposited during the evening of the murder. You can find her testimony in the 'In Their Own Words' section.

And now, I will say the same to you as I said to FatTony. You came here under the claim you were not a Knox supporter. Should that be found to be false, that is an instaban offence.



You wrote: "Tell me Maggie, are people who question Knox's innocence free to register and openly debate on Fischer's forums? As it stands, FOAKers are permitted to sign-up and post on PMF. All we ask, is that in doing so, they are honest about who and what they are, they obey the forum rules and restrict their posting to Tuesdays. There are very good reasons for these rules. We are the ONLY site that specialises in this case that allows both sides to join and debate...no other site can claim that. It may not be enough for you, but you will find no site that allows more or even as much, anywhere on the Web."

This is absolutely false. Anyone and everyone can register on the Injustice Anywhere Forum (Bruce Fischer's forum) and he doesn't have silly rules about Tuesdays or any other day. He is not a child and does not think any of his posters should be treated like children. There are rules about personal attacks and profanity of course but your opinions are welcome there. The site talks about many other cases. You might learn something.

The entire Injustice Anywhere Forum is viewable to anyone that registers not just the faithful. If you read Fischer's books you will see that he does nothing to hide his connection to the Knox family. I would have thought that you of all people would do the research. If you don't know the facts, just say so, no need to tell lies.

Everyone knows that it is Knox's blood on the tap. It is mixed with nothing and it is NOT dated. Just because Knox didn't notice it at an earlier time does not mean it wasn't there. You have a funny was of deciding when you chose to take Knox's testimony as credible. If something she says fits into your fantasy then you cherry pick that statement. Nice try. Knox never testified that she bled in the bathroom on the night of the murder. Stop being disingenuous. if you have the facts on your side then there is no reason to play games right?

Funny how you ask me questions at the same exact time that Ergon is ordering me not to post. Get together guys! Lets have some moderator organization here!

Okay, even tho you asked me questions that Ergon said I am not allowed to answer (does that make any sense at all?) go ahead, ban the 5th new member out of the last 10 that have joined here. This place is a joke. Its a sad way for you to end it all Micheal. Taking a backseat to a guy that talks to the stars!

Please Ergon, answer one question. How is it that you know Amanda is bisexual? Please explain that again. If you have any credibility at all, please explain that again!!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maggie

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

One last point Michael. Guede received no housing benefits. You posted that information providing absolutely nothing to back it up. Why do you love Guede so much? He killed Meredith!


Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Some people insist on choosing to ignore every chance you give them. Congratulations, you've earned your permanent ban!
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 May 25, 2012 10:16 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:

Here is a heads-up to everyone. A PMF Moderator may restrict ANY poster to Tuesday only posting at their discretion. They have the power to do so should they suspect the poster in question of being a FOAKer. It is NOT required that the Moderator in question prove or even evidence their FOAKer status, or that that status fall within the definition for same as dictated by the poster themselves. Of course, should that restriction be found to have been made in error, it may be lifted at a later point, again at Moderator discretion. Posters should note, posting on PMF is a privilege not a right.

_________________
"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: Fri May 25, 2012 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Please, God, if you're listening, I have one request.

Let me be here on the board when Capealadin reads that she needs to release her anger, she will feel better!!!



em)
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 May 25, 2012 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
One last point Michael. Guede received no housing benefits. You posted that information providing absolutely nothing to back it up. Why do you love Guede so much? He killed Meredith!


Guede had the right to unemployment and housing benefit just like every Italian citizen. Are you and other FOAKers claiming that Guede waived these rights and do you have any evidence to support your claim he did?

Is the official FOAKer line that Guede, even though supposedly desperate for cash, refused his rightful entitlement from the state? And then, in desperation for cash, turned to burglary to pay his rent? Is that it, is that really the FOAKer claim?

As for the rest. I am concerned only with truth. Truth does not equate to love. Therefore, kindly spare us the straw men.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maggie wrote:
This is absolutely false. Anyone and everyone can register on the Injustice Anywhere Forum (Bruce Fischer's forum) and he doesn't have silly rules about Tuesdays or any other day. He is not a child and does not think any of his posters should be treated like children. There are rules about personal attacks and profanity of course but your opinions are welcome there. The site talks about many other cases. You might learn something.


The front page may be open, but the private areas which are the forum proper are for sycophants only.

Maggie wrote:
Everyone knows that it is Knox's blood on the tap. It is mixed with nothing and it is NOT dated. Just because Knox didn't notice it at an earlier time does not mean it wasn't there. You have a funny was of deciding when you chose to take Knox's testimony as credible. If something she says fits into your fantasy then you cherry pick that statement. Nice try. Knox never testified that she bled in the bathroom on the night of the murder. Stop being disingenuous. if you have the facts on your side then there is no reason to play games right?


Knox herself dated it. Read her own words. When questioned on whether it was there the afternoon before, she did not reply that she didn't think so, that she wasn't sure or probably not, she said it wasn't there. That is emphatic and absolute. Just when is it exactly, that all the endless excuses made on Knox's behalf stop?

Maggie wrote:
Funny how you ask me questions at the same exact time that Ergon is ordering me not to post. Get together guys! Lets have some moderator organization here!


Regular members are not restricted by the Tuesday Rule and are free to respond to comments made by those restricted by it, whether they have made them on the Tuesday or any other day, any time they wish. This however, does not remove the impediment on those bound by the Tuesday Rule. Should those bound wish to answer or respond, unless given express permission by a Moderator, they must wait until Tuesday before doing so.

Maggie wrote:
Okay, even tho you asked me questions that Ergon said I am not allowed to answer (does that make any sense at all?) go ahead, ban the 5th new member out of the last 10 that have joined here. This place is a joke. Its a sad way for you to end it all Micheal. Taking a backseat to a guy that talks to the stars!


5th new person? That's a laugh. Most of you are the same handful of people re-registering again and again, only to be banned again and again. Nearly every one of you are socks and use countless sock accounts wherever you post.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony -

Should you return. You too are formally restricted to Tuesday only posting. Should you break the Tuesday Rule, you will be subject to formal warnings/suspension/banning.

_________________
"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 malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 12:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Nell wrote:
Thanks for the link and the screenshots, ttrroonniicc.

I don't think Meredith ever worked for Patrick Lumumba. According to John Follain's book "Death in Perugia", Patrick wanted Meredith to work in his bar, but it apparently never went further than an offer from his side.

Also according to Follain (page 33-34), Amanda Knox was demoted from working in the bar to handing out leaflets. So technically, Amanda Knox wasn't "fired". If you hand out flyers you are still employed.

I believe though that the sentiment of the article holds true. I do believe that Amanda Knox didn't like that Patrick persisted in his efforts to offer Meredith a job at his bar. I am sure Amanda Knox felt a bit humiliated and disappointed.


I agree completely, Nell. Patrick was trying to build a business. He felt Meredith would be a draw, that's obvious.
Since she was a friend of Knox, and would probably be bringing in friends and new customers, and he was obviously displeased by Knox's behavior, the diplomatic thing to do was 'demote' her to flyers. While not actually firing her in the strictest sense, he was keeping the peace, in a way, by limiting her access to customers, still allowing her a position, but securing her out of the mainstream. Call it what you want, I think it's obvious he wanted her out of there.


Absolutely. Maybe he even hoped she would move on to another job. It is unpleasant to be demoted while someone else is getting "your" job. It seems almost as if Patrick Lumumba was too nice to fire her. He didn't have the heart to do it.

The way Patrick Lumumba described Meredith reminds me again that the only person who ever said something nasty about Meredith Kercher has been Amanda Knox. Telling, isn't it?


Well, it's not Tuesday and if you feel the need for banning me because I ask this question then go for it.. I suspect it would please Michael anyway.

Exactly what and when did Knox say something nasty about Meredith?

Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Done! For REPEATEDLY refusing to abide by the Tuesday Rule.


Francisco, Too bad she ripped out October's diary pages. Why on earth would anyone do that do you think? Destroying evidence of what? bad writing no ,nasty remarks more likely. Why would she say Meredith could have the boy downstairs as if he would really prefer to be with her? Laughing , making faces and saying 'Minaccia' ( threats) between kisses with RS was a nasty way to behave towards Meredith after her murder. Thanks Nell


Last edited by malvern on Sat May 26, 2012 2:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I think Maggie is Bruce
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 May 26, 2012 1:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

malvern wrote:
I think Maggie is Bruce


To a T :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
--- snip ---

Exactly what and when did Knox say something nasty about Meredith?

--- snap ---


Amanda Knox wrote in her email from 4th of November 2007:

"there was also blood smeered on the faucet. again, however, i thought it was strange, because my roommates and i are very clean and we wouldnt leave blood int he bathroom, but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry about."

Let's analyse it. Was it reasonable to assume this amount of blood could have stemmed from a menstrual bleeding?







The answer is no. The amount of blood alone rules menstrual blood as source out. How many hours would a woman have to be standing in this bathroom - preferably in one position - to get the soles of her feet soaked in menstrual blood? How did the droplets on the tap of the faucet and the light switch got there, if we assume it to be menstrual blood? Not an easy question to answer. From all the possibilities, menstrual blood was the least likely one.

Which brings me to the next red flag: Had Meredith had any trouble ever to keep the house clean? Was there ever a complaint? Is it therefore logical to assume Meredith could have left the bathroom dirty? The answer is no.

" ... but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew ...

The truth is, Amanda was the one having issues to keep the house clean. She was the one who didn't flush the toilet, leaving her poo and her menstrual blood in the toilet for others to clean up after her. Meredith told her off. Amanda was the pig, not Meredith. Amanda makes this snide remark about Meredith. It is payback.

Amanda Knox's email demonstrates perfectly the resentment and hate she felt for Meredith Kercher. She thought her accusation would stand unchallenged, casting a bad light on Meredith Kercher, instead her own words show her craziness, lack of ability to string two sentences together, lack of remorse and spite against Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Excuse me while I throw up, but, will somebody please explain to me the need for these people to attach such an emotional construct to our comments?
Michael, you LOVE Guede? We should 'feel bad' because we 'let you down'? Release our anger, we'll feel better?
We're haters? How do these emotions connect to the evidence? What point to all of this ridiculous emotional attachment?
I don't get it, I seriously don't. And I begin to worry a bit that some of them are really quite unhinged.
Their comments have gotten progressively more over-the-top as of late, (perhaps more in desperation over John Kercher's book, don't know), but it is a bit unsettling.
I can't recall anyone here ranting. (OK I did once, but I wasn't hysterical or out of control, I was pissed, big difference).
I have to tell you all. To take the time, to actually sit down and waste the effort to create a fake persona to try in some way to trick, or fool, or play loose with the facts, or pull one over, or do whatever it is that you are trying to do, is just plain sick in an adult. A loopy teenager, maybe.
But, in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with most of you Foakers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 2:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And Nell, I knew exactly what you meant when you said that Knox was the only one who had anything to say against Meredith. And I knew that you would also back your statement with proof.
There is no question in my mind that the menstrual comment by Knox was a dig at Meredith. None whatsoever.
What normal woman wouldn't be totally insulted upon learning that she was the supposed culprit of that mess and just left it? Of course, poor Meredith couldn't defend herself. But your point is spot-on.
Knox acted as if there were a bit of concern there, but that's b***s**t.
Make that statement about me and you'd be pulling the bathmat out of your buttcrack. It was a totally pigish thing to say.


Last edited by Napia5 on Sat May 26, 2012 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 2:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
--- snip ---

It was a totally pigish thing to say.

--- snap ---


What is even worse is after accusing someone else to leave ewww menstrual blood on the bathmat, darling Amanda would step with her wet feet on the dirty bathmat and shuffle through the house to her room.

But the bathmat boogie dance was only after inspecting the caked blood drop a bit closer, touching it with her fingers.

After explaining these actions in great detail and written form, it seems superfluous trying to explain in court that you are not the pig others made you out to be.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

So, here's the story she's selling.
"We are unconcerned about menstrual blood. Ok to touch, ok to step in, unsurprising that it was left there."
But, POO, unflushed. Lions, and tigers and bears, oh my. NOW I'm worried, a bit of a tizzy. We are CLEAN here,
we don't do that. Just plain nucking futz. And so is anybody who buys this.


Last edited by Napia5 on Sat May 26, 2012 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Excuse me while I throw up, but, will somebody please explain to me the need for these people to attach such an emotional construct to our comments?
Michael, you LOVE Guede? We should 'feel bad' because we 'let you down'? Release our anger, we'll feel better?
We're haters? How do these emotions connect to the evidence? What point to all of this ridiculous emotional attachment?
I don't get it, I seriously don't. And I begin to worry a bit that some of them are really quite unhinged.
Their comments have gotten progressively more over-the-top as of late, (perhaps more in desperation over John Kercher's book, don't know), but it is a bit unsettling.
I can't recall anyone here ranting. (OK I did once, but I wasn't hysterical or out of control, I was pissed, big difference).
I have to tell you all. To take the time, to actually sit down and waste the effort to create a fake persona to try in some way to trick, or fool, or play loose with the facts, or pull one over, or do whatever it is that you are trying to do, is just plain sick in an adult. A loopy teenager, maybe.
But, in my opinion, there is something seriously wrong with most of you Foakers.


They have to do that, because they cannot risk to talk about the evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

So instead, they try to attack the credibility of those who would like to see justice done in the Meredith Kercher murder case. Everything is allowed. The truth doesn't matter to them.

It should be remembered what a big effort Amanda Knox's family have made to mobilise a handful of people. The past few years, her fanbase was mostly made up of family members, close friends and people who inserted themselves to make profit from Meredith's brutal murder. Knox's family's view of the case dominated the media thanks to an aggressive PR campaign that organised media appearances and negotiated the terms and still the result is dreadful.

Right now, there is an ongoing petition to crown Frank Sfarzo a "Blogger Hero" - whatever that's supposed to mean. Wouldn't you agree that Frank Sfarzo is known to everyone who ever heard about the case? The number should be in the thousands. Nonetheless, the goal of the petition is to collect only 250 signatures. How many would you reckon have signed the petition? A modest 117. Yes, that's right. Only 117. Rest assured that all family members from Amanda Knox including cousins, granny and great uncles have signed that petition. The outcome is still hair-raising.

Quote:
Although not a Perugia native, Frank had lived in the Umbrian college town for several years; first, as a student and later, as essentially a local hanger-on. Subsisting largely on support from his moderately affluent family and, to a lesser degree, his writing, Frank floated at the edge of the University town’s after-school world and, as he aged, became something of a local “character”. Every town has a Frank - the man who never quite grew up, who is known and generally liked by all, but from whom little is feared and even less is expected. This assessment, as events would later demonstrate, proved to be woefully inaccurate.

Source: Petition Frank Sfarzo


People either don't care or believe them to be guilty. That's the reality.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
So, here's the story she's selling.
"We are unconcerned about menstural blood. Ok to touch, ok to step in, unsurprising that it was left there."
But, POO, unflushed. Lions, and tigers and bears, oh my. NOW I'm worried, a bit of a tizzy. We are CLEAN here,
we don't do that. Just plain nucking futz. And so is anybody who buys this.


Exactly. What concerned her most was the locked door and the poo - but never the blood in the bathroom.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 4:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Took a brief trip through the petition. Emotional pup, ain't?
I plead a llimited knowledge of the name of Sfarzo as far as the facts I've been following. The Bruces, Candaces, Annes, Moores etc., hold limited interest to me. I've stated here before, I've been following for two years, and playing catch-up allows me only so much time to familiarize myself with these hangers-on.
Whatever his involvement, it certainly came after the murder, and I have never taken the time to research his blog.
In a nutshell, it appears he feels he has suffered greatly to tell his story and is looking to cash in on a movie deal and getting names on a petition will help him with this endeavor. It costs the Knox clan nothing to sign this and it is helpful to keep the faithful in line. He doesn't like Mignini and Mignini apparently doesn't like him, either.
He has never made it with any of his stories to date, and this is his moment, right?
My opinion? He's yesterday's news to all of them. They'll keep him happy and hanging on for awhile, then he'll go the way of the rest of them. Basically, he's screwed, he just doesn't see it yet. Am I close?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Spare yourselves from the tedium of this crass appeal for fame and fortune; it appears that the petition is less about Frank Sfarzo, than a blatant appeal for a movie deal about AK and her terrible trials and tribulations, as seen through the eyes of a modern day Philip Marlowe patrolling the mean streets of Perugia...

Some extracts in chronological order, with my comments in green, from this clarion call for journalistic freedom:

Our purpose in signing this letter is to share with you a perspective on the Knox story that we believe you will find interesting and, if pursued, could make a great basis for a film. (...)

More publicity, more propaganda, more $$$$$$$$.

Frank quickly set up the English-language blog, “Perugia Shock” as a vehicle through which he could monetize the world’s seemingly insatiable curiosity about Amanda Knox, (...)

'monetize', a curious but necessary euphemism for 'make a quick buck from'.

Frank floated at the edge of the University town’s after-school world (...)

Frank’s life on the edge of Perugian society had endowed him with an instinctive distrust of police (...)

in April 2008, six months after Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s arrest, Frank Sfarzo declared on “Perugia Shock” that he believed the couple were innocent of Meredith’s murder (...)

So Frank came to this conclusion before the trial had even begun, and the prosecution case was even presented...

This opinion instantly made Frank an outsider on several fronts. (...)


And there was I thinking that Frank was already an outsider, 'floating' as he was 'on the edge of Perugian society'...

the world’s tabloid media was congenitally predisposed to vilify Knox at every turn, Umbrian reporters were simply afraid to upset the local authorities by having anything critical to say about the manner in which the police conducted the Kercher investigation. (...)

I'm familiar with Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), as well as the work of Prof. Greg Philo and the Glasgow University Media Group, and have yet to see any reporting ascribed to 'congenital predisposition' - looks like Bruce Fisher has made an important academic breakthrough!

the story of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is ... a story of courage and fortitude in the face of incredible evil. (...)

The incredible evil, of course, relates not to the savage sexual assault and murder of poor Meredith Kercher, but to the alleged machinations of the demonised PM Mignini.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 10:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

They are trying to help Sfarzo to get a job because right now they are supporting him financially. Sooner or later, they are going to give him the boot. He is a parasite.

They make it sound as if Frank Sfarzo has been a successful author and screenwriter before he came in touch with the Amanda Knox story and everyone turned on him. The truth is that he is a leech who is looking to make a quick buck. First he was living off his family, now he is living from donations. That guy has loser written all over him. Being around 50 years old it seems too late for a major breakthrough if you ask me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well, Frank's in his early 40's.

But for me, what is worst of all, is that they'd betray their own cause by supporting someone who was happy to sell their heroin out for a buck by hawking nude photos of her to the media. Of course, ultimately they don't care and would support any scumbag, provided that he speak out in public for their Angel's innocence and condemn her 'tormentors'. And our source for our information is not a newspaper article on the web, which is clearly all the low-level FOAKers have to rely on, but directly from the individual he tried to sell them to. What does that say about Magnificent Frank and the gullible fools that support him? Talk about corruption. The FOAKers should be getting their own house in order, before throwing mud at the ILE. We know how they'll deal with it, just as they have always dealt with anything distasteful among their ranks...denial.

_________________
"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 May 26, 2012 1:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Daoud wrote:
Spare yourselves from the tedium of this crass appeal for fame and fortune; it appears that the petition is less about Frank Sfarzo, than a blatant appeal for a movie deal about AK and her terrible trials and tribulations, as seen through the eyes of a modern day Philip Marlowe patrolling the mean streets of Perugia...


Well, this is what Frank has been after since the very beginning, as soon as he realised there was a large body of interest in the case in the English speaking world...to use this case as a springboard to launch his film making career. So, now does he not only have the FOAKers helping him keep his lifestyle financially, they are trying to help him get his career too. It amazes and disgusts me that not only the top-level FOAKers, but all the underlings as well, are all so keen to help each other line each others pockets from this case and actively applaud each other doing so. Just wait and see the screams of blissful congratulation there'll be for Spezi and Preston when they officially launch their parasitical 'book' on this case. There'll be no condemnation, as they all realise it's payment for services rendered on this case.

In the meantime, the true victims of this case sit without justice and out of pocket. Do the FOAKers have to keep repeating to themselves in the mirror "I am not on the dark side!" every night to keep the illusion going?

_________________
"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: Sat May 26, 2012 1:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Where's Jackie and her avatar making skills when we need her? Pig, with knife :)
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 May 26, 2012 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

But, reading her own words, her despicable attack on Meredith signals her own motivation for murder. Meredith told her off for her slovenliness and not sharing the cleaning duties around the flat. Then Lumumba offers a job to Meredith. So, to get back at a dead girl who made her feel bad, she says everyone in the flat is clean, including her, but MEREDITH left menstrual blood all over the place? Kudos to Sharon Feinstein again for telling us what her warden and cell mate had to say about her general cleanliness and lack of empathy.

Amanda Knox truly is unclean. And so, too, are her supporters.
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 May 26, 2012 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And Frank's sad little aspirations to make a movie? Brave everyman persecuted by evil prosecutor for defending fair maiden? I think Doug Preston and Mario Spezi's got a lock on that story, and will probably run Frank over with a bus before they let THAT happen :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
And Frank's sad little aspirations to make a movie? Brave everyman persecuted by evil prosecutor for defending fair maiden? I think Doug Preston and Mario Spezi's got a lock on that story, and will probably run Frank over with a bus before they let THAT happen :)


Just took a peek at the blog. Remove his 'quote' key and exclamation button, and whadda ya got?
Someone who should be on medication.

In my humble opinion, that is!
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 May 26, 2012 3:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Kudos to Sharon Feinstein again for telling us what her warden and cell mate had to say about her general cleanliness and lack of empathy.


Does anyone have the link to her full story, by the way? It's no longer there on the link I had. I hope the FOAKers haven't forced its removal.

_________________
"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: Sat May 26, 2012 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Kudos to Sharon Feinstein again for telling us what her warden and cell mate had to say about her general cleanliness and lack of empathy.


Does anyone have the link to her full story, by the way? It's no longer there on the link I had. I hope the FOAKers haven't forced its removal.


I just reviewed her blog. The initial story is gone. Unsettling.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Kudos to Sharon Feinstein again for telling us what her warden and cell mate had to say about her general cleanliness and lack of empathy.


Does anyone have the link to her full story, by the way? It's no longer there on the link I had. I hope the FOAKers haven't forced its removal.


Michael, here is the link: http://www.sharonfeinstein.co.uk/main/interviews/Amanda_Knox.php

Check the LINKS subforum for more links to Sharon Feinstein's stories (Nov 6 - Dec 10, 2011) ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yes, I'm scratching around in there and found this link to the original ariticle.
Still searching for the original blog and comments connected to this news article.
Better throw a rope around me, guermantes, because, when I get to hunting, I usually end up on sites that want to help me learn to change tires.
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 May 26, 2012 3:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Guermantes!!! :)

_________________
"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: Sat May 26, 2012 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I couldn't find a direct link to Sharon Feinstein's blog on her website, so I googled it. For those interested, here are the links to her blog entries including the comments that have been published in response to her articles:

Vittoria, Knox's cellmate speaks again

A terrible, significant month in the Perugia murder

A gift from Amanda Knox

This is my reply to the avalanche of reactions around the world to my Amanda Knox interviews

Amanda Knox remains a mystery

Death in Perugia, will Amanda Knox ever be free?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

guermantes wrote:
--- snip ---

Check the LINKS subforum for more links to Sharon Feinstein's stories (Nov 6 - Dec 10, 2011) ;)

--- snap ---


I misread your post. I was looking for such link on Feinstein's website. The word "subforum" was a clue, but I was too tired to get it. Sorry.

Guermantes has all the links to Feinstein's interview's collected here.

I better get some sleep now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 7:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Amanda's email and behaviour after the murder are extremely incriminating, but after Hellmann's acquittal it should be remembered why the lone wolf theory had been rejected by all former judges who agreed that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were involved in the crime.

The staging factor.

Dott. Paolo Micheli, Sentenza del 28.10.2008 – 26.01.2009, MOTIVI DELLA DECISIONE

Quote:
Dott. Paolo Micheli, Motivations Report, Excerpt from the original Italian document

Il reggiseno, e la constatazione è obiettiva, fu rivenuto a pochi centimetri di distanza dal piede destro della ragazza, in una zona per nulla attinta da sangue, eppure la spallina destra ne risulta abbondantemente intrisa; inoltre, guarda caso, sulle coppe si vedono con palese evidenza lo stesso tipo di macchioline puntiformi riscontrabili sul busto.  Ciò significa che la vittima aveva sì la maglietta arrotolata verso il collo, quando fu colpita (come si vedrà, si tratta di un’osservazione empirica di fondamentale rilievo per dare una connotazione sessuale all’aggressione), altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso. Le foto nn. 268 e 770, ampiamente illustrate dalla difesa del G., rivelano poi con chiarezza i segni di quel capo di biancheria (una striscia verticale, piuttosto nitida) sia sul corpo della giovane che sul pavimento sottostante: a dimostrazione ulteriore che il reggiseno fu tolto dopo che il sangue aveva avuto modo di interessare per un tempo apprezzabile la spallina, appunto quella rivelatasi intrisa all’atto del ritrovamento.


Quote:
Dott. Paolo Micheli, Motivations Report, Excerpt from the original Italian document (translation)

The bra, and this observation is relevant, was found a few centimetres away from the girl's right foot, in an area with no blood at all, yet the right bra strap is thoroughly imbued; furthermore, coincidentally, the cups show clear evidence of the same type of punctate spots found on the upper body. This means that the victim had indeed rolled up her shirt to the neck when she was struck (as we shall see, this is an empirical observation of fundamental importance to give the aggression a sexual connotation), otherwise you would not see the spots on either the skin or on the bra, but rather she was wearing the bra normally. The photos number 268 and 770, outlined in great detail by the defence of G. [Rudy Guede], then clearly reveal the signs of that piece of clothing (a vertical strip, rather sharp) on the body of the young woman on the floor below: a further demonstration that the bra was removed after the blood had been able to affect the shoulder for a considerable amount of time, precisely that [= the shoulder] proved to be soaked at the time of the discovery.
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 May 27, 2012 11:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell -

Yes, Massei chose not to use this, but this point by Micheli shows that the victim was stripped and moved some considerable time after her death and that there was a 'staging' of the body. That certainly wasn't Guede.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 12:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
And Nell, I knew exactly what you meant when you said that Knox was the only one who had anything to say against Meredith. And I knew that you would also back your statement with proof.
There is no question in my mind that the menstrual comment by Knox was a dig at Meredith. None whatsoever.
What normal woman wouldn't be totally insulted upon learning that she was the supposed culprit of that mess and just left it? Of course, poor Meredith couldn't defend herself. But your point is spot-on.
Knox acted as if there were a bit of concern there, but that's b***s**t.
Make that statement about me and you'd be pulling the bathmat out of your buttcrack. It was a totally pigish thing to say.


It gets even worse. Knox announced to the world that the police had asked her if Meredith practiced anal sex. Knox had zero concept of 'discretion'. No attempt from her to protect the memory of her 'friend'. Had it been Knox's mother or sister lying there, would she have announced that? I don't think so!

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


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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 12:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
And Nell, I knew exactly what you meant when you said that Knox was the only one who had anything to say against Meredith. And I knew that you would also back your statement with proof.
There is no question in my mind that the menstrual comment by Knox was a dig at Meredith. None whatsoever.
What normal woman wouldn't be totally insulted upon learning that she was the supposed culprit of that mess and just left it? Of course, poor Meredith couldn't defend herself. But your point is spot-on.
Knox acted as if there were a bit of concern there, but that's b***s**t.
Make that statement about me and you'd be pulling the bathmat out of your buttcrack. It was a totally pigish thing to say.


It gets even worse. Knox announced to the world that the police had asked her if Meredith practiced anal sex. Knox had zero concept of 'discretion'. No attempt from her to protect the memory of her 'friend'. Had it been Knox's mother or sister lying there, would she have announced that? I don't think so!


It might be a family strategy. Didn't Edda announce something similar to the world in a tv interview? I don't recall the exact words, but it was something like: "And the poor Kerchers have to hear on the news that their daughter..."
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 May 27, 2012 1:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ava wrote:
It might be a family strategy. Didn't Edda announce something similar to the world in a tv interview? I don't recall the exact words, but it was something like: "And the poor Kerchers have to hear on the news that their daughter..."


Hi Ava. Yes, that was Edda declaring that Meredith was 'drunk'. That was in the Follain interview I think.

But, if it was a family strategy, it was one that developed over time. It appears Knox developed that strategy independently right from the beginning and her family climbed on board with it later on.

_________________
"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 May 27, 2012 6:43 pm   Post subject: WARNING-OFFENSIVE CONTENT!   

Michael wrote:

It gets even worse. Knox announced to the world that the police had asked her if Meredith practiced anal sex. Knox had zero concept of 'discretion'. No attempt from her to protect the memory of her 'friend'. Had it been Knox's mother or sister lying there, would she have announced that? I don't think so!


It's really awful that we have to discuss this, yet discuss it we must, to get an understanding of this case. I believe this is the reason for Raffaele's strange comment, that 'the body was covered in vaseline'. I don't believe this was just in a moment of nastiness either, but part of an overall strategy to misdirect everyone.

But there still is the nastiness that has permeated this case from the beginning, Michael. From the Knoxes, from their supporters. But the source of all that was Amanda. She took the knife to the cottage while high on drugs, she worked out a cover plan with Raffaele (he's too simple, sorry) lied to everyone, kept Raf on the leash with sex, and tangled him so deeply he never got to escape her clutches, even while he was in prison. Her winks and nods at him during the trial, the behaviour in the lingerie shop.

Oh well. Karma awaits.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 8:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Hi Ava. Yes, that was Edda declaring that Meredith was 'drunk'. That was in the Follain interview I think.

very few advantages of them having got what they want
the primary one is that we don't see their ugly lying personas in the media anymore
they're nonentities again -- just like they always were

her book will crash - right into the bargain bucket at walmart -
nobody cares to read a real fiction
or contribute to a crime
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well, Ergon, I hope you are right about Karma. And, while I agree with you that the nastiness and misdirect was planned, I hold them all, the three of them, equally culpable. Knox may have come up with the plan, the misdirect, but Sollecito jumped right in with the back-stroke, pushing away from responsibiity, describing Knox in some pretty harsh tones to daddy. Don't forget, the knife lie came up while Sollecito was in prison, basically suggested by his attorney, as I see it. He wasn't really concerned about Knox's involevement at that point.
He didn't freak out over the fact that the police searched his apartment, his car (that list of evidence is rather lengthy, by the way), and that the police had his shoes.
He freaked over the knife. Sheer panic. He kept his mouth SHUT during the entire trial, grinning goofy smiles, and passing chocolates, confident, I think that water would indeed, flow up-hill.
He comes to the USA with orders not to have pictures taken, and snaps one with da Judge. In your face, everybody.
It's my belief he would have been quite content to throw Knox totally under the bus and would have done it from day one if he could have somehow come up with a scenario to get himself out of the trench.
He is, in my opinion, a coward. I think he was perfectly content to allow Knox to take the flak from the media, and is just as happy to be the forgotten one. The one who was lead astray.
I am working on a presentation on how simple it was to get his DNA on the bra clasp, why exactly it was found right where it was and nowhere else, and why, in my mind it proves he did it. She may have had him in her clutches, but it was right where he wanted to be.
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 May 27, 2012 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
And, while I agree with you that the nastiness and misdirect was planned, I hold them all, the three of them, equally culpable. Knox may have come up with the plan, the misdirect, but Sollecito jumped right in with the back-stroke, pushing away from responsibiity, describing Knox in some pretty harsh tones to daddy.


Yes, Sollecito quite willingly fell into Knox's wicked vagenda.

_________________
"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: Sun May 27, 2012 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Ava wrote:
It might be a family strategy. Didn't Edda announce something similar to the world in a tv interview? I don't recall the exact words, but it was something like: "And the poor Kerchers have to hear on the news that their daughter..."


Hi Ava. Yes, that was Edda declaring that Meredith was 'drunk'. That was in the Follain interview I think.

But, if it was a family strategy, it was one that developed over time. It appears Knox developed that strategy independently right from the beginning and her family climbed on board with it later on.



Yeah, that's it. Do you mean Follain quoted from that interview in his book? I haven't read it yet.
I just remember Edda being interviewed by an American (I believe) journalist, and they were discussing the role of the media shortly before.

And yes, I agree about strategy, but I think I meant something like inherited nastiness or so. I mean, where did Amanda 'learn' to behave like she does? Probably mostly at home.
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 May 27, 2012 9:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ava wrote:
Yeah, that's it. Do you mean Follain quoted from that interview in his book? I haven't read it yet.


In the Times article.

Ava wrote:
And yes, I agree about strategy, but I think I meant something like inherited nastiness or so. I mean, where did Amanda 'learn' to behave like she does? Probably mostly at home.


It's also down to the fact Knox was spoiled. She was used to getting her own way and was happy to steamroll over anyone around her to get it.

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Ava wrote:
It might be a family strategy. Didn't Edda announce something similar to the world in a tv interview? I don't recall the exact words, but it was something like: "And the poor Kerchers have to hear on the news that their daughter..."


Hi Ava. Yes, that was Edda declaring that Meredith was 'drunk'. That was in the Follain interview I think.

But, if it was a family strategy, it was one that developed over time. It appears Knox developed that strategy independently right from the beginning and her family climbed on board with it later on.



Edda Mellas has tried on numerous occasions to cast a bad light on Meredith Kercher. During the interview with John Follain she insinuated that Meredith Kercher could have been romantically involved with Rudy Guede. From John Follain's interview with the family:

Quote:
The family are reluctant to say how they think Meredith died. They believe the evidence points to Guede, the only suspect who consistently admits to being in the cottage when Meredith was murdered. But, as Edda points out, "I don't know Meredith or Rudy and I'm not going to speculate on rumours, because people are doing that about my daughter." Guede, in an account ridiculed by investigators, has testified that Meredith invited him into her bedroom, where they began to have sex but stopped because they didn't have a condom. He says he went to the toilet and when he came back he saw Sollecito rush out after killing Meredith. The latest report by a coroner, in April, found Meredith had been involved in sexual activity before she died but "it was impossible to tell whether it was consensual".

Source: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/article98384.ece



Furthermore she claimed Meredith Kercher's alcohol level indicated she was drunk. To Amanda Knox in prison she even said Meredith Kercher must have been in an alcoholic coma (Death in Perugia, page 239 - 240).

Quote:
The family hesitate when I ask whether they have anything they would like to say to Meredith's family. Edda is the first to break the silence: "We're in a sticky situation because of what people have written about Amanda.

We'd like to reach out, but what will they think if we say to them, 'Your daughter was my daughter's housemate and we can only imagine your pain'? I can't imagine what they are having to live through. It's horrific, and every time rubbish comes out about the alcohol level in Meredith's blood or her sexual activity, my first thought is, 'My God, that poor family has to hear this again and again.'"

Source: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/article98384.ece


Anal sex, vaseline, menstrual issues, borrowing condoms, sexual activity and alcohol level. All these unflattering remarks about Meredith Kercher can be traced back to Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox and Edda Mellas. They all turned out to be lies and untruths.

But what about Amanda's sexual relationships? Edda, did Amanda use the condoms she had so prominently on display in a transparent bag with any of her one-night-stands? Amanda says she didn't. Not necessary to deny anything. We know who lied and why.

John Follain's interview is excellent. We have all lies that the Knox family have spread summed up in five pages. Edda Mellas has repeatedly taken digs at Meredith when she was interviewed in Perugia for American networks. People haven't forgotten.

EDIT: John Follain's article for the Sunday Times is behind a paywall, so unless you have a subscription, you won't be able to access it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
And Nell, I knew exactly what you meant when you said that Knox was the only one who had anything to say against Meredith. And I knew that you would also back your statement with proof.
There is no question in my mind that the menstrual comment by Knox was a dig at Meredith. None whatsoever.
What normal woman wouldn't be totally insulted upon learning that she was the supposed culprit of that mess and just left it? Of course, poor Meredith couldn't defend herself. But your point is spot-on.
Knox acted as if there were a bit of concern there, but that's b***s**t.
Make that statement about me and you'd be pulling the bathmat out of your buttcrack. It was a totally pigish thing to say.


It gets even worse. Knox announced to the world that the police had asked her if Meredith practiced anal sex. Knox had zero concept of 'discretion'. No attempt from her to protect the memory of her 'friend'. Had it been Knox's mother or sister lying there, would she have announced that? I don't think so!


I absolutely agree with your comment. I think Amanda was glad the opportunity presented itself to denigrate Meredith even further. She wouldn't let that one pass. Again we note that there is no concern whatsoever that her "dear friend" could have been sexually assaulted before being murdered. No concern, no empathy at all. Her callousness is truly remarkable.

Quote:
From Amanda Knox's email home, 4th of November 2007

at the house they asked me very personal questions about meredith's life and also about the personalities of our neighbors. how well did i know them? pretty well, we are friends. was meredith sexually active? yeah, she borrowed a few of my condoms. does she like anal? wtf? i dont know. does she use vaseline? for her lips?

Source: In their own words


I also agree with Ergon's comment that Raffaele Sollecito's comment about Meredith being found covered in vaseline is odd and related to the whole staging scenario.
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 May 27, 2012 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
I also agree with Ergon's comment that Raffaele Sollecito's comment about Meredith being found covered in vaseline is odd and related to the whole staging scenario.


It also explains why the police went back to the cottage at a later point to collect Meredith's vaseline for forensic examination.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
I absolutely agree with your comment. I think Amanda was glad the opportunity presented itself to denigrate Meredith even further. She wouldn't let that one pass. Again we note that there is no concern whatsoever that her "dear friend" could have been sexually assaulted before being murdered. No concern, no empathy at all. Her callousness is truly remarkable.


And this was all in spite of the fact the police firmly told Knox not to discuss the case with anyone. In the face of that, Knox insisted on taking the chance to put Meredith down as well as tell her version of events to well...almost everyone on her email contact list.

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ava wrote:
--- snip ---

Yeah, that's it. Do you mean Follain quoted from that interview in his book? I haven't read it yet.

--- snap ---


Hi Ava,

John Follain includes a very small part of his three and a half hour interview with Knox's family in his book Death in Perugia. The original article is five pages long and worth reading.

Amanda Knox: the first in-depth interview with her parents, John Follain, 15 June 2008

EDIT: John Follain's article for the Sunday Times is behind a paywall, so unless you have a subscription, you won't be able to access 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: Mon May 28, 2012 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:

Quote:
He comes to the USA with orders not to have pictures taken, and snaps one with da Judge. In your face, everybody.

Quote:
She may have had him in her clutches, but it was right where he wanted to be.


His visit to the US was the strangest thing ever. What was that about? Meet his ghost writer? Maybe. Look for a job in the US? FFS, he doesn't even have a degree, kind of a job requirement I would have thought. But apparently, as soon as his goofy mug showed up alongside Judge Heavey, daddy and Vanessa Sollecito flew to Seattle and got him back home, enrolled in the University of Verona. I'm sure his lawyers were pleased to see him in the news and hanging out with the FOA. I'm sure pics were sent to Maresca and Galati, and only have one question.

His book, supposedly out in the fall. Has it written itself, or what?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:

Quote:
He comes to the USA with orders not to have pictures taken, and snaps one with da Judge. In your face, everybody.

Quote:
She may have had him in her clutches, but it was right where he wanted to be.


His visit to the US was the strangest thing ever. What was that about? Meet his ghost writer? Maybe. Look for a job in the US? FFS, he doesn't even have a degree, kind of a job requirement I would have thought. But apparently, as soon as his goofy mug showed up alongside Judge Heavey, daddy and Vanessa Sollecito flew to Seattle and got him back home, enrolled in the University of Verona. I'm sure his lawyers were pleased to see him in the news and hanging out with the FOA. I'm sure pics were sent to Maresca and Galati, and only have one question.

His book, supposedly out in the fall. Has it written itself, or what?


What was that about? If you ask me it was a photo-op, pure and simple. Nothing will sell his book at all without her.
Pictures, I think, and I believe the book will have a spread of the final? (hopefully not) meeting of the lovebirds.
I don't believe he will sell 100 copies without them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well I don't know about that, Napia5. The book will be released September 18, 2012, and 11 people on Amazon 'like' the book already :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Well I don't know about that, Napia5. The book will be released September 18, 2012, and 11 people on Amazon 'like' the book already :)



Maybe it's because they're in the pictures!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I hope none of the groupies accidentally orders the wrong book. There are already a few books with the title Presumed Guilty in the true crime category. How does it feel to search for your book and the results display you among some of the most heinous murderers of recent times? That really makes me laugh! How appropriate. Birds of a feather ...


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
--- snip ---

I don't believe he will sell 100 copies without them.

--- snap ---


We can assume that everyone who supported Frank Sfarzo will also buy Raffaele Sollecito's book to show support.

117 altogether.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
--- snip ---

I don't believe he will sell 100 copies without them.

--- snap ---


We can assume that everyone who supported Frank Sfarzo will also buy Raffaele Sollecito's book to show support.

117 altogether.


Fair assumption. And we may also assume that all of them can read. If not, they can look at the pictures!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 2:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:

Quote:
He comes to the USA with orders not to have pictures taken, and snaps one with da Judge. In your face, everybody.

Quote:
She may have had him in her clutches, but it was right where he wanted to be.


His visit to the US was the strangest thing ever. What was that about? Meet his ghost writer? Maybe. Look for a job in the US? FFS, he doesn't even have a degree, kind of a job requirement I would have thought. But apparently, as soon as his goofy mug showed up alongside Judge Heavey, daddy and Vanessa Sollecito flew to Seattle and got him back home, enrolled in the University of Verona. I'm sure his lawyers were pleased to see him in the news and hanging out with the FOA. I'm sure pics were sent to Maresca and Galati, and only have one question.

His book, supposedly out in the fall. Has it written itself, or what?


What was that about? If you ask me it was a photo-op, pure and simple. Nothing will sell his book at all without her.
Pictures, I think, and I believe the book will have a spread of the final? (hopefully not) meeting of the lovebirds.
I don't believe he will sell 100 copies without them.


Synchronising their stories and making sure there are no glaring contradictions may have played a large part in the motivation for RS's jaunt to Seattle. Kate McCann's book about her 'abducted' daughter Madeleine was rather counter-productive precisesly because of the contradicitions between earlier statements made by the McCanns and their PR guru, and what she said in the book; it's not easy to get all this straight when there is so much information available on the internet and many people who are familiar with it.

In the case of Knox and Sollecito the difficulties will be even greater, so I imagine their books will be short of specifics (especially about their activities from the afternoon of 1/11/07 up until midday on the second). JMHO
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 2:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well Daoud, you may be correct that they met to brainstorm. However, with the internet and conferencing via camera phones or however the heck people conference without ever leaving their own offices, this can be done from home.
I still vote for a friendly nod to supporters and pictures.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
ALRIGHT, Jackie. I need to ask. The White feather in your avatar...A prezzy for BMF et al ?:)


I see Ergon filled you in about the White Feathers, Cape - I had tears in my eyes when I read John Kercher's words.
Top Profile 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 6:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Napia5,
As we've seen with the Leveson inquiry, mobile phones and emails are not necessarily private - and that's for law-abiding citizens who don't have a possible conviction for murder and sexual assault hanging over their heads.

That's just the press - I've no idea what powers the police in Italy have regarding Sollecito and intercepting his telecoms, but I assume the Solllecito clan would play it very safe, given their earlier experience.

Just my two cents.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 7:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It is interesting to read Amanda Knox's court testimony watching the recorded video at the same time to observe her reactions. With all that we know today it's an eye opener.

When answering Carlo Pacelli's questions I noticed that when he asked her if Patrick Lumumba always treated her with respect, she hesitated and her face seemed to indicate that she was thinking before giving a definite answer. So there was apparently some doubt.



Have a look at minute 5:50 when she answers Pacelli's question if he treated her with respect.

Quote:
Trial testimony, 12 June 2009

Carlo Pacelli: What were your relations with Mr. Patrick?
Amanda Knox: I like Patrick a lot.
Carlo Pacelli: Did Patrick ever mistreat you?
Amanda Knox: No.
Carlo Pacelli: Insult you?
Amanda Knox: No.
Carlo Pacelli: Ill-treat you?
Amanda Knox: No.
Carlo Pacelli: Threaten you?
Amanda Knox: No.
Carlo Pacelli: So, Patrick always treated you well?
Amanda Knox: Yes.
Carlo Pacelli: Always treated you with respect?
Amanda Knox: Yes.

Source: In their own words


To Carlo Pacelli's question if she got along well with Patrick Lumumba she answered "Enough, yes", which I think is an unfortunate answer considering the circumstances.

She wasn't prepared well by her lawyers for her appearance in court. It is also possible that she thought she knew best what to do and simply refused to rely on the advice of her lawyers.

Quote:
Angel Face by Barbie Latza Nadeau

Page 183

Edda once told a morning news program that her lawyers told them "to just be who we are." Those same lawyers told me that they could not get the family to cooperate.


Amanda Knox testified that she received Patrick Lumumba's sms at Raffaele's apartment, but her phone logs show her phone made contact to a cell tower that doesn't service Corso Garibaldi, so she lied.

Quote:
Trial testimony, 12 June 2009

Carlo Pacelli: Listen, on the evening of November 1 2007 you were supposed to go to work at the pub "Le Chic"?
Amanda Knox: Yes.
Carlo Pacelli: Did you go?
Amanda Knox: No.
Carlo Pacelli: Why didn't you go to the pub?
Amanda Knox: Because Patrick sent me a message saying I didn't have to go to work.
Carlo Pacelli: Do you remember this message precisely?
Amanda Knox: I don't remember word for word.
Carlo Pacelli: What time was it when you received this message?
Amanda Knox: Around 8:15 or 8:30.
Carlo Pacelli: Where were you at that moment?
Amanda Knox: At the apartment of Raffaele.

Source: In their own words


Quote:
Excerpt from the Massei Motivations Report

− 20:18:12: Amanda receives the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic‛ pub on the evening of 1 November. At the time of reception the phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. The young woman was therefore far [i.e. absent] from Corso Garibaldi 30 when the SMS reached her, as she was walking in an area which was shown to be served by the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell. This point of her route could correspond to Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV Novembre, bearing in mind that Lumumba’s pub is located in Via Alessi, and that Amanda Knox would have had to travel along the above-mentioned roads and the piazza in order to reach the pub.

Source: Massei Motivations Report, (translation)


During her testimony Amanda also confirmed that she started working at Patrick Lumumba's bar five days a week and was later reduced to two days a week. She never gave any further explanation as to why she wasn't needed at his bar anymore on a daily basis.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Daoud wrote:
--- snip ---

That's just the press - I've no idea what powers the police in Italy have regarding Sollecito and intercepting his telecoms, but I assume the Solllecito clan would play it very safe, given their earlier experience.

--- snap ---


I believe you are absolutely right with your assumption.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 10:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Amanda Knox testified that she received Patrick Lumumba's sms at Raffaele's apartment, but her phone logs show her phone made contact to a cell tower that doesn't service Corso Garibaldi, so she lied.

Quote:
Trial testimony, 12 June 2009

Carlo Pacelli: Listen, on the evening of November 1 2007 you were supposed to go to work at the pub "Le Chic"?
Amanda Knox: Yes.
Carlo Pacelli: Did you go?
Amanda Knox: No.
Carlo Pacelli: Why didn't you go to the pub?
Amanda Knox: Because Patrick sent me a message saying I didn't have to go to work.
Carlo Pacelli: Do you remember this message precisely?
Amanda Knox: I don't remember word for word.
Carlo Pacelli: What time was it when you received this message?
Amanda Knox: Around 8:15 or 8:30.
Carlo Pacelli: Where were you at that moment?
Amanda Knox: At the apartment of Raffaele.



What's more amazing still, is that during this cross examination Knox is all memory about that text and the fact it was to tell her she didn't need to go to work. Yet, on the night of her questioning, she wouldn't tell the police these simple facts about the text. Instead, she leaped at the chance to use it to accuse Patrick Lumumba.

_________________
"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 FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell -

Yes, Massei chose not to use this, but this point by Micheli shows that the victim was stripped and moved some considerable time after her death and that there was a 'staging' of the body. That certainly wasn't Guede.


Hello Everyone

It's Tuesday in the Republic of Kiribati.

Michael, did Rudy Guede sexually assult Meredith?


picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: PMF is not the Republic of Kiribati. Do not attempt to be clever. The PMF default clock is BST (GMT + 1) and you can post from midnight according to that clock, just like everyone else bound by the Tuesday Rule! This is your second formal warning!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Amanda's email and behaviour after the murder are extremely incriminating, but after Hellmann's acquittal it should be remembered why the lone wolf theory had been rejected by all former judges who agreed that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were involved in the crime.

The staging factor.

Dott. Paolo Micheli, Sentenza del 28.10.2008 – 26.01.2009, MOTIVI DELLA DECISIONE

Quote:
Dott. Paolo Micheli, Motivations Report, Excerpt from the original Italian document

Il reggiseno, e la constatazione è obiettiva, fu rivenuto a pochi centimetri di distanza dal piede destro della ragazza, in una zona per nulla attinta da sangue, eppure la spallina destra ne risulta abbondantemente intrisa; inoltre, guarda caso, sulle coppe si vedono con palese evidenza lo stesso tipo di macchioline puntiformi riscontrabili sul busto. Ciò significa che la vittima aveva sì la maglietta arrotolata verso il collo, quando fu colpita (come si vedrà, si tratta di un’osservazione empirica di fondamentale rilievo per dare una connotazione sessuale all’aggressione), altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso. Le foto nn. 268 e 770, ampiamente illustrate dalla difesa del G., rivelano poi con chiarezza i segni di quel capo di biancheria (una striscia verticale, piuttosto nitida) sia sul corpo della giovane che sul pavimento sottostante: a dimostrazione ulteriore che il reggiseno fu tolto dopo che il sangue aveva avuto modo di interessare per un tempo apprezzabile la spallina, appunto quella rivelatasi intrisa all’atto del ritrovamento.


Quote:
Dott. Paolo Micheli, Motivations Report, Excerpt from the original Italian document (translation)

The bra, and this observation is relevant, was found a few centimetres away from the girl's right foot, in an area with no blood at all, yet the right bra strap is thoroughly imbued; furthermore, coincidentally, the cups show clear evidence of the same type of punctate spots found on the upper body. This means that the victim had indeed rolled up her shirt to the neck when she was struck (as we shall see, this is an empirical observation of fundamental importance to give the aggression a sexual connotation), otherwise you would not see the spots on either the skin or on the bra, but rather she was wearing the bra normally. The photos number 268 and 770, outlined in great detail by the defence of G. [Rudy Guede], then clearly reveal the signs of that piece of clothing (a vertical strip, rather sharp) on the body of the young woman on the floor below: a further demonstration that the bra was removed after the blood had been able to affect the shoulder for a considerable amount of time, precisely that [= the shoulder] proved to be soaked at the time of the discovery.


Hi Nell

Where did you learn this statement analysis stuff?

What does Knox mean when she says in her email....

"The last time I saw meredith, 22, english, beautiful, funny...."

Note
Just a Note.
~ See your post above.~
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:

Quote:
He comes to the USA with orders not to have pictures taken, and snaps one with da Judge. In your face, everybody.

Quote:
She may have had him in her clutches, but it was right where he wanted to be.


His visit to the US was the strangest thing ever. What was that about? Meet his ghost writer? Maybe. Look for a job in the US? FFS, he doesn't even have a degree, kind of a job requirement I would have thought. But apparently, as soon as his goofy mug showed up alongside Judge Heavey, daddy and Vanessa Sollecito flew to Seattle and got him back home, enrolled in the University of Verona. I'm sure his lawyers were pleased to see him in the news and hanging out with the FOA. I'm sure pics were sent to Maresca and Galati, and only have one question.

His book, supposedly out in the fall. Has it written itself, or what?


Hi Ergon

I thought he did have a degree? Why do you think he doesn't have a degree?

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/1305719

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... court.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FatTony

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:59 am

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael GO FUCK YOURSELF

Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Thanks for the excuse for the instaban. Thanks for stopping by.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yes, Rudy sexually assaulted Meredith. As did the other two, since they helped him do so.


Quote:
"The last time I saw meredith, 22, english, beautiful, funny...."


It means very little, since these are factual comments about Meredith. They are a 'description' of her and her personality. They are not a reflection of Knox's personal feelings about her. In fact, these facts about Meredith could be the very cause of Knox's envy, resentment and dislike for her, or at least, could have added to her dislike of her.

Note: Just because I've responded to your comments, that is not a green light for you to reply now and break the Tuesday Rule 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 Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Ava wrote:
--- snip ---

Yeah, that's it. Do you mean Follain quoted from that interview in his book? I haven't read it yet.

--- snap ---


Hi Ava,

John Follain includes a very small part of his three and a half hour interview with Knox's family in his book Death in Perugia. The original article is five pages long and worth reading.

Amanda Knox: the first in-depth interview with her parents, John Follain, 15 June 2008

EDIT: John Follain's article for the Sunday Times is behind a paywall, so unless you have a subscription, you won't be able to access it.


Hi Nell,
thank you, I will definitely read Follain's book some day.
I do think now that the interview I was referring to was a different one though, it was on TV and led by a woman journalist.
But Edda was talking about alcohol, sexual activity and "the poor Kercher family" all the same.
No surprise here, in Mellox world they all sound like broken records anyway.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 11:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ava wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ava wrote:
--- snip ---

Yeah, that's it. Do you mean Follain quoted from that interview in his book? I haven't read it yet.

--- snap ---


Hi Ava,

John Follain includes a very small part of his three and a half hour interview with Knox's family in his book Death in Perugia. The original article is five pages long and worth reading.

Amanda Knox: the first in-depth interview with her parents, John Follain, 15 June 2008

EDIT: John Follain's article for the Sunday Times is behind a paywall, so unless you have a subscription, you won't be able to access it.


Hi Nell,
thank you, I will definitely read Follain's book some day.
I do think now that the interview I was referring to was a different one though, it was on TV and led by a woman journalist.
But Edda was talking about alcohol, sexual activity and "the poor Kercher family" all the same.
No surprise here, in Mellox world they all sound like broken records anyway.


Hmm...it means Edda's done it more then once then. That can hardly be an accident.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

If you're reading, Happy Birthday Tiziano! :)

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ava wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ava wrote:
--- snip ---

Yeah, that's it. Do you mean Follain quoted from that interview in his book? I haven't read it yet.

--- snap ---


Hi Ava,

John Follain includes a very small part of his three and a half hour interview with Knox's family in his book Death in Perugia. The original article is five pages long and worth reading.

Amanda Knox: the first in-depth interview with her parents, John Follain, 15 June 2008

EDIT: John Follain's article for the Sunday Times is behind a paywall, so unless you have a subscription, you won't be able to access it.


Hi Nell,
thank you, I will definitely read Follain's book some day.
I do think now that the interview I was referring to was a different one though, it was on TV and led by a woman journalist.
But Edda was talking about alcohol, sexual activity and "the poor Kercher family" all the same.
No surprise here, in Mellox world they all sound like broken records anyway.


No, no, you are absolutely right. I don't know how many times Edda Mellas made those statements in total, but I heard her first making those claims during an interview for an American network. Edda was in Perugia then. I remember it so well, because my first thought was "Is she talking about her daughter or Meredith?". Edda's comment was unfeeling and insensitive. No matter how sorry you are for the situation the Knox family have found themselves in, Edda's digs at Meredith are unforgivable.

Edda's comment is reminiscent of Amanda's menstrual blood comment from her email sent home.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

FatTony wrote:
Nell wrote:
Amanda's email and behaviour after the murder are extremely incriminating, but after Hellmann's acquittal it should be remembered why the lone wolf theory had been rejected by all former judges who agreed that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were involved in the crime.

The staging factor.

Dott. Paolo Micheli, Sentenza del 28.10.2008 – 26.01.2009, MOTIVI DELLA DECISIONE

Quote:
Dott. Paolo Micheli, Motivations Report, Excerpt from the original Italian document

Il reggiseno, e la constatazione è obiettiva, fu rivenuto a pochi centimetri di distanza dal piede destro della ragazza, in una zona per nulla attinta da sangue, eppure la spallina destra ne risulta abbondantemente intrisa; inoltre, guarda caso, sulle coppe si vedono con palese evidenza lo stesso tipo di macchioline puntiformi riscontrabili sul busto. Ciò significa che la vittima aveva sì la maglietta arrotolata verso il collo, quando fu colpita (come si vedrà, si tratta di un’osservazione empirica di fondamentale rilievo per dare una connotazione sessuale all’aggressione), altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso. Le foto nn. 268 e 770, ampiamente illustrate dalla difesa del G., rivelano poi con chiarezza i segni di quel capo di biancheria (una striscia verticale, piuttosto nitida) sia sul corpo della giovane che sul pavimento sottostante: a dimostrazione ulteriore che il reggiseno fu tolto dopo che il sangue aveva avuto modo di interessare per un tempo apprezzabile la spallina, appunto quella rivelatasi intrisa all’atto del ritrovamento.


Quote:
Dott. Paolo Micheli, Motivations Report, Excerpt from the original Italian document (translation)

The bra, and this observation is relevant, was found a few centimetres away from the girl's right foot, in an area with no blood at all, yet the right bra strap is thoroughly imbued; furthermore, coincidentally, the cups show clear evidence of the same type of punctate spots found on the upper body. This means that the victim had indeed rolled up her shirt to the neck when she was struck (as we shall see, this is an empirical observation of fundamental importance to give the aggression a sexual connotation), otherwise you would not see the spots on either the skin or on the bra, but rather she was wearing the bra normally. The photos number 268 and 770, outlined in great detail by the defence of G. [Rudy Guede], then clearly reveal the signs of that piece of clothing (a vertical strip, rather sharp) on the body of the young woman on the floor below: a further demonstration that the bra was removed after the blood had been able to affect the shoulder for a considerable amount of time, precisely that [= the shoulder] proved to be soaked at the time of the discovery.


Hi Nell

Where did you learn this statement analysis stuff?

What does Knox mean when she says in her email....

"The last time I saw meredith, 22, english, beautiful, funny...."

Note
Just a Note.
~ See your post above.~


My comment has nothing to do with statement analysis. It is about how Meredith's blood had already dried when Amanda came back to rip it off her with Raffaele's help. Once torn off, the dried blood from Meredith's shoulder revealed the imprint of the bra strap. That means that from the moment Meredith was attacked to the moment the blood had dried, Meredith was wearing the bra. Micheli also stresses that the bra itself revealed a soaked bra strap and that the place on the floor it was found didn't have any blood. The important thing though is the imprint on Meredith's shoulder.

So who would be back hours after the murder to stage the crime scene? Amanda Knox who knew the house was empty and she wouldn't be disturbed. Rudy Guede was dancing in the Domus. If he would have been back to stage the crime scene, he might have taken the time to flush the toilet and clean up his palm print.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
The important thing though is the imprint on Meredith's shoulder.


By imprint, Micheli means livor mortis on the shoulder. This is important, as it means Meredith was in a position where she was on that shoulder for a considerable time after her death. She wasn't in that position when found, so her position was changed and the bra removed by someone a long time (not within mere minutes) after her death.

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
The important thing though is the imprint on Meredith's shoulder.


By imprint, Micheli means livor mortis on the shoulder. This is important, as it means Meredith was in a position where she was on that shoulder for a considerable time after her death. She wasn't in that position when found, so her position was changed and the bra removed by someone a long time (not within mere minutes) after her death.


Thanks for pointing that out. The report said "blood affecting the area (of the shoulder)". I found that odd when talking about dried blood, but now it makes perfect sense.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2012 8:05 pm   Post subject: LOCKING THREAD!   

picture of a pumpkin
This topic has been locked by a Moderator
Reason: I am now locking this thread. Please continue the discussion in the brand new Main Discussion thread: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -. Thank You.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 12 of 12 [ 2981 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12


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

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

  

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


29,421,418 Views