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


Last visit was: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:58 am
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:58 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 10 of 12 [ 2981 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Get a Dymo label maker! I have cords and adapters I can't match to the various appliances they belong to :)


Great advice! Where were you when I STARTED this darn basket?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Back to things of more importance:
Has anyone read the latest drivel?
http://www.groundreport.com/World/AMAND ... ED/2945538
I hope I was able to copy correctly this time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kathyh


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:01 pm

Posts: 25

Highscores: 22

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

OT... Thankyou to Michael, Ergon and Cape for your birthday wishes. Yes I did have a very nice birthday, spending most of it with my daughter where we went to a butterfly place and watched the beautiful butterflys, and other creatures.
The rest of the time, we watched films and got home rather late.

I am waiting for John Kerchers' and folain's book to be in our shops, then I will buy them. Rather like you Ergon, I like to have a book in my hand. A man after my own heart! Is it possible to explain to those who don't read books, how nice it is to hold a book in your hand and read it? I've tried and failed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Get a Dymo label maker! I have cords and adapters I can't match to the various appliances they belong to :)


Great advice! Where were you when I STARTED this darn basket?


Not even your fault! I seriously think todays teens and young people lack the organization gene :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

malvern wrote:
What a find. Well who can blame the defense they know a winning formula just substituent a name here and there and the hard work is done. Hope folks at Fisher's site pause and think about the lack of DNA in the "murder room."


It requires a great deal of effort to exercise their brain cells to come up with alternative universe explanations of why the evidence doesn't follow normal laws of physics or logic in just ONE case, Malvern. Though some might argue there are no brain cells left for them to argue with? ;)
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 Apr 20, 2012 9:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
BMF 1950 has NOT been banned. Try this help file viewtopic.php?f=11&t=193 for anyone having trouble logging in or registering. If that doesn't work, send me a PM any time.


If they cannot sign in, they cannot send you a pm.


Yes. Does admin@perugiamurderfile.net work? Michael might be able to help.



NO, that email addy is long defunct and was never mine anyway. If someone is unable to log in or register to the board, the board does in that event supply them with the ability to contact the site owner via the correct email address. That address is the same address that everyone receives their board notification emails from (to notify them they have a new PM, a new post has been made to a thread they are following, etc). That's the email everyone should use.

That said, it should be noted that I don't currently check my emails as often as I used to (now only every two or three days), as the browser I am using as my main workhorse doesn't work with my email site, so I have to use another browser for that and that upsets my obselete and sickly computer which can't handle all the different browsers working at the same time, especially when one of them has over two hundred tabs and twenty windows open as a norm. Therefore, emails concerning problems will be dealt with, but probably not as swiftly as they used to be. In an emergency, if possible, it's best to PM me rather then email me. Of course, that isn't an option for those unable to log in or register. But, when facing such a problem, ones first stop should be the 'P.M.F. Techincal Help' subforum, as chances are others have experienced the same issue and so it's likely there will be a post there addressing it. What one shouldn't do, is jump the gun and interpret the situation in the blackest possible light...imagine they've been banned for example. If one has been banned, one will see a notification stating such when they try to access and/or log into the forum. If one doesn't see that notification, then one hasn't been banned...something else is going on. In this case, the log-in issue is an issue that has been known about and has had an advisory posted up about it for a long time. In most cases, the problem is related to a corrupt/expired cookie that needs deleting and a fresh one being obtained. In the rest of cases, it is a browser problem that plagues certain browsers (Internet Explorer is the main culprit, it has NEVER worked well with PHPBB.x forums...and occassionly it happens with Firefox too) and is related to how they handle (or don't in this case) cookies.

_________________
"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 Apr 20, 2012 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

kathyh wrote:
OT... Thankyou to Michael, Ergon and Cape for your birthday wishes. Yes I did have a very nice birthday, spending most of it with my daughter where we went to a butterfly place and watched the beautiful butterflys, and other creatures.
The rest of the time, we watched films and got home rather late.

I am waiting for John Kerchers' and folain's book to be in our shops, then I will buy them. Rather like you Ergon, I like to have a book in my hand. A man after my own heart! Is it possible to explain to those who don't read books, how nice it is to hold a book in your hand and read it? I've tried and failed.



It sounds like you had a really nice day :)

Actually, in my view, in this particular case, it's best to have the books in both formats...hard copy and electronic. The hard copy in large part for the reasons you stated, the electronic copy because one can then quickly and easily copy and paste relevant/important extracts to the debate or reference sections on PMF, or to other case related blogs/message boards/comments sections elsewhere on the web. If one only has a hard copy, then one has to manually type out sections or faff around with scans. But, that can get a little pricey.

_________________
"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 Apr 21, 2012 1:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I have just posted a response to posts being made by Professor Anderson in the comments section of Chelsea Hoffmann's recent article: Amanda Knox Smeared: Father of Murder Victim Speaks his Mind



Quote:
Michael Fulcanelli Apr 20, 2012, 8:49pm EDT

Anderson Wrote:

"I repeat; why are not pressing for DNA testing of semen stains on the cushion on which the murdered girl's body was found? Is this not an absolutely elementary investigation? You have consistently opposed this in and out of Court, which seems to be a gross relegation of your duty towards the Kercher family, as well as towards innocent people who YOU still maintain are guilty of a heinous crime."

1) Since there has been no test on this 'stain', why then are you asserting that It is semen? That has never never been established. All that was done, was a blacklight was passed over the pillow and a stain glowed. Semen will glow under blacklight. But then, so will many things, many things that we might expect to find on that pillow. For example, laundry detergent will glow (the kind that makes you whites whiter than white), as will Vaseline (Meredith used Vaseline lip balm), as will makeup (Meredith wore not only makeup, but also remember she had her face plastered with heavy makeup as part of her Halloween costume the previous night and she went to bed still wearing it as she was so tired) and finally, so will urine. That pillow was under the buttocks of the body when it was found and therefore could have been there at the time of death. One can easily envisage the release of urine from fear and panic shortly before death, or from muscle relaxation at the point of death (it is common for this to happen diring violent deaths). Or, it could even be something else entirely. Yet, with no scientific verification whatsoever, you publicly state, as an absolute fact, it is semen and then from that agenda driven assumption you then make the leap that it is Rudy Guede's semen no less, when IF it is semen it could be anyone's. What if it's Sollecitio's? Not very scientific of you 'professor'.

2) The police/prosecution were not legally permitted to test the stain. To do so, would be deemed as evidence gathering and that isn't permitted once the investigation has been completed and filed to the court. It's classed as 'new' evidence and the prosecution are not allowed to gather or submit new evidence once the investiagtion has been filed. New tests can only be performed under the explicet ruling of a court judge and in this case, Judge Massei said "No".

3) From what point of logic exactly, are you coming from when you declare that IF it is a semen stain deposited by Rudy Guede, it "proves" Knox and Sollecito innocent...how so exactly?

4) Please allow me to illuminate you as to why Mr Maresca and the prosecution opposed the defence request during the trial for the stain to be tested. The reason professor, was because despite knowing about the stain for many months (months before, they went to Oggi magazine with the story), instead of formally filing a request with Judge Massei during the appropriate time IN the trial weeks or months before, they waited until the second to last day of an eleven month trial, during summing up and rebuttals. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that it was opposed jointly by the prosecution and Mr Maresca and the Judge said "No". If they had just discovered the stain that day, then it's excusable but as we've seen, that wasn't the case. Therefore, I would suggest that you have these facts known and understood before you embarress youself writing misinformed letters to Mr Maresca. And now, professor, I have some questions for you:

a) Why did the the defence wait until the last day but one of the trial to request testing be performed on an item of evidence they claimed to be significant, yet had been in their possession for many months? These were top lawyers, so their timing was deliberate, it was by 'design'. What were they really wanting to achieve by filing their request at the eleventh hour?

b) In their appeal documents filed with the appeal court PRIOR to the appeal, they raised the fact of the 'potential' new evidence and complained that Judge Massei had refused their request for it to be tested. Although, they gave no explanation of how the test results may possibly have aided their clients. However, it is only DURING the appeal itself they could actually make the formal request to the judge that it be tested. It's not enough to be in the documents, the request has to be made to the judge in person. Yet, during the many months of the appeal, one where it seemed Judges Hellmann and Zanetti were happily willing to grant every single request of the defence whilst denying all prosecution requests, they made no formal request to the judges that tiis stain be tested...this supposedly 'crucial' evidence. Why was that, professor? Perhaps, I can give you some answers:

i) Even if the test actually found semen and it did belong to Guede, all it would have proven was a) Guede was there...and that we knew already and b) there was a sexual attack on the victim...that too, we knew already. Alternatively, it could have been shown to have been something far more likely, such as Meredith's Vaseline lip balm or makeup, in which case it would have been useless both to defence and prosecution. Or, it could have been Sollecito's semen. Oops!

Conclusion: The defence never wanted the stain tested in the first place and that policy never changed. It was at best irrelevant and at worst, it could prove their client's guilt and his co-accused along with him. They waited until the the next to last day of the trial to make their request in the full knowledge it would be refused. The purpose of the request, was a) a delaying tactic (delay always benefits the defence) b) to muddy the waters (guilty clients require as much confusion as possible, whilst innocent clients require clarity) c) to give them something else to grumble about in their appeal documents, to help try and paint a picture their client had gotten a raw deal from the trial court and finally c) to play to the gallery (the media...and people like you professor) to raise public sympathy for their clients and doubt in their guilt. Whilst much of their work is done in court, lawyers will also do PR work for their clients as public opinion is considered important, that's why they come out onto the court steps to speak to the media after hearings or say...have articles published in Oggi magazine (which is a rag by the way). It serves also to gee up the troops, the troops in this case being those who are part of an astroturfed 'grass roots' advocacy campaign on behalf of the accused...good little soldiers like youself, professor.

It's been good talking with you professor. Should you have any more questions you'd like to ask, I'll happliy answer them for you. I might even spare you the need to ask Mr Maresca.

Fulcanelli, a.k.a Michael


I'm tired of the bullshit. An 'innuendo defence' is no defence at all, and this is the type of defence (along with some fact stretching), as so much of the defence offered by Knox's defenders is, Anderson is trying to provide. Even if one labours the point that one is a 'professor'! If the best a 'professor' can muster in his darlings' favour is an 'innuendo defence', rather then a defence based on formally submitted evidence, hard facts or clear paths of structured logic, then that doesn't say very much for the 'innocence' of the pair. If you have a truly good case for innocence to argue then you don't need to bother with weak innuendo.

Worse, we all know that whilst the Knox Cultists love to use innuendo to try and make a case, what this is REALLY about in this instance, is to attack the Kerchers, specifically John Kercher, due to his upcoming book which the FOAKers are TERRIFIED of by the way, and because Chelsea has written a cracking article in John's support. The FOAKer's desperately want John and his book marginalised and out of the public eye, the last thing they want is him and his book edified. There is only one narrative the FOAKers want the public to hear and that's the FOAKer narrative. All the while people only ever hear one narrative, they'll start to believe it. Some are directly attacking John Kercher in that thread. Those FOAKers that are too cowardly to do that or do not want to be seen as being so unsubtle, attack Maresca instead and every time they do so, they insult the Kerchers...which is the intent.

One final point. Some posts in that thread may very rightly, make some of you angry. There's a good deal of bullying going on there too (no surprises there). If you feel tempted to post your thoughts there, please keep it polite and don't flame. Keep it rational and uber-polite. The FOAKers are looking really bad in there right now whilst those posting for Meredith are showing them up. The FOAKers would love those that care about Meredith to lose their rag under an article that has rebuked the FOAKers so badly whilst making an excellent moral defence of the victims.

There is something extremely sad and depressing about the fact that an article that has attempted to make the point to the World that the victims of a brutal sex murder exist, are important in the case, should be central to the case and should be listened to when they have something to say, seems so 'refreshing', refreshing to the point of being precious. There are many people out there, that should feel thoroughly ashamed.

_________________
"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 ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

OT:

The fact that kindle E-books cost more than print books is as cynical as things can get.
for instance a paperback costing £5.91 is £6.99 on kindle

talk about saving the planet talk about resources -- where are regulators?

cost of production of a book = production + distribution -- production packaging - artwork - storage

cost of distribution of a kindle e-book a small percentage (no material)

why do they do that? why? because they know their target market is young hip wealthy -
enough to afford to pay for a rip-off

anyway -- IMO the whole copyright model is flawed - it holds back human progress to have books in copyright -- there should be a licensing pool so that all authors (dependent on sliding scale) get some money

and it means that all readers / students get access to the whole scope of human knowledge
who was it decided that print had to be paid for anyway? if it's related orally it can't be charged for can it?

but now they're charging more for what isn't even an impression

just an OT splurge
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:48 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:


This is a shout mainly to unregistered readers of PMF (for members, it's simply an FYI). If any of you have been toying with idea of registering a member account with the board, I strongly advise that you do so within 24 hours of the posting of this message.

For more then a week, PMF has been under attack by a swarm of spam bots and it's intensifying. Therefore, I will be forced raise the registration security levels. Once I do that, it may make registration more difficult or even not possible for some users. Therefore, I will raise the levels in about 24 hours following this post to allow unregistered members who think they may like to create an account a window to do so.

The increased security levels will be temporary and I shall bring them back down once the spam bot attack has passed. However, I have no idea how long the storm will last.

None of this should effect members that are already registered.

Thank You,

Michael

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


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

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hey, Michael, can I get one of those awesome avatars please? No preference. Surprise me.

Thanks!
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
OT:

The fact that kindle E-books cost more than print books is as cynical as things can get.
for instance a paperback costing £5.91 is £6.99 on kindle

talk about saving the planet talk about resources -- where are regulators?

cost of production of a book = production + distribution -- production packaging - artwork - storage

cost of distribution of a kindle e-book a small percentage (no material)

why do they do that? why? because they know their target market is young hip wealthy -
enough to afford to pay for a rip-off

anyway -- IMO the whole copyright model is flawed - it holds back human progress to have books in copyright -- there should be a licensing pool so that all authors (dependent on sliding scale) get some money

and it means that all readers / students get access to the whole scope of human knowledge
who was it decided that print had to be paid for anyway? if it's related orally it can't be charged for can it?

but now they're charging more for what isn't even an impression

just an OT splurge


Don't mean to be disagreeable :) but I disagree, ttrroonniicc.

Book copyrights ought to be inviolate property of the writer, otherwise anyone can print pirate editions or make movies based on books without payment to the author. The model you mention about pooled payments was used to compensate writers for books read in public libraries and was a scam run by the publishing houses to get additional payments for themselves and the only writers who actually benefited from that were best selling authors.

As it is, book copyrights expire 50-80 years after a writer's death unless they transfer the rights to a trust or estate. What annoys me is when a trademark like Disney gets special Congessional laws passed to safeguard Mickey Mouse long after the registration expired.

I understand where you're coming from regarding Kindle's pricing. Amazon isn't the bad party in this though. Kindle and Amazon was trying to reduce Kindle pricing while it was the publishers that tried to keep them artificially high. It was Hachette that caused the lack of availability of Meredith on Amazon, and not Amazon.That is why DOJ is investigating Hachette and other publishers for anti-competition practices.

As someone who's followed the book industry for many decades, I say they aren't even as bad as say, the music industry. The old models are dead. and there are very few books I'd like to pay $30 and up for any more. (Was glad to pay $31.99 Cdn for Meredith though, and $9.99 US for the Kindle :)

People like me. who regret the passing of the mom and pop bookstores, book lovers who say there is no substitute for paper are happy to still be able to get them from Amazon (and if that gets me a discount, why not?)

On that note, I'm sure many of you have noticed this: Amanda Knox probably hasn't read many books at all; her er, writing style, reflects that. I'd love to skim through her book (at the book store, natch) if it comes out just to see what her ghost writer has to say.

Though, as the old saying goes, one can never polish a turd.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi, Ergon. I, for one am curious what Knox's book will contain. But, I also won't be buying it.
I resent being manipulated. Since she set foot back here, there has not been a word from her. This, I believe is intentional. No comment, no interview. Nothing. The unspoken here is, "If you want to hear what I have to say, buy my book." No, thanks. I'll pass.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

New post from John Kercher on the Daily Mail with beautiful personal photos of him, the family and of course beautiful, sweet Meredith.
Haven't even read it yet, thought I'd post here immediately so everyone knows John has written something.
Well done John, a very brave man, all love to the Kercher family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ds-newsxml

© Text and pictures: John Kercher 2012







There's 1 photo of Know too, with her fakey face crying... don't think we need to have that here making the place look untidy.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
New post from John Kercher on the Daily Mail with beautiful personal photos of him, the family and of course beautiful, sweet Meredith.
Haven't even read it yet, thought I'd post here immediately so everyone knows John has written something.
Well done John, a very brave man, all love to the Kercher family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ds-newsxml


Thanks for the link, Zorba. It is a touching article. Beautiful pictures of a happy, loved child. It is beyond me how anyone can criticize this man, this family. Their loss is immeasurable, and their pain continuing. The best thing, the only thing we can wish for them is justice.
RIP, Meredith.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

They are such an incredibly ''beautiful', photogenic family, crikey!!! that means John too of course, that is one handsome man, and I don't ever day that about other men.

Seems like these people are lovely in and out.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

My pleasure Napia, am very happy to see Mr Kercher trying to give his feelings.
You hit the nail on the head too, yes, exactly, loved, truly loved.
How children shine when they're really loved, nurtered and taught right ways to live.
These images are lovely, what he says though is what we knew he felt and it never fails to upset me, feeling for them, as I know all of us do here, I know I feel incredibly frustrated by it all, and I think I know just how incredibly destroyed John and his family all are. They all have such a sparkle in their eyes, one can only admire all of them.
They must have shared such a lot of fun, joy and happiness, seeing Meredith with her slightly older sister, that's moving too, one can just see they must have been so close and had such fun.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
My pleasure Napia, am very happy to see Mr Kercher trying to give his feelings.
You hit the nail on the head too, yes, exactly, loved, truly loved.
How children shine when they're really loved, nurtered and taught right ways to live.
These images are lovely, what he says though is what we knew he felt and it never fails to upset me, feeling for them, as I know all of us do here, I know I feel incredibly frustrated by it all, and I think I know just how incredibly destroyed John and his family all are. They all have such a sparkle in their eyes, one can only admire all of them.
They must have shared such a lot of fun, joy and happiness, seeing Meredith with her slightly older sister, that's moving too, one can just see they must have been so close and had such fun.


This is the Meredith he wants the world to know. The loss of this beautiful young woman should have been the focus over the last four years. Finally, Meredith and her grieving family will have their say. Long overdue, and much awaited.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yes Napia, right,
it isn't easy for him, I feel this, I think he feels/knows he must now do it; it's costing him him all of his strength.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

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

zorba wrote:
Yes Napia, right,
it isn't easy for him, I feel this, I think he feels/knows he must now do it; it's costing him him all of his strength.


I know one thing. This is not a man who is a money-hungry attention-seeker, as being presented by some of the FOAKERS.
His words are not rage-filled. And all I can say is, he is a stronger person than I could ever hope to be.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Looking at recent pictures of John Kercher, you see how much the loss of his daughter affected him. He has been in ill health since, and I hope the book will help him and his family gain some peace.

And, I hope he doesn't hold back. Rudy Guede was NOT the sole murderer, and the real ones are walking free.

For now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks for the daily Mail article, Zorba. That's part II. Here's Part I again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ghter.html ... John Kercher makes it very clear the family believes Knox and Sollecito are guilty. I'm glad because I am sure this will be repeated in the book, and that's why the FOA have been VERY nervous.

Good. The Italian Supreme Court has been put on notice, and they better deliver the justice that the Hellmann court denied the grieving family.
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 Apr 22, 2012 9:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Emerald wrote:
Hey, Michael, can I get one of those awesome avatars please? No preference. Surprise me.

Thanks!



There you go Emerald. If you'd prefer a different one or your old avatar back, just let me 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 Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Hi, Ergon. I, for one am curious what Knox's book will contain. But, I also won't be buying it.
I resent being manipulated. Since she set foot back here, there has not been a word from her. This, I believe is intentional. No comment, no interview. Nothing. The unspoken here is, "If you want to hear what I have to say, buy my book." No, thanks. I'll pass.


Ah yes indeed, the manipulation. We had the parents on Oprah, the CBS/ABC cheerleaders angling for an exclusive, the military industrial complex PR firm Gogerty Marriott, the astroturfers singing from the same songbook. We're all so familiar, so tired, of that. What could possibly interest us? Sadly, there always will be people who need to believe in the narrative of an 'innocent victim of injustice' to match the lack of control their own lives. So yes, some, maybe many people will buy her book (but not us)

But in the end, It will end up in the remaindered bin, $4 million deal or not. John Kercher's book, on the other hand? It will be a fitting memorial for his daughter, and that, is what counts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Thanks for the daily Mail article, Zorba. That's part II. Here's Part I again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ghter.html ... John Kercher makes it very clear the family believes Knox and Sollecito are guilty. I'm glad because I am sure this will be repeated in the book, and that's why the FOA have been VERY nervous.

Good. The Italian Supreme Court has been put on notice, and they better deliver the justice that the Hellmann court denied the grieving family.


Thanks Ergon

Yes Mr John Kercher makes it clear that he - as a result of ALL of the EVIDENCE provided and presented in court - and the rest of the family could only come to the conclusion that both Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murdering Meredith.

What I also liked seeing was John mentioning how nobody in the media seemed to be asking, 'well if this not guilty finding by Hellmann is correct then where are the killers and why then is nobody thinking, 'huh, god the murderers are still running around'.

The reason the police in Italy have not entertained going looking for anyone else is because it would be ridiculous for them to do that, based on what they already have as regards evidence on Knox and Sollecito.

It's a classic for persons who have committed crime, and specifically crime of this nature, to be over-helpful, for them to turn into little helpers, and to say, I want to help find the real killers, I hate to mention it but didn't OJ Simpson say the same kind of rubbish?

Pleasing too is to see Mr Kercher knowing when to take it easy, the stroke is serious, and he knows he was lucky as they can be fatal, and he realises how everything has already affected him so deeply, namely the stress, which is for a great deal born of frustration, and as he mentioned, how he became upset at seeing Knox and Sollecito becoming some kind of Murder Celebrities, he just states things as they were, like Knox having been all smiley until the moment she she was found guilty.

Certain people who seem to be persistently and nastily defending Knox, make me think they must be family or close to Knox, because who else would keep that up, I cannot imagine that strangers would do that, once they had retrieved their bone (like Moore with his using the case to build a resume) they were pretty much off again.

Look at Moore how he continued to sell himself as some kind of defender of the wrongly accused... been on TV many times, said he!
Yeah, once or twice like a whole lot of other people.
Thing is people like that not only have attempted to use Meredith's murder to better themselves financially, they have also used Knox, even though family Knox cheer them on, because the family is desperate they do the cheering for anyone who pretends to care about Knox.

The extradition agreements currently in force between America and European countries need to be overhauled because citizens from European countries are extradited to America but Americans are not extradited from America to Europe or anywhere else, therefore; what is the use of having a policy that says both sides must extradite but one side fails to do this?
It's unfair. As it stands, the policy or agreement, should be annulled, as it is only valuable to the American governmental system.

I imagine dad Sollecito has hired a private tutor to teach son Sollecito English, priming him up ready to get out of the country, preferably long before the supreme court decides on the murder, so that they can say: look, he is living in America, has been living in America, and wishes to remain in America as he has built up a new life here and the supreme court in Italy is corrupt, so America cannot send him back, just like they cannot send Knox back.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

© Text and pictures: John Kercher 2012

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:41 pm   Post subject: NUMEROLOGY   

I think I'll afflict the uncomfortable (with astrology) again ;)

As posted to my twitter feed manfromatlan:

Numerology: Add digits in YOB to it, result is a significant year in person's life. Example: 1950=1950+1+9+5+0=1965

Raffaele Solecito: 1984 + 22=2006 (Year his mother died?)

Rudy Guede: 1986 + 24= 2010 Year his conviction upheld by Supreme Court

Amanda Knox: 1987 + 25= 2012. Let's see what happens this year.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael, that's the active Sun, isn't it?
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Brilliant, intelligent and factual post above, Michael. It never ceases to amaze me that people will post that they
'started out believing she was guilty, and changed their minds when they read the evidence.' What a crock.

I see the Knoxii over at HuffPo are out in force again. Comments are being made that all of the friends of Meredith and the flatemates and boys below changed their stories AFTER Knox was arrested. Apparently all felt things were just peachy-keen between Meredith and Knox, and only changed their tunes 'collectively' based upon some bias that attaches itself to arrested people. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

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

I was busy the past few days so now I am catching up with the comments that have been written in the meantime.


@kathyh
Sorry for my late birthday wishes: Happy Birthday to you!

mul-)


@zorba
Thank you for posting the article from John Kercher. It is very moving and saddening to read about the Kercher's ordeal. It is a great article. I can't wait to read his book. The reason the Knoxies are reacting so negative to the publication of John Kercher's book is not only because he believes Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be guilty, he also brings Meredith closer to the readership by telling us about her. Now we will hear his side of the story and learn more about Meredith Kercher, the real victim of this tragedy, she will be more than a name that was repressed from news articles and headlines to be substituted by Amanda Knox and her prison diaries. They wish the Kercher family would disappear completely. Long absent, soon forgotten. John Kercher does the right thing. He reminds people that the case should focus on his daughter and the evidence, which happens to point to Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's guilt.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

e
Nell wrote:
I was busy the past few days so now I am catching up with the comments that have been written in the meantime.


@kathyh
Sorry for my late birthday wishes: Happy Birthday to you!

mul-)


@zorba
Thank you for posting the article from John Kercher. It is very moving and saddening to read about the Kercher's ordeal. It is a great article. I can't wait to read his book. The reason the Knoxes are reacting so negative to the publication of John Kercher's book is not only because he believes Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be guilty, he also brings Meredith closer to the readership by telling us about her. Now we will hear his side of the story and learn more about Meredith Kercher, the real victim of this tragedy, she will be more than a name that was repressed from news articles and headlines to be substituted by Amanda Knox and her prison diaries. They wish the Kercher family would disappear completely. Long absent, soon forgotten. John Kercher does the right thing. He reminds people that the case should focus on his daughter and the evidence, which happens to point to Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's guilt.



Hi there Nell, and good day to everyone else too.

It's true, yes we will hear from John, that's clear, it's also clear that the fact that Meredith was murdered doesn't seem to be enough for Knox's family, they and their chums feel the need to bully Meredith's family too!

How I'd put it is, the violence which I believe to have been carried out by Knox, Sollecito and Guede, was not enough for Knox's family, and another thing, what seems to be the case is, that the aggression and bullying carried out by the three, inspires the same in like-minded people, this means, it is actually no surprise to see all kinds of nasty little creatures writing horridly bullying things on the Internet, where Knox & Sollecito are at, is where their supporters are too, the mentality it's an attraction to those with similar minds.

Michelle M wrote a comment on the Daily Mail site, and crikey, how awful it is, that woman is completely bananas, I am not bothering reproducing it here, but she is less than a slice short of a sandwich, she now said those outside the court booing the Knoxes, were police in plain clothes.

I guess better than her... the Knoxes do not deserve!

Additonally, I took a look at Chelsea's page, and well, what can one say, a so-called professor speaking like that, huh, what's the point of responding to those people, my idea is that it is a waste of time and energy.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Happy belated birthday wishes to Kathy, sorry about that, I missed it.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:
I was busy the past few days so now I am catching up with the comments that have been written in the meantime.


@kathyh
Sorry for my late birthday wishes: Happy Birthday to you!

mul-)


@zorba
Thank you for posting the article from John Kercher. It is very moving and saddening to read about the Kercher's ordeal. It is a great article. I can't wait to read his book. The reason the Knoxes are reacting so negative to the publication of John Kercher's book is not only because he believes Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be guilty, he also brings Meredith closer to the readership by telling us about her. Now we will hear his side of the story and learn more about Meredith Kercher, the real victim of this tragedy, she will be more than a name that was repressed from news articles and headlines to be substituted by Amanda Knox and her prison diaries. They wish the Kercher family would disappear completely. Long absent, soon forgotten. John Kercher does the right thing. He reminds people that the case should focus on his daughter and the evidence, which happens to point to Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's guilt.



Hi there Nell, and good day to everyone else too.

It's true, yes we will hear from John, that's clear, it's also clear that the fact that Meredith was murdered doesn't seem to be enough for Knox's family, they and their chums feel the need to bully Meredith's family too!

How I'd put it is, the violence which I believe to have been carried out by Knox, Sollecito and Guede, was not enough for Knox's family, and another thing, what seems to e the case is, that the aggression and bullying carried out by the three, inspires the same in like-minded people, this means, it is actually no surprise to see all kinds of nasty little creatures writing horridly bullying things on the Internet, where Knox & Sollecito are at, is where their supporters are too, the mentality it's an attraction to those with similar minds.

Michelle M wrote a comment on the Daily Mail site, and crikey, how awful it is, that woman is completely bananas, I am not bothering reproducing it here, but she is less than a slice short of a sandwich, she now said those outside the court booing the Knoxes, were police in plain clothes.

I guess better than her... the Knoxes do not deserve!

Additonally, I took a look at Chelsea's page, and well, what can one say, a so-called professor speaking like that, huh, what's the point of responding to those people, my idea is that it is a waste of time and energy.


Good Morning, Zorba. Yes, the fruits and nuts were falling freely from the trees this weekend. Sad and frustrating for a fact. However, if you read Michael's response to Dr.Anderson, you will see why it is necessary to continue posting.

The Knoxii want all of us to 'go away'. They love to pile on, insulting and attempting to demean. They want us to be silent. There is no opportunity to debate most of these people, because their agenda is to present the same talking points, lies and mis-conceptions and, as you point out, 'bully' us off these blogs and sites.

But, it is important to remember, people are still out there, looking for information. Honest, intelligent people, who are learning first-hand about the incredible amount of evidence presented, and I believe, with John Kercher's book release, there will be a new wave of seekers of truth. It's the thing that I believe the Knoxii are trying to prevent.

So, I feel as Michael does, we must continue to present the truth of this matter. Not in any attempt to convince the 'banana eaters', but to intelligently present the facts to anyone who wants the knowledge.

I believe that it is most important now. With John Kercher's book about to hit the stands. We can help him best with the truth.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zorba, I just popped over to read the latest from the 'singing one.' I find it interesting to note what I see happening these days.

Back in the day, if a site was graced with her presence, the groupies piled on with compliments and kudos, both for her and the tubby hubby.

Now, the comments, confusing as they are, are met with 'dead air.' Everyone, both pro and con, has apparently moved a bit away from the embarrassment. I guess you could call this collateral damage.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Napia,

I almost started writing an explanation about her there but then I thought, why draw any more attention to her, anyone with any brains and decency would know she is up the wall, saying such things.

Bet there are things we do not get to hear about, for 1/ I can imagine the Knox-Mellases didn't feel comfortable with her around, even though they are themselves wicked, she'd be the one to say all the wrong stuff, like about her husband and what he had done for them and sort of what they owed him and her, he though, I reckon, was content with using Knox as his current resume platform, on which to launch his new career as the saviour of the wrongly accused.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

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

FWIW, count me in as one who thought the fix was in with the Hellmann Zanetti court.

Zanetti, imo, was the driving influence, the one who bulldozed the rest of the civilian judges into voting for a pre ordained judgement.

The signs were there:

His prejudicial statement about "the only thing we know"

He had the expertise in criminal cases to steer the case any way he wanted, then inexplicably ignored all the previous evidence and discounted Curatolo and Quintavalle.

The appointment of 'experts' to review Stefanoni's findings, and the choice of the compromised Vechiotti to a case of such a high international profile.

The high degree of political interference, by Americans and Berlusconi.

I have no direct knowledge of How Things Are Done in Italy or envelopes and briefcases :)

But, to me, the astrology is clear.

The motivation of the crime was a jealous, drug and alcohol fueled rage by Amanda Knox.

Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito were passengers along for the hazing that escalated into deadly violence.

Amanda Knox wielded the murder knife.

They say there are two Italies. I hope the better one will rule soon.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

http://tinyurl.com/cy8y2zg

someone put me onto what seems to be a concise documentary
haven't finished watching it yet - has interviews with some of the players in it
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:06 pm   Post subject: THE FOA MACHINERY   

An interesting find:

Domain Name:RAFFAELESOLLECITO.ORG
Created On:12-Dec-2009 06:07:54 UTC
Last Updated On:13-Dec-2011 01:34:57 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Dec-2012 06:07:54 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Dotster, Inc. (R34-LROR)
Registrant Name:Chris Mellas
Registrant Street1:***
Registrant City:Seattle
Registrant State/Province:WA
Registrant Postal Code:***
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:***
Registrant Email:cmellas@***
Admin Name:Chris Mellas
Admin Street1:***
Admin City:Seattle
Admin State/Province:WA
Admin Postal Code:***
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:***
Admin Email:cmellas@***
Tech ID: ****
Tech Name:Chris Mellas
Tech Organization:***
Tech Street1:***
Tech City:Seattle
Tech State/Province:WA
Tech Postal Code:***
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:***
Tech Email:cmellas@***

The site, about the "real" Raffaele Sollecito, is still up. What makes this relevant is that, ONE WEEK after the Massei Court found Knox and Sollecito guilty, the FOA went into overdrive, setting up a fan site for Sollecito. Was this when the Knoxes convinced the Sollecitos that American PR would save the day?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Injustice In Perugia was set up two months later. It really has been fascinating to track the octopus web. They wised up afterwards, but funny, how that site, and the spoof perugiamurderfile.com, was registered by the same company in TORONTO? :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kathyh


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:01 pm

Posts: 25

Highscores: 22

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I have tried to get to the documentary, but my computer won't let me. Bummer!! I'm quite annoyed about that.
OT Thanks for belated birthday wishes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

kathyh wrote:
I have tried to get to the documentary, but my computer won't let me. Bummer!! I'm quite annoyed about that.
OT Thanks for belated birthday wishes.



I couldn't get access to it either, I think because on non-American location.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I am watching the video right now. So far I have seen Andrea Vogt, Carlo Dalla Vedova and Francesco Maresca. They all comment on the case. The video has a duration of 21:29 minutes.

To watch it you have to press the button "Close Ad and Watch as Free User". Then the video should start.

EDIT: I've finished the video and it is pretty neutral in my opinion. They don't take sides, they only report very briefly about what happened from the investigative stage to the trials and at the end it informs that the prosecution has appealed to the Supreme Court asking to overthrow Judge Pratillo Hellmann's verdict.


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: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Just received an email from Amazon UK that my copy of 'Meredith' has dispatched.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kathyh


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:01 pm

Posts: 25

Highscores: 22

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

No Nell, I don't even get that. Only a message saying it's not available. I'm glad to hear that the prosecution has appealed to the supreme Court. Hopefully some justice will come of that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Today, I am attempting again to muddle through the 'logic' of Hellman. And again, I come to the part that stops me cold. On page 22 of the translations, he states,

[31] In reality, however – apart from the fact that the caresses, simple signs of tenderness
between two lovers, could have been a way of comforting each other, and apart from the
fact that those same gymnastic exhibitions could also have been a way of exorcising the
climate of anxiety and fear that had caught everyone up, a way to find a bit of the ordinary
normality that had been destroyed by what had happened – apart from all these
considerations, it is observed that these testimonies refer to the beginning of the time spent
at the police station and not to the late night (1:45 AM and 5:45 AM) when the so‐called
“spontaneous” declarations were rendered; which, contrary to the hypothesis of the
prosecution, tends to prove that Amanda Knox, who had no reason at the beginning to be
scared, entered into a state of stress and oppression as a consequence of the interrogation
and the way it took place.

What? I mean, seriously, WHAT?

He is saying here that one cannot attribute suspicious behavior to Knox at the police station, because, in the early days, no one suspected her, therefore she had no reason to be 'scared' therefore her behavior cannot be considered suspicious.

I defy anyone out there to try to convince me that this is logic. In ANY sense of the word.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I read the comments on Chelsea's article. First of all, Michael was EXCELLENT. No surprise there.

NO surprise, either, that the singing one, is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely nuts.

It's weirdly readable. Sort of like enjoying, in a way, * One flew over the Cuckoo nest *. If Michelle Moore wasn't so sadly nuts, she's pretty funny. You want to laugh, but empathy kicks in.

There was an old..and I mean old...woman in Beverly Hills. Maybe 80-85. She wore a blonde wig, tons of make-up, and a call girl's outfit. She sort of danced ( tottered) as though in a Las Vegas show. It was unbearably sad, but compelling to watch. There she was, on a busy street corner, doing her thing. She became a fixture for awhile, and when my kids were in the car, their eyes went WIDE, and asked : What's she doing?

There are no real answers. Some people just aren't right in the head. I like to think that the old woman was enjoying herself. She did no harm to anyone.

Ms. Moore. She's an embarrassment to herself. And, I imagine, to the Foakers on some level. Yes, they need supporters, and I understand beggars can't be choosers. Even so..........

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Just received an email from Amazon UK that my copy of 'Meredith' has dispatched.


Wow, it must be available then here I think, I must look for it now.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Today, I am attempting again to muddle through the 'logic' of Hellman. And again, I come to the part that stops me cold. On page 22 of the translations, he states,

[31] In reality, however – apart from the fact that the caresses, simple signs of tenderness
between two lovers, could have been a way of comforting each other, and apart from the
fact that those same gymnastic exhibitions could also have been a way of exorcising the
climate of anxiety and fear that had caught everyone up, a way to find a bit of the ordinary
normality that had been destroyed by what had happened – apart from all these
considerations, it is observed that these testimonies refer to the beginning of the time spent
at the police station and not to the late night (1:45 AM and 5:45 AM) when the so‐called
“spontaneous” declarations were rendered; which, contrary to the hypothesis of the
prosecution, tends to prove that Amanda Knox, who had no reason at the beginning to be
scared, entered into a state of stress and oppression as a consequence of the interrogation
and the way it took place.

What? I mean, seriously, WHAT?

He is saying here that one cannot attribute suspicious behavior to Knox at the police station, because, in the early days, no one suspected her, therefore she had no reason to be 'scared' therefore her behavior cannot be considered suspicious.

I defy anyone out there to try to convince me that this is logic. In ANY sense of the word.



On this, I'm not sure I really believe the Italian system is better, it's too good for those accused and too terrible for what it means to victims, all of this as opposed to what Knox's mad hatters ranted, it's been far too good on them.

I mean, once you go down in the UK, there isn't much opportunity for making a mockery of everything, appeals are not easy to come by, and I do not think Knox and Sollecito would have been given the appeal in Britain, there was far too much against them, circumstantial as well as hard material evidence, I doubt a jury would have been sobbing it up for Knox, they'd have seen right through her, after all she herself acted like the biggest mad hatter of all, whether she did that in an attempt to be able to say, later on, that, she was in fact not in order, I don't know, but her behaviour, wouldn't have had anyone in Britain shedding any tears for her, I think the average person would have seen through her fakeness, her acting, none of it was real, if the Italians had understood her in her own language, at the depth that Native Speakers do, she'd have been done with.

I pray that it all gets turned around, and that will mean, unless Sollecito flees, he'll be in jail and I do not believe he'd sit out a whole lot of years languishing in jail, crying about being innocent, I think he'd crack up, knowing Knox is enjoying her roast Seattle Starbuckery, while he literally roasts paying for Knox's part too, that's the way he'll feel, and I think therefore, the Knox family will be very worried about this potential situation, as he is bound to come out with stuff, break down, and hope to be put into the hospital section of jail and hope he will be shown leniency for having told the truth, finally.


That situation will then mean, good or bad for Sollecito, Knox will have no more opportunities to deceive anyone and will have no way of messing about using people, Sollecito will have gotten ahead and well, let's just see then, exactly how big they all are as chums, the Seattle lot and Sollecito's crew.

Truth is on its way, they are heading for a breakdown.

However, if Sollecito is put back in, maybe his good pal will pop over saying I can't let this happen to you, you old turnip merchant, you old knife collecting good boy, allow me to be locked up too.
Yeah, sure.
Officers, arrest me, here I am.

I hope she speaks Italian all the time to her family and drives them as nuts as she is herself.
Surely every time she eats or even hears the word pizza she must get flashbacks to the night they attacked Meredith.
Like the parents of Jo Yeates said about their daughter's murderer, I hope Knox and Sollecito know how to suffer, because they certainly are in their minds suffering, waking up flashbacks to the fore, back to that night Meredith died, and suffering, it's all their own work.

Nice eh, yeah, like they are, not only - in my view then - committing murder, but profiting from it.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Sadly, Zorba, I have to disagree with you if you think there is suffering taking place with the lovebirds.
Have you ever heard or read the testimony of an abuser? How, "I wouldn't have hit her if she hadn't made me so mad, jealous, whatever"? It's blame the victim in some way. And there are people out there who truly believe this.
And I think in some way it applies here. Somehow, Meredith brought it on herself. I certainly know it isn't true, but I think it's the belief of the guilty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

We do know the rationalizations of those with Narcisstic Personality and other sociopathic disorders, Napia5. Those have been studied to death. But, the levels of denial among the Knox parents is truly interesting. Looking at similar parents, I think of George and Cindy Anthony. Do they really believe in Casey's innocence? What sort of rationalization can THEY come up with, or do parent's brains really shut off when it involves their kids?

As a parent and a grand parent I'm sure you know what I mean, and must have thought of this yourself? How would you, knowing what you do of the case and the evidence, have dealt with it?

I, too, have 5 children to be responsible for. Surely we know when our children are lying to us? Could we ever have gone to the Groupies default position of "our Mandy is innocent, and all the evidence against her, made up"?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
We do know the rationalizations of those with Narcisstic Personality and other sociopathic disorders, Napia5. Those have been studied to death. But, the levels of denial among the Knox parents is truly interesting. Looking at similar parents, I think of George and Cindy Anthony. Do they really believe in Casey's innocence? What sort of rationalization can THEY come up with, or do parent's brains really shut off when it involves their kids?

As a parent and a grand parent I'm sure you know what I mean, and must have thought of this yourself? How would you, knowing what you do of the case and the evidence, have dealt with it?

I, too, have 5 children to be responsible for. Surely we know when our children are lying to us? Could we ever have gone to the Groupies default position of "our Mandy is innocent, and all the evidence against her, made up"?


Well, Ergon, I adopted and raised a child with 'issues'. As a former "Queen of Parental Denial", I can tell you this:
there is nothing worse than the feeling that we have failed our children in some way. The guilt I felt was, at times overwhelming, and certainly, counterproductive. I blamed myself for all sorts of bad behavior, and, in the end, created a career 'victim'. I excused things I never should have, and, after a good deal of therapy, understand my behavior, but I doubt I will ever be able to totally forgive myself. But, that said, there was never a matter of a crime, of illegality, or God forbid, murder. I finally drew a line in the sand.
As to what I would have done in Edda's place. I would have talked to her until I was satisfied I had the total truth. And, yes, I would have known if she was lying.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
We do know the rationalizations of those with Narcisstic Personality and other sociopathic disorders, Napia5. Those have been studied to death. But, the levels of denial among the Knox parents is truly interesting. Looking at similar parents, I think of George and Cindy Anthony. Do they really believe in Casey's innocence? What sort of rationalization can THEY come up with, or do parent's brains really shut off when it involves their kids?

As a parent and a grand parent I'm sure you know what I mean, and must have thought of this yourself? How would you, knowing what you do of the case and the evidence, have dealt with it?

I, too, have 5 children to be responsible for. Surely we know when our children are lying to us? Could we ever have gone to the Groupies default position of "our Mandy is innocent, and all the evidence against her, made up"?


This is something I think about often. I will never forget Curt Knox's words shortly before Judge Pratillo Hellman's verdict: "She's not staying. Period."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
We do know the rationalizations of those with Narcisstic Personality and other sociopathic disorders, Napia5. Those have been studied to death. But, the levels of denial among the Knox parents is truly interesting. Looking at similar parents, I think of George and Cindy Anthony. Do they really believe in Casey's innocence? What sort of rationalization can THEY come up with, or do parent's brains really shut off when it involves their kids?

As a parent and a grand parent I'm sure you know what I mean, and must have thought of this yourself? How would you, knowing what you do of the case and the evidence, have dealt with it?

I, too, have 5 children to be responsible for. Surely we know when our children are lying to us? Could we ever have gone to the Groupies default position of "our Mandy is innocent, and all the evidence against her, made up"?


Yes, interesting subject but I guess even if one says what they 'would do'... could you be sure unless it had happened to you?

You mentioned George and Cindy Anthony. George did not cover for his daughter by lying... Cindy did IMO. Although George probably 'knew' that something terrible had happened to the child... but wanted to 'believe' that Casey wasn't totally responsible and it was an accident. That thought probably vanished forever when she/her lawyer claimed he knew what happened (drowned) and tried to cover it up. Cindy lied on the stand by claiming she was the one doing all those incriminating internet searches... knowing full well she hadn't.

That is different than basically seeing all the evidence of guilt (like in AK's case and for instance the Jason Young case in N.Carolina) by the parent/parents and instead totally believing what your adult child had told you. As AK's parents and J.Young's mom ignored the mountains of evidence of guilt and explained every situation away (as we often see the groupies do).

I believe that AK and J.Young have never admitted anything... and continue to deny that they are responsible. We have many (???) people now that fight/argue for her being innocent even though IMO, yours, and anyone with a bit of sense can see (again my opinion of course)... she is guilty as hell.
It would be a terrible situation to see all that evidence of guilt, but having your adult child swear they had nothing to do with it. My heart would break into tiny pieces.
I also hope I would do the right thing and say you must pay for your mistake, and take the consequences. I would still be able to love and see my adult child... unlike her (my daughter is 21) victim. Easy to say tho, hope I never have that decision.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Well, Ergon, I adopted and raised a child with 'issues'. As a former "Queen of Parental Denial", I can tell you this:
there is nothing worse than the feeling that we have failed our children in some way. The guilt I felt was, at times overwhelming, and certainly, counterproductive. I blamed myself for all sorts of bad behavior, and, in the end, created a career 'victim'. I excused things I never should have, and, after a good deal of therapy, understand my behavior, but I doubt I will ever be able to totally forgive myself. But, that said, there was never a matter of a crime, of illegality, or God forbid, murder. I finally drew a line in the sand.
As to what I would have done in Edda's place. I would have talked to her until I was satisfied I had the total truth. And, yes, I would have known if she was lying.


I am truly sorry, Napia5, if I in any way caused you to relive what must have been a very difficult part of your life. What I can do though, is share with you my own story, but, say this first: You did the best you could and no parent should, after having done that, blame themselves. Every child has a choice, just as we do. If, after all our efforts, they turn out a certain way, then we can only learn to eventually forgive ourselves, and, to let them go.

I have had wonderful children with certain challenges in life, and searching for a cure for their illness took up a lot of my time and energy, yet even now I wish I had spent more time with them, when my work took me away. One thing I refused to do, however, was feel guilty, since that energy would only drain and prevent me from doing what I had to do. And yes, knowing I had done everything I could was sufficient for me. You also did every thing you could; there are no manuals, lessons, or teachers for how to be a parent.

But I still asked a question of everyone here. Forget Raffaele Sollecito. His father knows he's guilty but blames Amanda Knox, and being an amoral mafiosi, will try to corrupt the process. How would we deal with it if our children were to be accused of doing what he and Knox did? Would we try to corrupt the process? Both the Knox and Sollecitos did that. Could we lie to ourselves? I think the Knoxes did that, but, speaking for myself only, I would know when my child was lying to me, and, knowing what they did, I would make them face the consequences of their actions, and not enable them further. Meredith Kercher was someone's child, who died a brutal, horrible death. If my child did that, I would not lie to myself about it. And, I believe that you, too, would do the right thing.

Speaking to you personally, Napia5, it doesn't matter what you think you neglected to do before. We all have levels of denial that surface at different times. What matters is what we do with it, and learn from it. I devoted my life to helping my children and then, others. You, have my sincere admiration for the job you undertook to raise 5 grandchildren.

Karma is the lesson we must learn. It comes most often from our relationships, with a loved one, or, through our children. You can't rue the choices you made, since it was those choices that gave you the opportunity to learn. And, to move from karma to dharma, which is the course of action, the path, well, I think you have already done that, through your own selfless actions.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thank you for that, dgfred.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

No worries about upsetting me, Ergon. I'm a tough old bird, and I shared what I did willingly, in order to show that I possess certain insights in life. I'm good, really.
I have often wondered how much time alone Edda actually had with Knox. Without tapes running. did they have much time together to talk? To really get into what happened? I know I have read a few sentences about their conversation when Edda first arrived, but I'm wondering just how much time alone they had. Was Edda warned by the attorney not to ask questions that could be taped? There are an awful lot of big name people (Trump etc) who publicly continue to say that she was framed. If I desperately wanted to believe in my daughter's innocence, and had all of these people pushing their theories on me, what would I believe?
We look at the evidence and see guilt. How would I feel as a parent when this evidence is presented and there are former FBI agents and people from the Innocence Project etc, pushing me to believe it is all just nonsense?
I believe that they know. But they wanted her home. That was all that mattered to them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
Yes, interesting subject but I guess even if one says what they 'would do'... could you be sure unless it had happened to you?

You mentioned George and Cindy Anthony. George did not cover for his daughter by lying... Cindy did IMO. Although George probably 'knew' that something terrible had happened to the child... but wanted to 'believe' that Casey wasn't totally responsible and it was an accident. That thought probably vanished forever when she/her lawyer claimed he knew what happened (drowned) and tried to cover it up. Cindy lied on the stand by claiming she was the one doing all those incriminating internet searches... knowing full well she hadn't.

That is different than basically seeing all the evidence of guilt (like in AK's case and for instance the Jason Young case in N.Carolina) by the parent/parents and instead totally believing what your adult child had told you. As AK's parents and J.Young's mom ignored the mountains of evidence of guilt and explained every situation away (as we often see the groupies do).

I believe that AK and J.Young have never admitted anything... and continue to deny that they are responsible. We have many (???) people now that fight/argue for her being innocent even though IMO, yours, and anyone with a bit of sense can see (again my opinion of course)... she is guilty as hell.
It would be a terrible situation to see all that evidence of guilt, but having your adult child swear they had nothing to do with it. My heart would break into tiny pieces.
I also hope I would do the right thing and say you must pay for your mistake, and take the consequences. I would still be able to love and see my adult child... unlike her (my daughter is 21) victim. Easy to say tho, hope I never have that decision.


Denial is one thing, but to make snide remarks about the victim is quite another. If they want to live in denial, that's their choice, but Amanda's family went much further than that. They refused to extend their condolences to the family of Meredith Kercher "until they would accept she was innocent" and they made unflattering remarks about Meredith's lifestyle. For me, that's where they crossed the line.

Right now, they are waging another online campaign to discredit John Kercher as an "unemployed tabloid journalist", driven by money and using their daughter's "fame" to make a buck. This is another attempt to make Amanda Knox out to be the victim. Knox supporters go as far as to say that without Amanda Knox, nobody would know about Meredith Kercher anyway, which I find is a very strange statement. It is wrong on so many levels. As it turns out, Meredith should be thankful for having been butchered, so that she could be named in the headlines alongside those who murdered her? The Kerchers should show a little bit more gratitude, I suppose.

In addition to that, their online supporters are showering Meredith's British friends and the Italian flatmates with verbal attacks, because they make them jointly responsible for the perception that Amanda Knox indeed had a motive to resent Meredith Kercher which could have motivated the murder. It is important to stress the fact that Edda Mellas and Curt Knox have never ever distanced themselves from these rabid verbal attacks and we cannot ignore the fact that they have created websites in support of Amanda to create a community dedicated to attack everyone who believes Amanda Knox to be involved in the crime. They not only tolerate these attacks, they encourage them, in my opinion. I believe one important factor of their online campaign and stalking efforts has been to put people off from commenting online. They want those who are critical to hush up and get tired or even scared of all this. That's exactly what they want and it is very much in accordance of how Curt Knox and Edda Mellas have conducted themselves in front of the cameras and in interviews: always offensive, always bold. They don't know the meaning of the word "appropriate".

In my opinion, the Knox/Mellas family are not living in denial, they are living in fear of being exposed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I believe they know, and I believe they, like their daughter, think they've gotten away with it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
--- snip ---

I have often wondered how much time alone Edda actually had with Knox. Without tapes running. did they have much time together to talk? To really get into what happened? I know I have read a few sentences about their conversation when Edda first arrived, but I'm wondering just how much time alone they had. Was Edda warned by the attorney not to ask questions that could be taped?

--- snap ---

They had been warned by their lawyers that prison conversations would be recorded. John Follain writes in his book that they sometimes "talked to" the people who were listening. I believe one of these occasion is when Edda Mellas visits Amanda in prison together with her sister. I will have to look it up again to get the transcripts.


Quote:
--- snip ---

There are an awful lot of big name people (Trump etc) who publicly continue to say that she was framed. If I desperately wanted to believe in my daughter's innocence, and had all of these people pushing their theories on me, what would I believe?
We look at the evidence and see guilt. How would I feel as a parent when this evidence is presented and there are former FBI agents and people from the Innocence Project etc, pushing me to believe it is all just nonsense?
I believe that they know. But they wanted her home. That was all that mattered to them.

--- snap ---

I don't know how Donald Trump got involved, but most public supporters were rather recruited. Steve Moore, Maria Cantwell, Judge Michael Heavey and Dr. Hampikian for instance. One argument to support Amanda Knox according to Judge Heavey is that she is "one of our own". I wonder if that applies to Charles Manson and his family too?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Sadly, Zorba, I have to disagree with you if you think there is suffering taking place with the lovebirds.
Have you ever heard or read the testimony of an abuser? How, "I wouldn't have hit her if she hadn't made me so mad, jealous, whatever"? It's blame the victim in some way. And there are people out there who truly believe this.
And I think in some way it applies here. Somehow, Meredith brought it on herself. I certainly know it isn't true, but I think it's the belief of the guilty.



Hi Napia,

Yes, I realised that writing the word suffering in connection to the pair would easily lead to confusion because everything visible, through their actions, says they are able to go through life - and assuming (knowing) they are guilty - as if they are infallible to everything.

Only thing is, they are not.
I have another post I started writing but I saved it as it goes too deeply into these things and becomes a bit hard to follow, so I'll need to look at it, and what I was trying to convey.

Definitely, in ordinary terms, they are not suffering, this aside, through their brand of self-harming, I'm sure in a longer-term way, they are suffering.
This is how...
This brand of suffering is not like through feeling remorse, or any other worthy thing showing signs of a need to be human in human terms, as in showing feelings, etc; no, they are suffering the effects of the actions they caused with their minds, with their own hands and feet, which means that no amount of pretence can wipe away the things that did really take place, and the 'effect' I refer to is specifically that they removed themselves far away from any place in their being/nature where a natural state of being can exist, so it means they can never experience real joy, this is what they lose out on.
To have no joy is to be one of the walking dead.One cannot aspire to acquiring that joy either if you are a murdering liar and unremorseful too, you can pretend to be okay but that is all.

Joy is something different to physical sensation, and physical sensation to my mind is more connected to the realms of pleasure and the idea/concept of happiness or about being happy,

Yet again, joy, to my mind, is something far more profound than happiness, because true joy cannot be had by any superficial arrangement whereupon one rests and imagines everything is fine, in a superficial prop-supported own world, however: There is light existing within a person of light. And it enlightens the whole world: if it does not enlighten, that person is darkness.

I do not see that anyone can play with this last-named set of concepts.

This would imply, that it is not physical sensations, pleasures, no matter how pleasing, that can provide release from suffering, it is the path walked where the human earns release, through right thinking and correct action, mostly, by learning how to surrender to love and to give your all, in service to the greater things, instead of to the self-serving things of ego games.

Considering the fact we live in societies that are by no means anywhere near the perfect model needed for a successful civilization and moreover, taking into account that this perfect peace and civilization never has been achieved by the humans inhabiting this planet as a group though splintered, then it is not too hard to see how it is that we with our vastly consumerism centred present-day materialistically-driven societies, do not get born and then immediately initiated into some path of all-knowing, a path guaranteed to provide real guidance.
No we learn the things that often are dictated to us by the influence of multi-national businesses, these huge companies, that own most of the earth's wealth, like Unilever does and Shell does too (besides a few others similar to these two), have fingers in every pie, and influence even the types of medicine our doctors will say we need. Because even doctors are sponsored by the medicine producing companies, the giants like Glaxo and others.
So, do we look up to this, in our world, and say yes we trust all of that, or does it mean that it is true that we have to seek out our own way to succeed in life, keep our eyes open and have an own mind, and I do not mean succeed materialistically but in terms of finding the way to evolve at the personal level, and to have our own true insights and enlightenment, after all, even if we are shaped to make sure we procreate, the ultimate goal and highest state of being, cannot be only this act of mating and caring for others; of course we should care for those dependent on us as far as we can, but besides these worthy, lovely moments in time through our lives, we owe it not only to ourselves to reach for higher love (non-physical rooted but where we make the physical become the driven and we become the spirit-filled drivers and masters of our own destinies), we also owe it to those who yearn for our love, care and attention, to achieve or try to obtain this higher love and to have this success gained through finding real answers rub off on those we love too, so that we inspire them or help them to heal or any other positive going towards their own self-realisation.

Our success therein, means the possibility of our loved ones, children, families gaining it too.

So our own self-denial in the negative sense, where we neglect our spiritual needs, our need to understand and to SEE, means we would deny others whom we love and who love us too, this opportunity to succeed and to get through life and arrive as perfected beings in peace and love, having managed to get over the hurdles placed at our feet, the ones that give us the opportunities we need personally and individually to learn from the experiences we need and by picking the right options from the range of choices available to us when confronted by those stumbling blocks; they only become real/actual stumbling blocks when we make the wrong choices and fall over them.
So Knox and Sollecito having made the worst choices can as much undo what they did as a baby can manage to untie it's own shoe or change its own diaper or cook its own food.

This means we cannot (*nobody can) hand the responsibility for ourselves to others, and it is true then as Ergon said, that we cannot/should not (but if we are nice people we will however often feel bad about ourselves no matter and in spite of what concepts we work out simply in our attempts to deal with everything, because we love and hate seeing others suffer and feel pain when we imagine we had anything to do with the hurt others felt or feel) feel guilty about things in the past that went in a way that we didn't want things to go, not if we had every intention to give and be there. So it does not mean that wicked people should also feel no guilt, no, not if they were plainly and knowingly unkind, unkind on purpose and not having given a shit, and even more so when such individuals continue to not give a shit. So Knox and Sollecito, what they've done, is no surprise, in every way they try to hand responsibility for their deeds to others, whether that means accusing innocent people by the score and having your family end up in jail too or potentially broke, your minor aged sisters have their childhood irreparably damaged through your lies, nope, they just could not care less than they already do, because they simply do not give a shit at all.
So a question of guilt when applied to them is different, they ought to feel guilt but do not because they do blame Meredith, tha'ts what keeps Knox going, telling herself that utter crap.

In this fashion, I see Knox and Sollecito who have shown, most glaringly, that they not only did not give a shit but by their actions after Meredith's death, continue to show that they have the very same mentality that they had on the night Meredith died and that they today also do not give a shit, appear to not even care when that path can mean only that they are harming themselves.

All of the above notwithstanding, I reckon that no matter what the families try to put out there, as smokescreen, the pair cannot avoid acting strangely. I do not think those two can have no conscience at all, anywhere, in no way; if one of them did happen to be completely satanic, like some kind of a serial killing habitual criminal would be, it would be miraculous if both were exactly like this. It does not mean that they will feel guilty or sorry but they will not be able to function normally.
The truth must come out. It will even be a relief and if they have in fact told nobody, then they will be bursting, it may come out in another fit of rage.
A seed of disaster was planted in their mental garden, and it will grow because they continue to water that seed until the garden is overrun with that brand of wickedness and cruelty through their continual gross acts of indecency, such as perpetually telling lies.

That's why, the crack may come, or better put, the cracks may form when something happens like Sollecito getting put back into prison and Knox remaining in America because of the American system refusing to extradite her. At that point, Knox's secrets will be in grave danger of being exposed. I say this because Sollecito is as selfish as Knox is and his pseudo heroism will not last as it is built on sand, he will cry help and tell the lot.

All 3 of them failed in this life and missed their opportunity to find release from suffering, instead of working to get the karma of past deeds off their backs, they simply added more karmic debt to their loads.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:01 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia asked about how much time they had together and if they talked openly about her involvement or not. I believe that there is a bigger chance that Raffaele Sollecito has told his father all the truth about his involvement than Amanda Knox her family about hers. Judging by the excerpts that have been published from prison conversations it seems that Edda Mellas was very much in doubt about what happened. Edda had a few questions, but they remained unanswered and Edda didn't insist. The quotes John Follain offers in his book from Chris Mellas, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, make me believe Amanda always got away with everything and always did what she wanted. They never stood up to her.

I found it strange that Amanda left her mother's house so quickly after arriving in the US. Only a few weeks after being released from prison, she moved in with a new boyfriend. I believe it is rare to move in with your boyfriend after only a few weeks, at that young age, and even more so if you need time to heal when you have just been released from prison. The normal thing to do would be to stay with your direct family for a while, to go back to your life and not to start in a rush something new.

Amanda's move to her boyfriend's apartment came shortly after her father said to journalists that it was too soon to talk about serious relationships (after a visit of David Johnsrud, I believe). How odd. Did she had her parents stamp of approval to move in with her boyfriend? Did they try to convince her to stay home with them? Did she leave because she felt nobody believed her? Amanda Knox is being described by her parents as very stubborn. We will never know what motivated her to leave home, but if you look at the facts, they suggest that something is not right here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia asked about how much time they had together and if they talked openly about her involvement or not. I believe that there is a bigger chance that Raffaele Sollecito has told his father all the truth about his involvement than Amanda Knox her family about hers. Judging by the excerpts that have been published from prison conversations it seems that Edda Mellas was very much in doubt about what happened. Edda had a few questions, but they remained unanswered and Edda didn't insist. The quotes John Follain offers in his book from Chris Mellas, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, make me believe Amanda always got away with everything and always did what she wanted. They never stood up to her.

I found it strange that Amanda left her mother's house so quickly after arriving in the US. Only a few weeks after being released from prison, she moved in with a new boyfriend. I believe it is rare to move in with your boyfriend after only a few weeks, at that young age, and even more so if you need time to heal when you have just been released from prison. The normal thing to do would be to stay with your direct family for a while, to go back to your life and not to start in a rush something new.

Amanda's move to her boyfriend's apartment came shortly after her father said to journalists that it was too soon to talk about serious relationships (after a visit of David Johnsrud, I believe). How odd. Did she had her parents stamp of approval to move in with her boyfriend? Did they try to convince her to stay home with them? Did she leave because she felt nobody believed her? Amanda Knox is being described by her parents as very stubborn. We will never know what motivated her to leave home, but if you look at the facts, they suggest that something is not right here.



I agree with everything you say here and especially the bit about Sollecito's pa knowing.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I don't have much of an opinion about the Knox/Mellas families as I usually zapped the channel when they were on tv. Besides the 'sideshows' simply don't interest me all that much. The few times I saw them I thought of Curt as a horrible actor and of Edda I wondered if she even knew herself what she was saying..lol.. Barbie Nadeau has large parts in her book about the families. Curt the 'smarter' one, Edda the loving mother, and Chris the crazy one. Barbie is not shy to report how the family reacts to herself.

Quote:
A few months later, on a far more sober occasion, Edda and I sit together over lemon sodas on corso Vannucci. My family would kill me if they knew I was meeting you, she says, missing the irony of the threat. Then she tells me that I had been the worst, one of the very worst, to write these lies and leaks about Amanda.

So what have I written that is not true? I ask again. Ive never read your stories, she says. Chris just tells me that you are the worst.

Madison says I should spit on you, Edda says, laughing apologetically. Shes just young. She doesnt understand this stuff.

I dish more dirt, and we giggle like girlfriends. Then she remembers I'm the enemy.

I don't know why Chris got involved. His aggressive and violent posts and comments are all over the internet. AFAIK Cassandra (Curt's wife) always stayed out of it. I guess there really is something not right about him.

Quote:
That patrigno, Guiliano Mignini said to me during a courtroom break, nodding toward Chris. Qualcosa non va. Something not right about him.

Not sure if Curt is really that 'smart'. He made his choice and joined the Marriott puppet circus. I believe both dads know exactly about their son/daughters involvement, and both have showed their anger about it.

Quote:
He is different from the rest, Mignini often said. Deep down, Curt knows. He knows the truth.

A father of three daughters himself, Mignini understood why Curt wanted to believe in Amanda. But the lawyer also saw something in Curt that only those who spent a lot of time in the courtroom had noticed. Curt was angry, his face often red as he stifled his tears.

Overall, now that they are both out I really doubt if there have been any talks about what really happened. I don't think the parents want to know. Things are better left untold so everybody can live happily ever after in denial until ....
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
I don't have much of an opinion about the Knox/Mellas families as I usually zapped the channel when they were on tv. Besides the 'sideshows' simply don't interest me all that much. The few times I saw them I thought of Curt as a horrible actor and of Edda I wondered if she even knew herself what she was saying..lol.. Barbie Nadeau has large parts in her book about the families. Curt the 'smarter' one, Edda the loving mother, and Chris the crazy one. Barbie is not shy to report how the family reacts to herself.

Quote:
A few months later, on a far more sober occasion, Edda and I sit together over lemon sodas on corso Vannucci. My family would kill me if they knew I was meeting you, she says, missing the irony of the threat. Then she tells me that I had been the worst, one of the very worst, to write these lies and leaks about Amanda.

So what have I written that is not true? I ask again. Ive never read your stories, she says. Chris just tells me that you are the worst.

Madison says I should spit on you, Edda says, laughing apologetically. Shes just young. She doesnt understand this stuff.

I dish more dirt, and we giggle like girlfriends. Then she remembers I'm the enemy.

I don't know why Chris got involved. His aggressive and violent posts and comments are all over the internet. AFAIK Cassandra (Curt's wife) always stayed out of it. I guess there really is something not right about him.

Quote:
That patrigno, Guiliano Mignini said to me during a courtroom break, nodding toward Chris. Qualcosa non va. Something not right about him.

Not sure if Curt is really that 'smart'. He made his choice and joined the Marriott puppet circus. I believe both dads know exactly about their son/daughters involvement, and both have showed their anger about it.

Quote:
He is different from the rest, Mignini often said. Deep down, Curt knows. He knows the truth.

A father of three daughters himself, Mignini understood why Curt wanted to believe in Amanda. But the lawyer also saw something in Curt that only those who spent a lot of time in the courtroom had noticed. Curt was angry, his face often red as he stifled his tears.

Overall, now that they are both out I really doubt if there have been any talks about what really happened. I don't think the parents want to know. Things are better left untold so everybody can live happily ever after in denial until ....



Must say was never able to stomach a video 'starring any of them', Knox herself was awful enough when she played the leading role in a murder she wrote, produced and executed, the last one quite literally, and acted out in court.

I read things they said, and read what others reported about their roles in propaganda videos.

Personally speaking, I imagine Mr Knox was the individual responsible for approaching Marriot, he'd have been up on that through his job at Macey's, as Macey's will have collaborated on projects similar to the controversial one I spoke about where a PR firm set about forcing issues for the benefit of multi-nationals using exactly the same strategies utilized for the benefit of Ms Knox by PR firm Marriot.

That immediate shack-up with the swarthy looking guy that, just like her, doesn't quite look right either, is indeed a strange affair, as you said, normally one would take shelter, at the parent's place, much needed rest and shelter from the outside world, one would imagine, after your spell away; it seems to me Knox herself wouldn't be able to deal with her family, as after all, if she faked the lot and caused them so much trouble, would they truly be so happy with her, even though they wanted her back, my conclusion is, that they have family problems now, for one thing, how in the world do the younger sisters deal with it all at school and the rest, does dad make sure he bullies the other kids so that they shut their mouths too?

I'd say kids that young are of all people more likely to pick up on stuff that doesn't feel right.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
--- snip ---

Personally speaking, I imagine Mr Knox was the individual resonsible for approaching Marriot, he'd have been up on that through his job at Macey's, as Macey's will have collaborated on projects similar to the controversial one I spoke about where a PR firm set about forcing issues for the benefit of multi-nationals using exactly the same strategies utilized for the benefit of Ms Knox by PR firm Marriot.

--- snap ---


It was definitely Curt Knox who contacted Marriott.

Quote:
Darkness Descending - The Murder of Meredith Kercher by Paul Russel, Graham Johnson and Luciano Garofano

Page 203

Curt Knox tried his best to reason with the reporters who'd bothered to contact him. but he couldn't believe the vitriol of the attacks. He called Edda. They had no idea where to turn. Two days later a colleague dropped a card on to Curt's desk: 'Try these. They know how to handle this kind of stuff.' Gogerty, Stark and Marriott - public relations people. For 30 years the Seattle-based firm had specialized in crisis management, everything from crashed airplanes to election campaigns to corporate lobbying.



Gogerty Marriott offers on their website a page dedicated to showcase their involvement in the presentation of Amanda Knox in the media. It says:

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.

Source: Gogerty Marriott | Showcase | Amanda Knox



John Follain gets the date when the PR firm Gogerty Marriott starts to become involved definitely wrong. He writes in his book:

Quote:
Death in Perugia by John Follain

Page 243

20 May 2008

Back in Seattle, and increasingly frustrated by their daughter's fate, Edda and Curt decided to go on the offensive. They hired David Marriott, a public relations adviser and former TV journalist, and began giving interviews to the main American TV networks in which they criticised Mignini's investigation. In an interview with the author for the Sunday Times Magazine - the first they gave the British media - Edda, Curt and their daughter Deanna talked for more than three hours about the case. Sitting close together at one end of a long conference table in the office of their publicist in a downtown skyscraper, they made fresh attacks on the Perugian investigators.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
--- snip ---

Was Edda warned by the attorney not to ask questions that could be taped?

--- snap ---



Quote:
Death in Perugia by John Follain

Page 183

Ghirga and his colleague were not only concerned about journalists. They warned Edda to be very careful whenever she talked about sensitive aspects of the case. She must assume that her mobile phone was bugged, that her emails were being intercepted, that mikes (m i k e s like in microphones, for some reason I cannot write m i k e s without getting the cat) might be hidden in her car and even in the flat where she was staying. They often asked her to go for a walk in the open air with them when they needed to talk - even when she was staying in a cottage in the middle of the countryside.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I was hoping "geebee" would answer my Q re the identity that the person behind "anglolawyer" is now claiming. Unfortunately, geebee never got back to me on that, however, an esteemed and savvy member of the PMF community recently gave me a tip via PM (thank you!).

If - IF - this tip is a match for the person behind 'anglolawyer', the paradox has been resolved! (Recall that Anglo claims to be a lawyer but can't manage to deal with a single question of law, preferring instead to stick to questions of fact, which require nothing more from the trier than reason and common sense - no fancy book lernin' necessary!).

Imagine, friends, if you will, a "law school" that stands alone, unaffiliated with an accredited university.

Imagine further that you can apply to this "school" with nothing more than a high school diploma. No university degree is required and no admissions test (LSAT) is required in order to prove you have the requisite verbal (and spatial) intelligence to study the law.

Imagine also that this program is watered down to just 2 years.


What kind of a "lawyer" would result from a diploma mill of this kind?

If our theory is right: Anglolawyer.

A man that thinks 'motive' is a required element for a murder conviction.

A man that thinks common law juries are always sequestered during the presentation of the case-in-chief.

A man that wants to chill free speech on this board by raising the specter of defamation suits while, at one and the same time, revealing that he doesn't have the first clue about the (numerous) defenses that could be mounted in response to any such frivolous and vexatious filings.

It's all clear to me now: we're probably dealing with a "lawyer" that, in my jurisdiction, would not be eligible to sit for the bar exam much less practice law. Guess that's why it looks like he's stuck doing nickle-and-dime landlord tenant cases, something that might also help to explain the inordinate amount of free time he has to post about this case.

Alas, I've decided to revise the Pantheon of FOA "Lawyers" to reflect Anglo's 'grueling' 2 year stint at an LLB mill that accepts '1 out of every 1 applicants': Anglo has officially been upgraded to a poorly-schooled, under-qualified HACK


Image

PS Where's BMF? That makes 3 PIP Tuesdays in a row now that he's refused to backup his ridiculous assertions about libel law. Maybe he's decided to go back to school...


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
I read the comments on Chelsea's article. First of all, Michael was EXCELLENT. No surprise there.

NO surprise, either, that the singing one, is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely nuts.

It's weirdly readable. Sort of like enjoying, in a way, * One flew over the Cuckoo nest *. If Michelle Moore wasn't so sadly nuts, she's pretty funny. You want to laugh, but empathy kicks in.

There was an old..and I mean old...woman in Beverly Hills. Maybe 80-85. She wore a blonde wig, tons of make-up, and a call girl's outfit. She sort of danced ( tottered) as though in a Las Vegas show. It was unbearably sad, but compelling to watch. There she was, on a busy street corner, doing her thing. She became a fixture for awhile, and when my kids were in the car, their eyes went WIDE, and asked : What's she doing?

There are no real answers.
Some people just aren't right in the head. I like to think that the old woman was enjoying herself. She did no harm to anyone.

Ms. Moore. She's an embarrassment to herself. And, I imagine, to the Foakers on some level. Yes, they need supporters, and I understand beggars can't be choosers. Even so..........


LOLZ
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
--- snip ---

Personally speaking, I imagine Mr Knox was the individual resonsible for approaching Marriot, he'd have been up on that through his job at Macey's, as Macey's will have collaborated on projects similar to the controversial one I spoke about where a PR firm set about forcing issues for the benefit of multi-nationals using exactly the same strategies utilized for the benefit of Ms Knox by PR firm Marriot.

--- snap ---


It was definitely Curt Knox who contacted Marriott.

Quote:
Darkness Descending - The Murder of Meredith Kercher by Paul Russel, Graham Johnson and Luciano Garofano

Page 203

Curt Knox tried his best to reason with the reporters who'd bothered to contact him. but he couldn't believe the vitriol of the attacks. He called Edda. They had no idea where to turn. Two days later a colleague dropped a card on to Curt's desk: 'Try these. They know how to handle this kind of stuff.' Gogerty, Stark and Marriott - public relations people. For 30 years the Seattle-based firm had specialized in crisis management, everything from crashed airplanes to election campaigns to corporate lobbying.



Gogerty Marriott offers on their website a page dedicated to showcase their involvement in the presentation of Amanda Knox in the media. It says:

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.

Source: Gogerty Marriott | Showcase | Amanda Knox



John Follain gets the date when the PR firm Gogerty Marriott starts to become involved definitely wrong. He writes in his book:

Quote:
Death in Perugia by John Follain

Page 243

20 May 2008

Back in Seattle, and increasingly frustrated by their daughter's fate, Edda and Curt decided to go on the offensive. They hired David Marriott, a public relations adviser and former TV journalist, and began giving interviews to the main American TV networks in which they criticised Mignini's investigation. In an interview with the author for the Sunday Times Magazine - the first they gave the British media - Edda, Curt and their daughter Deanna talked for more than three hours about the case. Sitting close together at one end of a long conference table in the office of their publicist in a downtown skyscraper, they made fresh attacks on the Perugian investigators.



Thankee Nell

That is good to see, just to have my own suspicions confirmed.

We're on the right track and always have been!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Jackie wrote:
capealadin wrote:
I read the comments on Chelsea's article. First of all, Michael was EXCELLENT. No surprise there.

NO surprise, either, that the singing one, is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely nuts.

It's weirdly readable. Sort of like enjoying, in a way, * One flew over the Cuckoo nest *. If Michelle Moore wasn't so sadly nuts, she's pretty funny. You want to laugh, but empathy kicks in.

There was an old..and I mean old...woman in Beverly Hills. Maybe 80-85. She wore a blonde wig, tons of make-up, and a call girl's outfit. She sort of danced ( tottered) as though in a Las Vegas show. It was unbearably sad, but compelling to watch. There she was, on a busy street corner, doing her thing. She became a fixture for awhile, and when my kids were in the car, their eyes went WIDE, and asked : What's she doing?

There are no real answers.
Some people just aren't right in the head. I like to think that the old woman was enjoying herself. She did no harm to anyone.

Ms. Moore. She's an embarrassment to herself. And, I imagine, to the Foakers on some level. Yes, they need supporters, and I understand beggars can't be choosers. Even so..........


LOLZ



Yes Jackie, well, seems either
1/ there are a few of these individuals that regularly try to scare people off from blogs, opinion sections on websites, etc, or
2/ the phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that it is just 1 or 2 people pretending to be a lot of different individuals; as they all seem to sound exactly the same, like saying:

Hello, I'm a lawyer...

then issuing threats but writing like one might if one had been kicked out of school at 13 for continually disrupting the other pupils and more.

Hello, I is a lawyer, from London, what what, cup of tea anyone,
and I will have you know when I was at law school we did learning about all those things, getit,
so I warn you (pastes piece in from Wiki. libel>>slander ),
so there, just like my learned colleague London John said:
I've just returned from a spot of fox hunting and searching for Jack The Ripper along the Thames.
I must say you are entirely wrong, yet more than this, you are a complete baboon,
now get out of my online garden or I will have you thrashed by my butler and awayed to Newgate on the morrow young fellow.

More tea, I'm English, can't you tell by my tweed suit and large outlandish pipe?
(edited his text using spelling checker set to British English)

Tea, scones, anyone for tennis?
Pulling out saucer-sized watch from waistcoat pocket, he exclaims, My god man, heavens, look at the time, I must be orft, I have a recital of Shakespeare before the King no less

Hail me a horse and carriage

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia asked about how much time they had together and if they talked openly about her involvement or not. I believe that there is a bigger chance that Raffaele Sollecito has told his father all the truth about his involvement than Amanda Knox her family about hers. Judging by the excerpts that have been published from prison conversations it seems that Edda Mellas was very much in doubt about what happened. Edda had a few questions, but they remained unanswered and Edda didn't insist. The quotes John Follain offers in his book from Chris Mellas, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, make me believe Amanda always got away with everything and always did what she wanted. They never stood up to her.

I found it strange that Amanda left her mother's house so quickly after arriving in the US. Only a few weeks after being released from prison, she moved in with a new boyfriend. I believe it is rare to move in with your boyfriend after only a few weeks, at that young age, and even more so if you need time to heal when you have just been released from prison. The normal thing to do would be to stay with your direct family for a while, to go back to your life and not to start in a rush something new.

Amanda's move to her boyfriend's apartment came shortly after her father said to journalists that it was too soon to talk about serious relationships (after a visit of David Johnsrud, I believe). How odd. Did she had her parents stamp of approval to move in with her boyfriend? Did they try to convince her to stay home with them? Did she leave because she felt nobody believed her? Amanda Knox is being described by her parents as very stubborn. We will never know what motivated her to leave home, but if you look at the facts, they suggest that something is not right here.


I got the impression that Papa Sollecito blamed Knox for the fix they were in. He must have had some sort of information from his son to come to this conclusion. I'm going to spend some time re-reading Sollecito's diary today.
I think that there is alot there that I missed on first reading.

And, I agree completely that something is not right with a young woman of Knox's circumstances moving out as quickly as she did when she arrived home.
She entered prison while involved in a torrid romance with Sollecito. Writes to him to tell him she is still in love with David, snd falls almost immediately into a 'trial marriage' with a young man with whom she had a previous relationship.
And, all of this from a young woman whom the family insisted was a late bloomer. Remember her sister telling that she didn't even know when men were hitting on her? She needed it pointed out to her.

I think the entire family must be wondering who this young woman is.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Excellent points, every one. Why'd she move out so quickly? Having tasted the freedom of Perugia, was she unwilling to go back to any form of parental control? Anyhew, it's all for the best. The Knox/Mellases might want to watch their other children a lot more closely now. I hope they turn out ok, but wonder about the effects on their psyche.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zorba, your insights are spot-on, as usual. I had not considered the additional fear that comes with the knowledge that someone else knows what happened and could confess at any time.
I think a person who committed a crime solo may breathe a sigh of relief after a time, believing that they have gotten away with something. But, what about the person who had co-conspirators? One could never be truly sure that their secret is safe. That stress must be unbearable. At least, let's hope so.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:

....

Hello, I is a lawyer, from London, what what, cup of tea anyone,
and I will have you know when I was at law school we did learning about all those things, getit,
so I warn you (pastes piece in from Wiki. libel>>slander ),
so there, just like my learned colleague London John said:
I've just returned from a spot of fox hunting and searching for Jack The Ripper along the Thames.
I must say you are entirely wrong, yet more than this, you are a complete baboon,
now get out of my online garden or I will have you thrashed by my butler and awayed to Newgate on the morrow young fellow.

More tea, I'm English, can't you tell by my tweed suit and large outlandish pipe?
(edited his text using spelling checker set to British English)

Tea, scones, anyone for tennis?
Pulling out saucer-sized watch from waistcoat pocket, he exclaims, My god man, heavens, look at the time, I must be orft, I have a recital of Shakespeare before the King no less

Hail me a horse and carriage


I hope no one was drinking coffee while reading Zorba. Nose snortingly funny, reminds me of the humour of my eastender friends :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Nell wrote:
Napia asked about how much time they had together and if they talked openly about her involvement or not. I believe that there is a bigger chance that Raffaele Sollecito has told his father all the truth about his involvement than Amanda Knox her family about hers. Judging by the excerpts that have been published from prison conversations it seems that Edda Mellas was very much in doubt about what happened. Edda had a few questions, but they remained unanswered and Edda didn't insist. The quotes John Follain offers in his book from Chris Mellas, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, make me believe Amanda always got away with everything and always did what she wanted. They never stood up to her.

I found it strange that Amanda left her mother's house so quickly after arriving in the US. Only a few weeks after being released from prison, she moved in with a new boyfriend. I believe it is rare to move in with your boyfriend after only a few weeks, at that young age, and even more so if you need time to heal when you have just been released from prison. The normal thing to do would be to stay with your direct family for a while, to go back to your life and not to start in a rush something new.

Amanda's move to her boyfriend's apartment came shortly after her father said to journalists that it was too soon to talk about serious relationships (after a visit of David Johnsrud, I believe). How odd. Did she had her parents stamp of approval to move in with her boyfriend? Did they try to convince her to stay home with them? Did she leave because she felt nobody believed her? Amanda Knox is being described by her parents as very stubborn. We will never know what motivated her to leave home, but if you look at the facts, they suggest that something is not right here.


I got the impression that Papa Sollecito blamed Knox for the fix they were in. He must have had some sort of information from his son to come to this conclusion. I'm going to spend some time re-reading Sollecito's diary today.
I think that there is alot there that I missed on first reading.

And, I agree completely that something is not right with a young woman of Knox's circumstances moving out as quickly as she did when she arrived home.
She entered prison while involved in a torrid romance with Sollecito. Writes to him to tell him she is still in love with David, snd falls almost immediately into a 'trial marriage' with a young man with whom she had a previous relationship.
And, all of this from a young woman whom the family insisted was a late bloomer. Remember her sister telling that she didn't even know when men were hitting on her? She needed it pointed out to her.

I think the entire family must be wondering who this young woman is.


I wonder if her family is relieved that she left the house? Chris Mellas had reportedly a difficult relationship with Amanda. Would he still be keen to share his thoughts with her, criticise her with the aim to educate her and talk some sense into her after knowing what she did to her roommate? I don't think so, especially if they didn't talk openly about her motivation and the extent to which she was involved.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The German news magazine FOCUS reports the following:

Quote:
Publisher Heyne defends publication of Kachelmann's book
Sunday, 22.04.2012, 10:00


Munich. The Munich-based publishing house Heyne defends the decision to publish the controversial book „Law and Justice“ written by Jörg Kachelmann and his wife Miriam. Publisher Ulrich Genzler told the news magazine FOCUS he valued the “relevance of the subject” and the “possibility to launch a public debate” higher than the “risks involved with the publication of a provocative text”. The book from the television weather presenter who was acquitted of a rape charge in 2011 is scheduled to be released in fall. Earlier, a book contract between Kachelmann and the Hamburg-based publisher Hoffmann and Campe had been cancelled. A spokeswoman for the publishing house stated as reason for the decision to FOCUS that the project had been delayed for “internal reasons” until it “run out of steam”.

According to Genzler, the publishing house Heyne had also been interested in this book project. “Therefore we were very pleased when a few months ago we got into conversations again” he told FOCUS.

Another fought over project is the autobiography of former American exchange student Amanda Knox that will be released in Germany next year by publisher Droemer Knaur. Publisher Hans-Peter Übleis told FOCUS that whilst negotiating with publishers in the U.S. he had secured the rights for a nearly six-figure sum. Knox’s story is ambiguous. “As always fates are interesting if they don’t conform with the norm.” He doesn’t shy away from taking sides with the release [of the book], says Übleis. “If the presumption of innocence applies in court, it should apply before the bookseller as well.”

Amanda Knox was acquitted in 2011 of the charge of having murdered a fellow student in Italy in 2007.

Source: FOCUS 17/2012: Heyne-Verleger verteidigt Veröffentlichung von Kachelmann-Buch


Translated from German to English language.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
---snip ---

I got the impression that Papa Sollecito blamed Knox for the fix they were in. He must have had some sort of information from his son to come to this conclusion. I'm going to spend some time re-reading Sollecito's diary today.
I think that there is alot there that I missed on first reading.

--- snap ---


Dr. Francesco Sollecito was recorded during a prison conversation with his son and he had nothing nice to say about Amanda Knox. That was before any prison diaries were written. I think he based his first impression only on what had been known so far about her statements. He thought there was something seriously wrong with this woman.


This prison conversation from 17th November 2007 was kindly translated by the member ncountryside from TJMK.

Quote:
@ Peter.
Here a quick translation … chiedo venia, about mistakes. Please note that those weren’t phone calls but talks during visits in prison.

November 17th. Raffaele in prison. Francesco Sollecito and Marisa Papagni (Francesco’s second wife) ask Raffaele to “resist”. Marisa and his father tell him about the solidarity of friends and relatives, all convinced of his innocence. Raffaele is worried.

FS: “If the investigators are finally realizing what the real dynamics of the matter is ... automatically understand that you have nothing to do with [rude in italian] ... Do you understand? ... Amanda can be more or less involved in this matter ... more or less I do not know and do not give a damn ... “

RS: “... she [eventually] knows something ...”

FS: “She will know something ... precisely ... especially considering all the versions that she has given, maybe she has not told the right one because she was worried about this character [= the little negro, i.e. Lumumba] has managed to do, something like that ... do you understand what I mean? ... But you have nothing to do with [rude in italian] ... and they understood ... now this morning or Monday there will be also the checking of your computer ... they have already cloned the hard disk .. ”

RS: “... my concern of the computer is basically that if I came ...”

MP: “Hey ... there is a monster on your computer ... there is a monster ... ”

RS: “Forget it ... the fact about the computer is if I have spent much time with Amanda ... there is not all this time I have spent with the computer ...”

FS: “If Amanda was home ... if she was out, wtf were you doing? ... were you at the computer?” ...... “We cannot understand, this [=AK] within three days, when she went to questura ... she has four to five different versions ... she has pulled back into the little negro a@@hole ... Is a strange personality this girl, isn’t it? So I don’t… do not. ”

RS: “I would exclude this, since the first version that I gave ...”

FS: “... not a matter of rule out, and not ruled out ... we are skeptical ... but you know ... there might be this too ... how can we know ....”

RS: “... but they have a lot of knives at home ...”.

Here an excerpt from Sarzanini’s book “Amanda e gli altri”:

FS: “E poi ‘sto cazzo di coltello che ti portavi avanti e indietro …. ti avevo parlato io di lasciarlo a casa …. tu sei cretino da questo punto di vista …. o no? …. e poi il cazzo del fatto degli spinelli che potevi evitare …. tu mi avevi fatto una promessa qualche anno fa al riguardo, eh? Tu ci avevi promesso a me e a tua sorella che non gli avresti usati più e invece te ne sei sbattuto i coglioni ….è chiaro?”
FS: “And then this f@cking knife that you carried back and forth .... I told you about leaving at home .... You’re an idiot from this point of view .... aren’t you? .... and then the f@cking point that you have could avoided the joints .... You promised a few years ago about it, didn’t you? You gave us your promise, to me and to your sister that you would not have used them again, and instead you have not given a f@ck .... is that clear?“

MP: “Devi togliertela dalla testa, non la devi neanche nominare per piacere quel nome cancellalo, con un colpo di spugna. Tu devi stare a casa tua , al posto tuo …. perchè tu non sai niente di quella persona …. tu ti devi dispiacere per quella ragazza che non c’è più …. di quella ti devi dispiacere. Ognuno pensa per sé e poi lei ha mostrato un’immagine falsa a te e agli altri, l’immagine di ciò che lei non era.”
MP: “You have to get her off your head, you need not even mention that name, please delete it, a sponge [= italian for let bygones be bygones]. You have to be at your home, at your place .... because you know nothing about that person .... You have to regret that girl is gone .... that you have to regret. Everyone thinks for her/himself, and after all she showed a false picture of herself to you and to the others, the picture of what she was not.”

RS wishes to write a letter to Kerchers, at this point:
FS: “La priorità non è andare da loro a chiedere scusa. Questa è una cosa che si farà quando sarà”
FS: “The priority is not going to apologize to them. This is a thing to be done when it will be ”

Posted by ncountryside on 03/16/12 at 07:06 PM | #

Source: TJMK: Rome Appeal Court Rejects Vanessa Sollecito's Appeal for Reinstatement in the Carabinieri
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I got the impression that Papa Sollecito blamed Knox for the fix they were in. He must have had some sort of information from his son to come to this conclusion.



Indeed Napia, and the posts today regarding what Sollecito's dad and step-mother said, are really revealing, goodness gracious, yet even though dad says it the way he did, it however does not mean that R. Sollecito was not simply saving his own ass as regards what do I tell dad, so he explained things blaming the lot on Knox.

Yet, seeing as how extreme Knox is, it's hard to know if she had not simply convinced him too, likewise, that it was all someone else's fault, and so he decided to help her, this aside, I cannot imagine this is the case, as there is something very distasteful about him too.

The posts today do show that the reality is that dad was in no way pleased, was in no way happy that his son had not kept his word and though all of those people pretend to be pleasant towards Knox and Sollecito, well Mr F Sollecito now sounds like a complete and typical racist, little negro, yes, that shows what they are like.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
---snip ---

I got the impression that Papa Sollecito blamed Knox for the fix they were in. He must have had some sort of information from his son to come to this conclusion. I'm going to spend some time re-reading Sollecito's diary today.
I think that there is alot there that I missed on first reading.

--- snap ---


Dr. Francesco Sollecito was recorded during a prison conversation with his son and he had nothing nice to say about Amanda Knox. That was before any prison diaries were written. I think he based his first impression only on what had been known so far about her statements. He automatically thought there was something seriously wrong about this woman.


This prison conversation from 17th November 2007 was kindly translated by the member ncountryside from TJMK.

Quote:
@ Peter.
Here a quick translation … chiedo venia, about mistakes. Please note that those weren’t phone calls but talks during visits in prison.

November 17th. Raffaele in prison. Francesco Sollecito and Marisa Papagni (Francesco’s second wife) ask Raffaele to “resist”. Marisa and his father tell him about the solidarity of friends and relatives, all convinced of his innocence. Raffaele is worried.

FS: “If the investigators are finally realizing what the real dynamics of the matter is ... automatically understand that you have nothing to do with [rude in italian] ... Do you understand? ... Amanda can be more or less involved in this matter ... more or less I do not know and do not give a damn ... “

RS: “... she [eventually] knows something ...”

FS: “She will know something ... precisely ... especially considering all the versions that she has given, maybe she has not told the right one because she was worried about this character [= the little negro, i.e. Lumumba] has managed to do, something like that ... do you understand what I mean? ... But you have nothing to do with [rude in italian] ... and they understood ... now this morning or Monday there will be also the checking of your computer ... they have already cloned the hard disk .. ”

RS: “... my concern of the computer is basically that if I came ...”

MP: “Hey ... there is a monster on your computer ... there is a monster ... ”

RS: “Forget it ... the fact about the computer is if I have spent much time with Amanda ... there is not all this time I have spent with the computer ...”

FS: “If Amanda was home ... if she was out, wtf were you doing? ... were you at the computer?” ...... “We cannot understand, this [=AK] within three days, when she went to questura ... she has four to five different versions ... she has pulled back into the little negro a@@hole ... Is a strange personality this girl, isn’t it? So I don’t… do not. ”

RS: “I would exclude this, since the first version that I gave ...”

FS: “... not a matter of rule out, and not ruled out ... we are skeptical ... but you know ... there might be this too ... how can we know ....”

RS: “... but they have a lot of knives at home ...”.

Here an excerpt from Sarzanini’s book “Amanda e gli altri”:

FS: “E poi ‘sto cazzo di coltello che ti portavi avanti e indietro …. ti avevo parlato io di lasciarlo a casa …. tu sei cretino da questo punto di vista …. o no? …. e poi il cazzo del fatto degli spinelli che potevi evitare …. tu mi avevi fatto una promessa qualche anno fa al riguardo, eh? Tu ci avevi promesso a me e a tua sorella che non gli avresti usati più e invece te ne sei sbattuto i coglioni ….è chiaro?”
FS: “And then this f@cking knife that you carried back and forth .... I told you about leaving at home .... You’re an idiot from this point of view .... aren’t you? .... and then the f@cking point that you have could avoided the joints .... You promised a few years ago about it, didn’t you? You gave us your promise, to me and to your sister that you would not have used them again, and instead you have not given a f@ck .... is that clear?“

MP: “Devi togliertela dalla testa, non la devi neanche nominare per piacere quel nome cancellalo, con un colpo di spugna. Tu devi stare a casa tua , al posto tuo …. perchè tu non sai niente di quella persona …. tu ti devi dispiacere per quella ragazza che non c’è più …. di quella ti devi dispiacere. Ognuno pensa per sé e poi lei ha mostrato un’immagine falsa a te e agli altri, l’immagine di ciò che lei non era.”
MP: “You have to get her off your head, you need not even mention that name, please delete it, a sponge [= italian for let bygones be bygones]. You have to be at your home, at your place .... because you know nothing about that person .... You have to regret that girl is gone .... that you have to regret. Everyone thinks for her/himself, and after all she showed a false picture of herself to you and to the others, the picture of what she was not.”

RS wishes to write a letter to Kerchers, at this point:
FS: “La priorità non è andare da loro a chiedere scusa. Questa è una cosa che si farà quando sarà”
FS: “The priority is not going to apologize to them. This is a thing to be done when it will be ”

Posted by ncountryside on 03/16/12 at 07:06 PM | #

Source: TJMK: Rome Appeal Court Rejects Vanessa Sollecito's Appeal for Reinstatement in the Carabinieri


Thank you for this, Nell.

After reading this, I went to the "In their own words" section to re-visit Raffaele's diary. I apologize again for the fact that I am not proficient in computer skills. I found the section where Raffaele hears on Television that the police have found Meredith's DNA on the knife taken from Raffaele's flat. He writes that he is basically terrified of this information, and it is only after talking to Tiziano that he becomes calm. IT is from November 16 to the 18th that I am referring.
It is obvious to me that he has been thrown a lifeline here, with the explanation planted in his mind that the 'girls could have borrowed the knife, basically anything is possible, don't worry." And AFTER this discussion talks about how he pricked Meredith with the knife and that is how the DNA ends up there. He then calms down.
If it isn't too much of an inconvenience to anyone, could someone copy this portion and bring it here or explain to me how it's done? I think re-reading this section will really expose the weaseling that was going on. Thanks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I got the impression that Papa Sollecito blamed Knox for the fix they were in. He must have had some sort of information from his son to come to this conclusion.



Indeed Napia, and the posts today regarding what Sollecito's dad and step-mother said, are really revealing, goodness gracious, yet even though dad says it the way he did, it however does not mean that R. Sollecito was not simply saving his own ass as regards what do I tell dad, so he explained things blaming the lot on Knox.

Yet, seeing as how extreme Knox is, it's hard to know if she had not simply convinced him too, likewise, that it was all someone else's fault, and so he decided to help her, this aside, I cannot imagine this is the case, as there is something very distasteful about him too.

The posts today do show that the reality is that dad was in no way pleased, was in no way happy that his son had not kept his word and though all of those people pretend to be pleasant towards Knox and Sollecito, well Mr F Sollecito now sounds like a complete and typical racist, little negro, yes, that shows what they are like.


I can see, Zorba, from this conversation, Papa is telling Raffaele:" Seeing the dynamics, Amanda knows something, may be involved up to her eyeballs, but YOU, YOU know nothing. SHE may, but you don't. I think it is very clear that he is attempting to lead Raffaele in the direction he wants him to go. He then questions wtf were you doing? Do you understand? This is, IMO, a very weasly conversation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
---snip ---

I got the impression that Papa Sollecito blamed Knox for the fix they were in. He must have had some sort of information from his son to come to this conclusion. I'm going to spend some time re-reading Sollecito's diary today.
I think that there is alot there that I missed on first reading.

--- snap ---


Dr. Francesco Sollecito was recorded during a prison conversation with his son and he had nothing nice to say about Amanda Knox. That was before any prison diaries were written. I think he based his first impression only on what had been known so far about her statements. He automatically thought there was something seriously wrong about this woman.


This prison conversation from 17th November 2007 was kindly translated by the member ncountryside from TJMK.

Quote:
@ Peter.
Here a quick translation … chiedo venia, about mistakes. Please note that those weren’t phone calls but talks during visits in prison.

November 17th. Raffaele in prison. Francesco Sollecito and Marisa Papagni (Francesco’s second wife) ask Raffaele to “resist”. Marisa and his father tell him about the solidarity of friends and relatives, all convinced of his innocence. Raffaele is worried.

FS: “If the investigators are finally realizing what the real dynamics of the matter is ... automatically understand that you have nothing to do with [rude in italian] ... Do you understand? ... Amanda can be more or less involved in this matter ... more or less I do not know and do not give a damn ... “

RS: “... she [eventually] knows something ...”

FS: “She will know something ... precisely ... especially considering all the versions that she has given, maybe she has not told the right one because she was worried about this character [= the little negro, i.e. Lumumba] has managed to do, something like that ... do you understand what I mean? ... But you have nothing to do with [rude in italian] ... and they understood ... now this morning or Monday there will be also the checking of your computer ... they have already cloned the hard disk .. ”

RS: “... my concern of the computer is basically that if I came ...”

MP: “Hey ... there is a monster on your computer ... there is a monster ... ”

RS: “Forget it ... the fact about the computer is if I have spent much time with Amanda ... there is not all this time I have spent with the computer ...”

FS: “If Amanda was home ... if she was out, wtf were you doing? ... were you at the computer?” ...... “We cannot understand, this [=AK] within three days, when she went to questura ... she has four to five different versions ... she has pulled back into the little negro a@@hole ... Is a strange personality this girl, isn’t it? So I don’t… do not. ”

RS: “I would exclude this, since the first version that I gave ...”

FS: “... not a matter of rule out, and not ruled out ... we are skeptical ... but you know ... there might be this too ... how can we know ....”

RS: “... but they have a lot of knives at home ...”.

Here an excerpt from Sarzanini’s book “Amanda e gli altri”:

FS: “E poi ‘sto cazzo di coltello che ti portavi avanti e indietro …. ti avevo parlato io di lasciarlo a casa …. tu sei cretino da questo punto di vista …. o no? …. e poi il cazzo del fatto degli spinelli che potevi evitare …. tu mi avevi fatto una promessa qualche anno fa al riguardo, eh? Tu ci avevi promesso a me e a tua sorella che non gli avresti usati più e invece te ne sei sbattuto i coglioni ….è chiaro?”
FS: “And then this f@cking knife that you carried back and forth .... I told you about leaving at home .... You’re an idiot from this point of view .... aren’t you? .... and then the f@cking point that you have could avoided the joints .... You promised a few years ago about it, didn’t you? You gave us your promise, to me and to your sister that you would not have used them again, and instead you have not given a f@ck .... is that clear?“

MP: “Devi togliertela dalla testa, non la devi neanche nominare per piacere quel nome cancellalo, con un colpo di spugna. Tu devi stare a casa tua , al posto tuo …. perchè tu non sai niente di quella persona …. tu ti devi dispiacere per quella ragazza che non c’è più …. di quella ti devi dispiacere. Ognuno pensa per sé e poi lei ha mostrato un’immagine falsa a te e agli altri, l’immagine di ciò che lei non era.”
MP: “You have to get her off your head, you need not even mention that name, please delete it, a sponge [= italian for let bygones be bygones]. You have to be at your home, at your place .... because you know nothing about that person .... You have to regret that girl is gone .... that you have to regret. Everyone thinks for her/himself, and after all she showed a false picture of herself to you and to the others, the picture of what she was not.”

RS wishes to write a letter to Kerchers, at this point:
FS: “La priorità non è andare da loro a chiedere scusa. Questa è una cosa che si farà quando sarà”
FS: “The priority is not going to apologize to them. This is a thing to be done when it will be ”

Posted by ncountryside on 03/16/12 at 07:06 PM | #

Source: TJMK: Rome Appeal Court Rejects Vanessa Sollecito's Appeal for Reinstatement in the Carabinieri



Hmmmmm... joints and knives are the problem. Is that the knife he always carried 'back and forth' or another one?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:

Thank you for this, Nell.

After reading this, I went to the "In their own words" section to re-visit Raffaele's diary. I apologize again for the fact that I am not proficient in computer skills. I found the section where Raffaele hears on Television that the police have found Meredith's DNA on the knife taken from Raffaele's flat. He writes that he is basically terrified of this information, and it is only after talking to Tiziano that he becomes calm. IT is from November 16 to the 18th that I am referring.
It is obvious to me that he has been thrown a lifeline here, with the explanation planted in his mind that the 'girls could have borrowed the knife, basically anything is possible, don't worry." And AFTER this discussion talks about how he pricked Meredith with the knife and that is how the DNA ends up there. He then calms down.
If it isn't too much of an inconvenience to anyone, could someone copy this portion and bring it here or explain to me how it's done? I think re-reading this section will really expose the weaseling that was going on. Thanks.


Hi Napia,

Here is the entry for 18th November from Raffaele Sollecito's prison diary:

Quote:
November 16, 2007

I saw on TV yesterday evening that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent)... I was breathless [mi è salito in cuore in gola] and I also got into a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or that she had at least helped someone kill her [nell’impresa]. But I saw Tiziano today who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the medical examiner [medico legale], and that it has nothing to do with anything because Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didnʹt have a knife like that one [così], they are causing a commotion for nothing... I feel as if I were living in a nightmare reality show. The ʹnightmare reality showʹ. Unbelievable!

I am starting to have perpetual panic and anxiety attacks caused by (...) due to the wait for the results [esami] from Forensics [scientifica] that make disturbing remarks [frecciate] of this sort... Oh God, it is not their fault but of the (...) who do everything they can to get involved [per poter immischiare] in this story.

I would like to think of something else. I think of my friends who are close to me and I think of father who must be in great pain and must be worried in these moments; I am very sorry. I do not know what to do. I pray to Jesus that he give me the strength and the reason to deal with this situation and I pray to Him also to support father who is being confronted with an absurd situation.


November 18, 2007

They are keeping me in jail because of the kitchen knife that has a DNA trace belonging to Meredith. It seems like a horror movie... Thinking back and remembering, I remembered that that night father sent me a goodnight SMS message to be indiscreet [indiscreto, sic] (knowing that I was with Amanda), then, the following day, Amanda kept on telling me that if she had not been with me, she would be dead now [a quest’ora]. Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home. The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente]. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

I am worried [non sono tranquillo] because if they found such a small [così irrisoria] trace they can find other [small traces] on the rags and so on... What a nightmare! First of all they should prove that that the knife is indeed the murder weapon: the blade, the type of cut, the obvious traces on the blade, etc. Then if they want to find invisible traces of Meredith in my house, they will find many [ne trovano a fiumi] at this rate! There must be a divine justice to all this! I continue to wake up in the morning with accusing faces that stare at me as [if I were] a murderer...

What an absurd story. They are all prepared to point at me [puntare il dito] when nothing is known yet. I hope that father is well, and also all those who are watching this absurd matter. I hope that the real truth comes out [a galla]. None of the three is involved!!! I have read in the newspapers that this story is becoming really big in the media [sta prendendo una dimensione mediatica enorme] and all this scares me a lot, because if these [journalists] do not get the sensational development [colpo di scena] it will become impossible to stop them... the disappointment of the masses [massa], the money that will [be used] to compensate Patrick, me and Amanda...

Oh God, oh God, what a mess! I do not understand anything [non si capisce nulla]! Who put me in this story? I did a little [un po’ ci ho messo del mio], but it is too much now.

They call me from the infirmary and I read on my case sheet that I was diagnosed with panic attacks a few days ago and that I needed to be visited again. Both Amanda and Patrick are calm, and this reassures me: if neither one of the two has done anything, imagine me [figurati io]! One must be must be patient. I very much like to talk with the [female] doctors or with the [female] social workers or the pastor or the [female] psychologist, they are very kind and willing to talk, all this gives me great comfort. I did not like talking to the deputy commander because he continues to investigate and to show me what can happen if I do not tell the truth. I will not talk to him ever again.

I continue to watch TV and in the morning, when I wake up, I work out to keep in shape. What else can I do?... I write... There is a girl in France who, inspired by the Perugia tragedy, killed a guy she met one evening: people are going crazy. We are all mad! I seem to be living in a comedy‐reality‐horror‐show badly copied from Big Brother. That is [cioè] the worst of the worst!!! The guards are kind, at least some, not all. I know [già], it is impossible to change everyone’s mind...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Absurd is right!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:

Thank you for this, Nell.

After reading this, I went to the "In their own words" section to re-visit Raffaele's diary. I apologize again for the fact that I am not proficient in computer skills. I found the section where Raffaele hears on Television that the police have found Meredith's DNA on the knife taken from Raffaele's flat. He writes that he is basically terrified of this information, and it is only after talking to Tiziano that he becomes calm. IT is from November 16 to the 18th that I am referring.
It is obvious to me that he has been thrown a lifeline here, with the explanation planted in his mind that the 'girls could have borrowed the knife, basically anything is possible, don't worry." And AFTER this discussion talks about how he pricked Meredith with the knife and that is how the DNA ends up there. He then calms down.
If it isn't too much of an inconvenience to anyone, could someone copy this portion and bring it here or explain to me how it's done? I think re-reading this section will really expose the weaseling that was going on. Thanks.


Hi Napia,

Here is the entry for 18th November from Raffaele Sollecito's prison diary:

Quote:
November 16, 2007

I saw on TV yesterday evening that the knife that I had at home (the one from the kitchen) has traces of Meredith and Amanda (latent)... I was breathless [mi è salito in cuore in gola] and I also got into a total panic because I thought that Amanda had killed Meredith or that she had at least helped someone kill her [nell’impresa]. But I saw Tiziano today who calmed me down: he told me that the knife could not have been the murder weapon, according to the medical examiner [medico legale], and that it has nothing to do with anything because Amanda could have taken it and carried it from my house to her house since the girls didnʹt have a knife like that one [così], they are causing a commotion for nothing... I feel as if I were living in a nightmare reality show. The ʹnightmare reality showʹ. Unbelievable!

I am starting to have perpetual panic and anxiety attacks caused by (...) due to the wait for the results [esami] from Forensics [scientifica] that make disturbing remarks [frecciate] of this sort... Oh God, it is not their fault but of the (...) who do everything they can to get involved [per poter immischiare] in this story.

I would like to think of something else. I think of my friends who are close to me and I think of father who must be in great pain and must be worried in these moments; I am very sorry. I do not know what to do. I pray to Jesus that he give me the strength and the reason to deal with this situation and I pray to Him also to support father who is being confronted with an absurd situation.


November 18, 2007

They are keeping me in jail because of the kitchen knife that has a DNA trace belonging to Meredith. It seems like a horror movie... Thinking back and remembering, I remembered that that night father sent me a goodnight SMS message to be indiscreet [indiscreto, sic] (knowing that I was with Amanda), then, the following day, Amanda kept on telling me that if she had not been with me, she would be dead now [a quest’ora]. Thinking and reconstructing, I think that she always remained with me; the only thing I do not remember exactly is if she went out for a few minutes in the early evening.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home. The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente]. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

I am worried [non sono tranquillo] because if they found such a small [così irrisoria] trace they can find other [small traces] on the rags and so on... What a nightmare! First of all they should prove that that the knife is indeed the murder weapon: the blade, the type of cut, the obvious traces on the blade, etc. Then if they want to find invisible traces of Meredith in my house, they will find many [ne trovano a fiumi] at this rate! There must be a divine justice to all this! I continue to wake up in the morning with accusing faces that stare at me as [if I were] a murderer...

What an absurd story. They are all prepared to point at me [puntare il dito] when nothing is known yet. I hope that father is well, and also all those who are watching this absurd matter. I hope that the real truth comes out [a galla]. None of the three is involved!!! I have read in the newspapers that this story is becoming really big in the media [sta prendendo una dimensione mediatica enorme] and all this scares me a lot, because if these [journalists] do not get the sensational development [colpo di scena] it will become impossible to stop them... the disappointment of the masses [massa], the money that will [be used] to compensate Patrick, me and Amanda...

Oh God, oh God, what a mess! I do not understand anything [non si capisce nulla]! Who put me in this story? I did a little [un po’ ci ho messo del mio], but it is too much now.

They call me from the infirmary and I read on my case sheet that I was diagnosed with panic attacks a few days ago and that I needed to be visited again. Both Amanda and Patrick are calm, and this reassures me: if neither one of the two has done anything, imagine me [figurati io]! One must be must be patient. I very much like to talk with the [female] doctors or with the [female] social workers or the pastor or the [female] psychologist, they are very kind and willing to talk, all this gives me great comfort. I did not like talking to the deputy commander because he continues to investigate and to show me what can happen if I do not tell the truth. I will not talk to him ever again.

I continue to watch TV and in the morning, when I wake up, I work out to keep in shape. What else can I do?... I write... There is a girl in France who, inspired by the Perugia tragedy, killed a guy she met one evening: people are going crazy. We are all mad! I seem to be living in a comedy‐reality‐horror‐show badly copied from Big Brother. That is [cioè] the worst of the worst!!! The guards are kind, at least some, not all. I know [già], it is impossible to change everyone’s mind...


That's it, Nell! Thanks for this. WHAT A WEASEL!!

Foaker spin has always been that Sollecito confused the days when he pulled the rug out from under Knox. It is their contention that it was the 31st of October he was referring to when he said that Amanda was not with him. He was supposed to have retracted this on the 8th of November, calling it, basically a load of BS, indicating that Amanda was with him the entire night of the 1st of November.
If this revelation occurred to him by the 8th of Nevember, why then the panic on the 16th when he heard about the knife? Why the panic over the thought that she could be involved?
And then, on the 18th, he has his answer. He is fine now as he remembers that he was the one who actually nicked Meredith with the knife. Which we all know is nothing but a lie! Again, WHAT A WEASEL!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Zorba, your insights are spot-on, as usual. I had not considered the additional fear that comes with the knowledge that someone else knows what happened and could confess at any time.
I think a person who committed a crime solo may breathe a sigh of relief after a time, believing that they have gotten away with something. But, what about the person who had co-conspirators? One could never be truly sure that their secret is safe. That stress must be unbearable. At least, let's hope so.



Thank you Napia, very kind of you to say that.

The issue of more than one person being involved certainly must lead to added fear for them, it also means that each of them will be looking over their shoulders, after all, Know's family brand and hangers on, already went real far... I would - if it were me - be afraid someone did something to my brake lining, you know, like you see in those movies, to put it lightly, there's no love lost, and I can imagine either one of the two, Knox or Sollecito, would sigh with relief should either one of them happen to die.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
One could never be truly sure that their secret is safe. That stress must be unbearable. At least, let's hope so.



Joanne Yeates, murdered by her housemate, a well-to-do, highly trained Dutch architect, well the murdered lady's parents certainly made it clear how they felt about that awful person, they said they thought it a shame that the death penalty no longer existed in Britain and that they hoped their daughter's killer suffered every day and every minute of his life in prison.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
zorba wrote:

....

Hello, I is a lawyer, from London, what what, cup of tea anyone,
and I will have you know when I was at law school we did learning about all those things, getit,
so I warn you (pastes piece in from Wiki. libel>>slander ),
so there, just like my learned colleague London John said:
I've just returned from a spot of fox hunting and searching for Jack The Ripper along the Thames.
I must say you are entirely wrong, yet more than this, you are a complete baboon,
now get out of my online garden or I will have you thrashed by my butler and awayed to Newgate on the morrow young fellow.

More tea, I'm English, can't you tell by my tweed suit and large outlandish pipe?
(edited his text using spelling checker set to British English)

Tea, scones, anyone for tennis?
Pulling out saucer-sized watch from waistcoat pocket, he exclaims, My god man, heavens, look at the time, I must be orft, I have a recital of Shakespeare before the King no less

Hail me a horse and carriage


I hope no one was drinking coffee while reading Zorba. Nose snortingly funny, reminds me of the humour of my eastender friends :)




Thanks Ergon, glad to be of service, soimetimes taking the widdle out of people works best and relieves the stress they cause.
My apologies to the coffee drinkers, however, I can accept no liability

PS: To all, my solar powered Christmas lights suddenly started working, this evening, as in, lit up when it got dark, only 4 months too late but better late than never,

Merry Christmas to everyone

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Nell wrote:
Napia asked about how much time they had together and if they talked openly about her involvement or not. I believe that there is a bigger chance that Raffaele Sollecito has told his father all the truth about his involvement than Amanda Knox her family about hers. Judging by the excerpts that have been published from prison conversations it seems that Edda Mellas was very much in doubt about what happened. Edda had a few questions, but they remained unanswered and Edda didn't insist. The quotes John Follain offers in his book from Chris Mellas, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, make me believe Amanda always got away with everything and always did what she wanted. They never stood up to her.

I found it strange that Amanda left her mother's house so quickly after arriving in the US. Only a few weeks after being released from prison, she moved in with a new boyfriend. I believe it is rare to move in with your boyfriend after only a few weeks, at that young age, and even more so if you need time to heal when you have just been released from prison. The normal thing to do would be to stay with your direct family for a while, to go back to your life and not to start in a rush something new.

Amanda's move to her boyfriend's apartment came shortly after her father said to journalists that it was too soon to talk about serious relationships (after a visit of David Johnsrud, I believe). How odd. Did she had her parents stamp of approval to move in with her boyfriend? Did they try to convince her to stay home with them? Did she leave because she felt nobody believed her? Amanda Knox is being described by her parents as very stubborn. We will never know what motivated her to leave home, but if you look at the facts, they suggest that something is not right here.


I got the impression that Papa Sollecito blamed Knox for the fix they were in. He must have had some sort of information from his son to come to this conclusion. I'm going to spend some time re-reading Sollecito's diary today.
I think that there is a lot there that I missed on first reading.

And, I agree completely that something is not right with a young woman of Knox's circumstances moving out as quickly as she did when she arrived home.
She entered prison while involved in a torrid romance with Sollecito. Writes to him to tell him she is still in love with David, and falls almost immediately into a 'trial marriage' with a young man with whom she had a previous relationship.
And, all of this from a young woman whom the family insisted was a late bloomer. Remember her sister telling that she didn't even know when men were hitting on her? She needed it pointed out to her.

I think the entire family must be wondering who this young woman is.


I wonder if her family is relieved that she left the house? Chris Mellas had reportedly a difficult relationship with Amanda. Would he still be keen to share his thoughts with her, criticise her with the aim to educate her and talk some sense into her after knowing what she did to her roommate? I don't think so, especially if they didn't talk openly about her motivation and the extent to which she was involved.



You know, I think they knew, but they just did not care, they simply could not bear the idea that she would have to serve time in prison to pay for what she had done, so this means in that way they are, or became true criminals themselves. This would explain how it is that Knox immediately moved in with some guy, and it seems to point to the fact of them knowing but then in reality, once Knox returned, the knowing and having her live with them, is something they could not stomach, it is hard even if you've lied and cheated to force things in order to get a family member released, to know they did it and to them have them around you. I mean, how long can any person keep up the fake niceties and all that, the fake similes saying, Oh look we are all so wonderfully happy and okay now

Seems that Sollecito told dad some stuff about the knife that he was very afraid of, he probably said it was Knox, with one of the others, Lumumba or Guede or he simply didn't know, but that she used my knife dad, you know I'd take it back n forth to cook as you know I'm very particular about my knives.


So he'd been telling dad all this stuff only dad and wifey are muddled up as they being intelligent enough, were trying to believe him, when they kept being confounded by all the stuff that made no sense to them, in the end they knew and decided they had to keep on helping, but I bet you that dad was angry, it was not all wow we're free when Sollecito got out of prison, I wouldn't be surprised if dad gave him either a real good lecture or a slap, after all, though Vanessa was responsible fore herself, I am guessing if this had never happened she never would have done dishonest things but as it was her kid brother she could not help herself, that means, Raffaele S's behaviour cost his sister her career and good name, it cost dad to tons of dough and stress at his age bad and dangerous for the heart.

All of the above, I reckon applies equally to the Knox situation, look at the trouble she caused, and if they know she did it, then how could they just ignore it. The only way they could ignore it, can ignore it, and not get into arguments with her and freak out at her, is by not having her at close quarters, hense the distance. On the other hand, Knox herself cannot bear looking into the eyes of those in her family, I expect she now makes excuses all the time for not being able to attend family shit.


Phone 1 to phone 2

Phone 1: Yes I've had stomach ache all week, must have been something I ate, I'm sorry, I wanted to come!
Phone 2: No that's okay, of course, we understand, you take it easy, bye, luv you

Phone 1: clunk
Phone 2: clunk

Ma: Thank Christ for that, she ain't coming
Christopher Colombo: Pain in the ...

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zorba, you make my sides ache!!

Seriously, though, at this point in time, I think everyone should remember that Knox herself is driving the bus.
She is an adult, and she is basically soley responsible for the decisions made about her book, her life, and her defense.
I would be curious to know, from a legal standpoint, if the Mellas clan were even privy to most sessions that Knox had with her attorney. I know that they may have paid for her defense, and even mortgaged their houses, but, legally, if the attorney was hired for Knox, isn't there such a thing as client/attorney privelege?
I know they spent tons of time in front of the media, presenting a united, family front, but, would they have been involved in all of the inner workings of the defense team? I know of situations here in the States where the parents and grandparents have footed the bill, but were excluded from meetings because they were not considered the client.
Does anyone know how it worked for the Knox team?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Jackie...LOLZ back at ya....But now look at what you've done. Anglo will never be back now... wa-))

Or BMF 1950. What's the deal, btw, with trolls adding 4 numbers after their username? sun-)

I'm wondering if you're watching the Murdoch trial going on? Some great lawyering going on. On answering a question, Murdoch says : * Well, I was far away *. Oink.

Very funny post, Zorba. re: Londonjohn. Spot on, mate :)

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

As to Knox not living with her parents. My take on it is this. Knox is uncomfortable with questions. As any guilty person would be.

It would be normal for Edda, at least, to ask some questions. Edda would finally be safe to do so. Questions which Knox does NOT want to answer. Remember, Knox doesn't like confrontation. Prefers to write letters. That certainly isn't going to fly in this instance.

The guilty run. They hide. They can't take the heat. And, Edda would know that she's lying. Now that Edda thinks it's over, I believe she needs to know. Because, as Napia mentioned, Edda probably feels guilt.

Knox wants to be anywhere BUT where the people, who know her best, can see through her. So...gone. To be with her family ONLY with friends. The Cushion.

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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:

That's it, Nell! Thanks for this. WHAT A WEASEL!!

Foaker spin has always been that Sollecito confused the days when he pulled the rug out from under Knox. It is their contention that it was the 31st of October he was referring to when he said that Amanda was not with him. He was supposed to have retracted this on the 8th of November, calling it, basically a load of BS, indicating that Amanda was with him the entire night of the 1st of November.
If this revelation occurred to him by the 8th of Nevember, why then the panic on the 16th when he heard about the knife? Why the panic over the thought that she could be involved?
And then, on the 18th, he has his answer. He is fine now as he remembers that he was the one who actually nicked Meredith with the knife. Which we all know is nothing but a lie! Again, WHAT A WEASEL!


Hi Napia,

The 8th of November 2007 was the day of the pre-trial hearing before Judge Claudia Matteini. Raffaele Sollecito changed his latest version of events he gave to Monica Napoleoni (head of the homicide squad) at the police station. Needless to say that he wasn't very convincing.

Quote:
Death in Perugia by John Follain

Page 155 - 157

8 November 2007

Mignini lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him as soon as he saw her in the Perugia law courts at a hearing held to decide whether or not she should stay in prison. Amanda avoided the prosecutor's gaze and huddled with her lawyers, talking intensely to them. To all appearances, she was already building a close relationship with them. Her family had hired both Ghirga and the Rome lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova, who had worked with the US Embassy in the capital.

Amanda hadn't met her lawyers before the hearing and they had their first chance to talk to her when the judge, Claudia Matteini - nicknamed 'the Iron Lady' by one local newspaper for the rigorous way she applied the law in Perugia's most serious criminal cases - suspended proceedings for an hour in order to give them time to photocopy and study what documents were available. Ghirga realised immediately that Amanda had no idea what the hearing was about, just as she had no idea what awaited her in the coming weeks or months as far as the Italian judicial system was concerned. To make things worse, Amanda's Italian was fine for ordering a meal in a restaurant, but legal jargon was a complete mystery to her.

When the hearing began again, Amanda simply declared she was innocent and refused to answer questions.

Unlike Amanda, Raffaele agreed to answer questions when he appeared before Judge Matteini shortly after her. He began by turning against his former girlfriend. 'I don't want to see Amanda anymore,' Raffaele said when asked about their relationship.

Raffaele described himself as 'a worrier'. He added: 'I smoke cannabis and I smoke every weekend or holiday and every time I feel I need to,' Raffaele said. He couldn't remember how many joints he'd smoked on 1 November, the day on which investigators believed Meredith was murdered, but 'definitely one at Amanda's house and at my place every time I felt like it.'

He then changed the version of events he had given to Napoleoni at the police station three days earlier. He had told Napoleoni that he returned to his flat alone at about 9 p.m. after walking around town with Amanda on 1 November. But today, he said that he and Amanda went back to his flat together. Previously, he had also told Napoleoni that his father called him at about 11 p.m. on the flat's phone; now he said he couldn't remember whether the call was on that phone or on his mobile. Phone records showed his father had called him at 8.42 p.m. and then sent him a text message which read simply 'Goodnight' at 11.14 p.m.; Raffaele got the message only at 6.02 a.m. the next day.

Raffaele said he had lied when questioned by Napoleoni. 'I was under pressure and I was very upset; I was shocked and I was scared. I spent the night of 1 November with Amanda ... I remember that Amanda must have come back home with me, I don't remember if she went out that evening.' He had worked at his computer until midnight, smoking joints.

He denied the shoe print the forensic police had found in Meredith's bedroom was his, because he wasn't wearing shoes like that on the day she died. 'I completely rule out having gone into the room where [Meredith] was found,' he insisted.

Asked about the knife the Flying Squad had found on him, Raffaele replied that he always had a knife on him; he liked to make cuts on trees. 'I've got a collection of knives [back home] in Giovinazzo; I've also got unsharpened swords. Knives are a passion of mine. I've always had a knife in my pocket since thirteen,' he said. He changed the knives he had on him according to the clothes he wore.


After Raffaele, it was Patrick's turn to go before Judge Matteini. He insisted that he had an alibi: he had been working at Le Chic the whole evening of 1 November. He arrived at the bar between 5.30 and 6 p.m. and because it looked like a quiet evening, he texted Amanda at about 8.30 p.m. telling her not to come. He served drinks to some sixteen customers that evening, including a Swiss professor - he couldn't remember the professor's name, but he did remember he was staying at the Hotel dei Priori in the centre of Perugia.

Patrick didn't see Amanda that evening. He closed the bar after midnight and went straight home. Asked why the first receipt from his till was timed 10.29 p.m., Patrick sat in silence for a few minutes. He then said that when there were few customers in the bar, he asked them to pay only when they were leaving.

He had never quarrelled with Amanda, they had a good relationship. He had never told her that he was attracted to Meredith; he wasn't, and had never flirted with her. 'I didn't go to Amanda's house. I didn't kill Meredith. I'm innocent and God knows it,' Patrick said.

Patrick, like Amanda and Raffaele, was escorted back to prison after the hearings. Patrick thought of his father, who had been politically active in Zaire and who had been seized when he was nine years old. His family had never had any news from him. Patrick feared he would never hug his baby son again.


That is a hell of an alibi Raffaele Sollecito gave Amanda that day. He said she must have come home with him, but he could not confirm or deny if she went out, because he couldn't remember.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

So, what it boils down to, Nell, is, at that point, he was suffering from the same amnesia as Knox. He's not just a weasel, he's a dumb weasel. I have been under the impression that he made a statement calling his confession a bunch of "BS". I don't remember where I read this, it's immaterial anyway, because his story is all the more damning this way, IMO.
Can you imagine? Making up a story about nicking Meredith with a knife actually made him calmer? Whho did he think would be reading his diary anyway? HE knew it wasn' true.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

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

Interesting to read again Raff's words. What stands out..Is..Raf being worried that his computer won't show much use, that night. Also, how MP says Knox was false.

Why was Raf so worried about his computers being seized? Because he knew it would show no activity the night of the 1st. And, what happens when they try to explain their time in the flat? Don't know what time they had dinner. Lie about the times of the calls from Papa. Can't remember if they had sex.

Raf being worried about his computer usage, the lack thereof, speaks volumes. As does their phones being switched off.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

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

capealadin wrote:
Hi Jackie...LOLZ back at ya....But now look at what you've done. Anglo will never be back now... wa-))

Or BMF 1950. What's the deal, btw, with trolls adding 4 numbers after their username? sun-)

I'm wondering if you're watching the Murdoch trial going on? Some great lawyering going on. On answering a question, Murdoch says : * Well, I was far away *. Oink.

Very funny post, Zorba. re: Londonjohn. Spot on, mate :)


Hi Cape,

Thank you.

Hey, saw bit of the Murdoch thing, what strikes me is that Asian wife of his, I can't remember now, but, think she herself is a lawyer, what I can't understand is that a woman like that, much younger and not unattractive, could be attracted to him!!!
Has kids with him, so if it's only for the money, that's a long way to go, jee.
They too sound like a right bunch of hoods.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:

Hmmmmm... joints and knives are the problem. Is that the knife he always carried 'back and forth' or another one?


I quoted Raffaele's statements to Judge Matteini (from the pre-trial hearing) earlier. He himself testified that he changed the knives to match the clothes he wore. So it wasn't not always the same knife in his pocket. Any of the knives he had at his home and are compatible with the wounds inflicted on Meredith Kercher could be the second knife used in the attack.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well, Zorba, at the risk of being cynical, having children ensures big payouts, in divorce or death. Just sayin.

I note this as well. Smoking joints does not equate to memory loss with Raf. When he was as high as the Empire Sate Buikding, the night of the friends party, he recounts, in minute details, the happenings of that night. Remember the bum rushing a friend with the turnip?

No memory loss there. Really, he gives a frame by frame recounting.

The only time they can't remember things, lie, get jumbled, is when having to account for that night. Hardly surprising. Then, Raf IMMEDIATELY throwing Knox under the bus, Knox IMMEDIATELT therefater, blaming Patrick..the picture is clear.

There is not one instance, where their stories jive. Raf admits, in the conversation, posted by Nell, that Knox knew something. In another conversation, he alludes to her dishonesty, and being with bad people.

Too bad, that papa and MP never allowed Raf to really finish a sentence. Obviously. However, even with half uttered sentences, Raf buries himself and Knox.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zorba, to add. Edda in particular, is in a conundrum. At some level, she has a need to know. On another level, she doesn't want to know. It's a pull, pull. Knox, the manipulator, knows this. She therefore must distance herself from those that know her.

Knox must distance herself, because there must be a high level of anxiety for her. Never knowing if, and when, Edda will ask for an explanation of something. And, no question, the family of Knox are now well aware of what she's like...AWAY FROM HOME.

They must feel, at some level, that they don't know her at all.

This is coupled with the fact..and this is important..they WANT THE MONEY that Knox will be bringing in. They do NOT want to upset the Money Wagon.

We know how knox walks away from commitments. How quickly she drops one person for another. With nary a qualm. Edda et al must fear if they upset the la_) they may be kissing the money goodbye.

Far fetched? I think not. Knox has an enormous amount of anger. And, I believe that goes back to her childhood.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Zorba, you make my sides ache!!

Seriously, though, at this point in time, I think everyone should remember that Knox herself is driving the bus.
She is an adult, and she is basically soley responsible for the decisions made about her book, her life, and her defense.
I would be curious to know, from a legal standpoint, if the Mellas clan were even privy to most sessions that Knox had with her attorney. I know that they may have paid for her defense, and even mortgaged their houses, but, legally, if the attorney was hired for Knox, isn't there such a thing as client/attorney privilege?
I know they spent tons of time in front of the media, presenting a united, family front, but, would they have been involved in all of the inner workings of the defense team? I know of situations here in the States where the parents and grandparents have footed the bill, but were excluded from meetings because they were not considered the client.
Does anyone know how it worked for the Knox team?



Hi Napia, sorry, I'll give u your joints a a rest.

I think you're correct, it's mad though, because even between the client and lawyer, it works like this: the lawyer may know, may often sense it well, through experience, and after all, it is not a lawyer who gets all nervous, as they visit courts, prisons, speak with all kinds of people, but the client imprisoned when seeing the lawyer, experiences the lawyer as the biggest helper, the closest confidant, only cutting short at telling the lawyer everything, unless the client is absolutely stupid, but as long as the client tells the lawyer I'm innocent it wasn't me, then the client must/is obliged to work according to that, even if he/she senses or even knows full well that the client is lying, at the point the client actually reveals the truth, and says it was me, the lawyer is obliged to act accordingly and if the lawyer then defends the client and knowing that client to be guilty because the client actually said it outright, then the lawyer would be breaking the law to continue. That's the code of ethics which means if they break any of that code, they can lose their licence to practise.

A lawyer, if having mapped out a course according to, my client is not guilty, will stop the client in his/her tracks if that individual starts to admit guilt, as the lawyer knows that he/she must then stop defending that client as a not guilty party, rather than change the whole thing around, a lawyer may literally shove his/her own hand over the client's mouth. As regards murder tho ugh, I do not know how many lawyers would stop the client changing his/her tune.

What I'm saying though, is that I reckon Knox and Sollecito's lawyers sensed the truth, there's so many moments of time spent together that the client (Knox or Sollecito) would have been tangling themselves up but it's different messing up when talking to your lawyer than it is when you are talking to the police, they the lawyers would have just ignored things the clients said that were messy and self-incriminating as long as they the clients did not come out with it straight: like, I am in fact guilty but....
Lawyer: woo there, stop...

Lawyers, on a job, are being paid, and also do not like having their job taken away, as it is a big inconvenience, a lot of work has already been put in to it for instance.

Once the pair were incarcerated, lawyer's visits were to the prison, nowhere else, and at court, if the accused are not in the courtroom but at the courthouse locked in a cell, the lawyer either sees them in a cell, but mostly in a special room. Seeing a lawyer is always a comfort to the client, Knox or Sollecito's family could only have spoken to the lawyers if they made an appointment to do so and they do not make appointments for free, other than that, they would only get to see the lawyer in the court, but the family are not allowed to go into one of the special rooms, that is off-bounds to everyone, the police too; anywhere except the public areas in court are off-bounds to everyone except those authorised to be there, like clerks, judges or lawyers. Police can't just barge in either.

A lawyer can be phoned of course but how long would anyone speak and in serious cases, family of the accused wouldn't be able to ask much over the phone, a lawyer mainly tries to put a family at ease but will be serious about the prospects.

I expect Knox and Sollecito's families had some time, paid for, with the lawyers but nothing like the hours Knox and Sollecito spent.
However, lawyer's fees are nothing like the fees in America or even Britain.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:


PS: To all, my solar powered Christmas lights suddenly started working, this evening, as in, lit up when it got dark, only 4 months too late but better late than never,

Merry Christmas to everyone


:)

Reminds me of my mother in law. She had a dead plant that she kept in a window sill for two years, then, when she was going to throw it out, it decided to bloom, and is now doing quite well.

Merry Christmas to you too, dear zorba.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:

That's it, Nell! Thanks for this. WHAT A WEASEL!!

Foaker spin has always been that Sollecito confused the days when he pulled the rug out from under Knox. It is their contention that it was the 31st of October he was referring to when he said that Amanda was not with him. He was supposed to have retracted this on the 8th of November, calling it, basically a load of BS, indicating that Amanda was with him the entire night of the 1st of November.
If this revelation occurred to him by the 8th of November, why then the panic on the 16th when he heard about the knife? Why the panic over the thought that she could be involved?
And then, on the 18th, he has his answer. He is fine now as he remembers that he was the one who actually nicked Meredith with the knife. Which we all know is nothing but a lie! Again, WHAT A WEASEL!


Hi Napia,

The 8th of November 2007 was the day of the pre-trial hearing before Judge Claudia Matteini. Raffaele Sollecito changed his latest version of events he gave to Monica Napoleoni (head of the homicide squad) at the police station. Needless to say that he wasn't very convincing.

Quote:
Death in Perugia by John Follain

Page 155 - 157

8 November 2007

Mignini lost all hope of Amanda ever cooperating again with him as soon as he saw her in the Perugia law courts at a hearing held to decide whether or not she should stay in prison. Amanda avoided the prosecutor's gaze and huddled with her lawyers, talking intensely to them. To all appearances, she was already building a close relationship with them. Her family had hired both Ghirga and the Rome lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova, who had worked with the US Embassy in the capital.

Amanda hadn't met her lawyers before the hearing and they had their first chance to talk to her when the judge, Claudia Matteini - nicknamed 'the Iron Lady' by one local newspaper for the rigorous way she applied the law in Perugia's most serious criminal cases - suspended proceedings for an hour in order to give them time to photocopy and study what documents were available. Ghirga realised immediately that Amanda had no idea what the hearing was about, just as she had no idea what awaited her in the coming weeks or months as far as the Italian judicial system was concerned. To make things worse, Amanda's Italian was fine for ordering a meal in a restaurant, but legal jargon was a complete mystery to her.

When the hearing began again, Amanda simply declared she was innocent and refused to answer questions.

Unlike Amanda, Raffaele agreed to answer questions when he appeared before Judge Matteini shortly after her. He began by turning against his former girlfriend. 'I don't want to see Amanda anymore,' Raffaele said when asked about their relationship.

Raffaele described himself as 'a worrier'. He added: 'I smoke cannabis and I smoke every weekend or holiday and every time I feel I need to,' Raffaele said. He couldn't remember how many joints he'd smoked on 1 November, the day on which investigators believed Meredith was murdered, but 'definitely one at Amanda's house and at my place every time I felt like it.'

He then changed the version of events he had given to Napoleoni at the police station three days earlier. He had told Napoleoni that he returned to his flat alone at about 9 p.m. after walking around town with Amanda on 1 November. But today, he said that he and Amanda went back to his flat together. Previously, he had also told Napoleoni that his father called him at about 11 p.m. on the flat's phone; now he said he couldn't remember whether the call was on that phone or on his mobile. Phone records showed his father had called him at 8.42 p.m. and then sent him a text message which read simply 'Goodnight' at 11.14 p.m.; Raffaele got the message only at 6.02 a.m. the next day.

Raffaele said he had lied when questioned by Napoleoni. 'I was under pressure and I was very upset; I was shocked and I was scared. I spent the night of 1 November with Amanda ... I remember that Amanda must have come back home with me, I don't remember if she went out that evening.' He had worked at his computer until midnight, smoking joints.

He denied the shoe print the forensic police had found in Meredith's bedroom was his, because he wasn't wearing shoes like that on the day she died. 'I completely rule out having gone into the room where [Meredith] was found,' he insisted.

Asked about the knife the Flying Squad had found on him, Raffaele replied that he always had a knife on him; he liked to make cuts on trees. 'I've got a collection of knives [back home] in Giovinazzo; I've also got unsharpened swords. Knives are a passion of mine. I've always had a knife in my pocket since thirteen,' he said. He changed the knives he had on him according to the clothes he wore.


After Raffaele, it was Patrick's turn to go before Judge Matteini. He insisted that he had an alibi: he had been working at Le Chic the whole evening of 1 November. He arrived at the bar between 5.30 and 6 p.m. and because it looked like a quiet evening, he texted Amanda at about 8.30 p.m. telling her not to come. He served drinks to some sixteen customers that evening, including a Swiss professor - he couldn't remember the professor's name, but he did remember he was staying at the Hotel dei Priori in the centre of Perugia.

Patrick didn't see Amanda that evening. He closed the bar after midnight and went straight home. Asked why the first receipt from his till was timed 10.29 p.m., Patrick sat in silence for a few minutes. He then said that when there were few customers in the bar, he asked them to pay only when they were leaving.

He had never quarrelled with Amanda, they had a good relationship. He had never told her that he was attracted to Meredith; he wasn't, and had never flirted with her. 'I didn't go to Amanda's house. I didn't kill Meredith. I'm innocent and God knows it,' Patrick said.

Patrick, like Amanda and Raffaele, was escorted back to prison after the hearings. Patrick thought of his father, who had been politically active in Zaire and who had been seized when he was nine years old. His family had never had any news from him. Patrick feared he would never hug his baby son again.


That is a hell of an alibi Raffaele Sollecito gave Amanda that day. He said she must have come home with him, but he could not confirm or deny if she went out, because he couldn't remember.



Hi Nell, thanks for taking the trouble to place the bits you did today.
I hadn't seen all of that before.
Sounds like Mr Frank Sollecito and his wife fully grasped that between the pair of them, Knox and Sollecito, they were being lied to, and it made dad and his wife uptight but they did not want to hear any more crap from Raffaele, that's why not only dad but dad's wife firmly started dictating to Raffaele, telling him what he ought to do, and what is important and how he should appear to be (the but the wife told him about showing concern for Meredith).

This tells me that at home, they obviously did lots of talking and thinking and worked out that the pair were both involved and that what they'd said was nonsense.
To the outside world they put up a front but behind the scenes, I mean, perhaps only because dad was about to go take his pension but this has all been very damaging to him and he blames his son.
The sister hasn't seen it as a joke either, because she is not happy about losing her job. She is thick though, I mean, her brother got off for now so she thought, I'll try to get my job back but it is her actions that her employers were not satisfied with, and whether her brother is guilty or not, is not their concern.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Well, Zorba, at the risk of being cynical, having children ensures big payouts, in divorce or death. Just sayin.

I note this as well. Smoking joints does not equate to memory loss with Raf. When he was as high as the Empire Sate Building, the night of the friends party, he recounts, in minute details, the happenings of that night. Remember the bum rushing a friend with the turnip?

No memory loss there. Really, he gives a frame by frame recounting.

The only time they can't remember things, lie, get jumbled, is when having to account for that night. Hardly surprising. Then, Raf IMMEDIATELY throwing Knox under the bus, Knox IMMEDIATELT thereafter, blaming Patrick..the picture is clear.

There is not one instance, where their stories jive. Raf admits, in the conversation, posted by Nell, that Knox knew something. In another conversation, he alludes to her dishonesty, and being with bad people.

Too bad, that papa and MP never allowed Raf to really finish a sentence. Obviously. However, even with half uttered sentences, Raf buries himself and Knox.



Hi Cape,
Yes as I said to Nel just now, dad soon grew sick to the teeth of his sons tales, I mean the guy wasn't some illiterate uneducated peasant, he wasn't born yesterday, he knew his son, andcut him of short, cut him off bullshitting him because he knew that he was being lied to and he said as much, going by what the quotes contain provided by Nell about them chatting.
What we have discussed many times, aboyt Sollecitós true behaviour, dad confirms it there, with his dislike of his son smoking but Raffaele I'm certain never even let dad know the half of what he was really into and my belief is that it went further than a couple of spliffs.
The behaviour of Raffaele then wasn't to dad's liking but dad knew nothing of the real reasons he had trouble with his so n, it was not because of joints but because Raffaele was taking all kinds of drugs and neglected his studies and hid life, and it means his frail appearance probably wasn't just because mom had died but also because he was o n a bad trip, living in a bad way and dad did'nt lkike it as he saw it. I know he saw it, I've lived in Italy and parents if they have money will sponsor their children lovingly, arranging entire apartments as Raffaele's dad did too, a normal way in Italy, and he paid the rest too but his care and investment in his son, would never have been a thing like you just do what you like. No way., such a dad knows the cost of living, and if Raffaele kept running out of, money and calling dad up, his dad would have had the needle with him, as he was already paying so many things. He was paying for everything.

So Knox shacked up with him but he was probably already running on empty, behind with bills, not buying the books dad had given him money for, looking wasted (dad noticing and Vanessa speaking with dad about it = they were all worried and concerned about him = there are many heroin addicts in Italy = would have been one of their fears), but then he had the place and that was convenient for Knox, but he was broke and Knox wasn't loaded, so money would have soon been short, and so Knox wanting to stay away, would have been on the penny.

She definitely wanted to be away, because now she is back yet at the same time she is away, she is on her own.

I sense that the truth and reality at this moment will be that Knox will have seen a doctor and gotten herself some pills. Her mentality, no matter how hard, will not save her, and I reckon she'll be depressive.

All in all Cape, they've taken disastrous steps.
What you were saying about the mother, I feel rthat before this, her mother never would have done such dishonest things but the matter shattered her, however, it was her choice to deal with it the way she and the others have.

Let's say, it's only because it was family, that they did what they have, otherwise, for anyone else, friends, etc, I do not think they could have, would have strayed so far from common sense.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
zorba wrote:


PS: To all, my solar powered Christmas lights suddenly started working, this evening, as in, lit up when it got dark, only 4 months too late but better late than never,

Merry Christmas to everyone


:)

Reminds me of my mother in law. She had a dead plant that she kept in a window sill for two years, then, when she was going to throw it out, it decided to bloom, and is now doing quite well.

Merry Christmas to you too, dear zorba.



Hey yeah, was pleased anyhow as I felt I'd been ripped what with them not working

I must get off to my nest, it's late!

Thanks again Ergon and everyone,

Happy Easter (have no sense of time or space)

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Zorba, you make my sides ache!!

Seriously, though, at this point in time, I think everyone should remember that Knox herself is driving the bus.
She is an adult, and she is basically soley responsible for the decisions made about her book, her life, and her defense.
I would be curious to know, from a legal standpoint, if the Mellas clan were even privy to most sessions that Knox had with her attorney. I know that they may have paid for her defense, and even mortgaged their houses, but, legally, if the attorney was hired for Knox, isn't there such a thing as client/attorney privilege?
I know they spent tons of time in front of the media, presenting a united, family front, but, would they have been involved in all of the inner workings of the defense team? I know of situations here in the States where the parents and grandparents have footed the bill, but were excluded from meetings because they were not considered the client.
Does anyone know how it worked for the Knox team?



Hi Napia, sorry, I'll give u your joints a a rest.

I think you're correct, it's mad though, because even between the client and lawyer, it works like this: the lawyer may know, may often sense it well, through experience, and after all, it is not a lawyer who gets all nervous, as they visit courts, prisons, speak with all kinds of people, but the client imprisoned when seeing the lawyer, experiences the lawyer as the biggest helper, the closest confidant, only cutting short at telling the lawyer everything, unless the client is absolutely stupid, but as long as the client tells the lawyer I'm innocent it wasn't me, then the client must/is obliged to work according to that, even if he/she senses or even knows full well that the client is lying, at the point the client actually reveals the truth, and says it was me, the lawyer is obliged to act accordingly and if the lawyer then defends the client and knowing that client to be guilty because the client actually said it outright, then the lawyer would be breaking the law to continue. That's the code of ethics which means if they break any of that code, they can lose their licence to practise.

A lawyer, if having mapped out a course according to, my client is not guilty, will stop the client in his/her tracks if that individual starts to admit guilt, as the lawyer knows that he/she must then stop defending that client as a not guilty party, rather than change the whole thing around, a lawyer may literally shove his/her own hand over the client's mouth. As regards murder tho ugh, I do not know how many lawyers would stop the client changing his/her tune.

What I'm saying though, is that I reckon Knox and Sollecito's lawyers sensed the truth, there's so many moments of time spent together that the client (Knox or Sollecito) would have been tangling themselves up but it's different messing up when talking to your lawyer than it is when you are talking to the police, they the lawyers would have just ignored things the clients said that were messy and self-incriminating as long as they the clients did not come out with it straight: like, I am in fact guilty but....
Lawyer: woo there, stop...

Lawyers, on a job, are being paid, and also do not like having their job taken away, as it is a big inconvenience, a lot of work has already been put in to it for instance.

Once the pair were incarcerated, lawyer's visits were to the prison, nowhere else, and at court, if the accused are not in the courtroom but at the courthouse locked in a cell, the lawyer either sees them in a cell, but mostly in a special room. Seeing a lawyer is always a comfort to the client, Knox or Sollecito's family could only have spoken to the lawyers if they made an appointment to do so and they do not make appointments for free, other than that, they would only get to see the lawyer in the court, but the family are not allowed to go into one of the special rooms, that is off-bounds to everyone, the police too; anywhere except the public areas in court are off-bounds to everyone except those authorised to be there, like clerks, judges or lawyers. Police can't just barge in either.

A lawyer can be phoned of course but how long would anyone speak and in serious cases, family of the accused wouldn't be able to ask much over the phone, a lawyer mainly tries to put a family at ease but will be serious about the prospects.

I expect Knox and Sollecito's families had some time, paid for, with the lawyers but nothing like the hours Knox and Sollecito spent.
However, lawyer's fees are nothing like the fees in America or even Britain.


Keep 'em coming, Zorba. Nothing in the world like a good chuckle. Good for the soul.
Thanks for this explanation. I realize that Amanda never would have confessed to her lawyer. I understand that he would be obligated to deal with her confession. What I was thinking about was more along the lines of discussing the evidence and procedures with her with her parents present. I picture myself, in this position, listening with a mother's ear, making my own determination, based on what was being said. While an attorney would not have asked her 'Did you do this thing?", he may, of course form an opinion about what was said or not said. And a parent would certainly be able to do this also. I guess I'm still wondering just how much Edda actually heard from her daughter's own mouth.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It could also be, Napia, that Edda is not asking the hard questions, because even if she KNOWS, as long as she doesn't hear anything, she can stay in denial. And, as I said. Knox is in the pound seat, at the mo. The money will be hers to dish out, if she so wishes to.

I don't think Edda was a present mom, if you know what I mean. She may have been around, but doing her own thing. Knox's need for attention, even negative, points to someone who was discounted. Curt certainly wasn't around. Mom busy with a new born, and a much younger guy. Knox is insecure,with low self esteem for a reason.

Everything about her, is screaming for attention. She has distanced herself for a reason. If I was Edda, I'd be perturbed, right now. It's one thing, that they've told her to lie low. But, it seems that Knox escaped with the first available guy.

The only thing the Mellas/Knox clan are thinking about right now..is the $$$$$$$$$'s.

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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

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

zorba wrote:

You know, I think they knew, but they just did not care, they simply could not bear the idea that she would have to serve time in prison to pay for what she had done, so this means in that way they are, or became true criminals themselves. This would explain how it is that Knox immediately moved in with some guy, and it seems to point to the fact of them knowing but then in reality, once Knox returned, the knowing and having her live with them, is something they could not stomach, it is hard even if you've lied and cheated to force things in order to get a family member released, to know they did it and to them have them around you. I mean, how long can any person keep up the fake niceties and all that, the fake similes saying, Oh look we are all so wonderfully happy and okay now

Seems that Sollecito told dad some stuff about the knife that he was very afraid of, he probably said it was Knox, with one of the others, Lumumba or Guede or he simply didn't know, but that she used my knife dad, you know I'd take it back n forth to cook as you know I'm very particular about my knives.


So he'd been telling dad all this stuff only dad and wifey are muddled up as they being intelligent enough, were trying to believe him, when they kept being confounded by all the stuff that made no sense to them, in the end they knew and decided they had to keep on helping, but I bet you that dad was angry, it was not all wow we're free when Sollecito got out of prison, I wouldn't be surprised if dad gave him either a real good lecture or a slap, after all, though Vanessa was responsible fore herself, I am guessing if this had never happened she never would have done dishonest things but as it was her kid brother she could not help herself, that means, Raffaele S's behaviour cost his sister her career and good name, it cost dad to tons of dough and stress at his age bad and dangerous for the heart.

All of the above, I reckon applies equally to the Knox situation, look at the trouble she caused, and if they know she did it, then how could they just ignore it. The only way they could ignore it, can ignore it, and not get into arguments with her and freak out at her, is by not having her at close quarters, hense the distance. On the other hand, Knox herself cannot bear looking into the eyes of those in her family, I expect she now makes excuses all the time for not being able to attend family shit.


Phone 1 to phone 2

Phone 1: Yes I've had stomach ache all week, must have been something I ate, I'm sorry, I wanted to come!
Phone 2: No that's okay, of course, we understand, you take it easy, bye, luv you

Phone 1: clunk
Phone 2: clunk

Ma: Thank Christ for that, she ain't coming
Christopher Colombo: Pain in the ...


Hi zorba,

I believe that the Knox/Mellas family and the Sollecito family are completely different.

I don't think that Raffaele Sollecito would have to hide what he did from his family. He knows he is safe with them and that they will always protect him, no matter what. His father - unlike Edda Mellas - is not afraid to speak his mind. He told Raffaele during his prison visit that he was disappointed in him, because he had broken the promise he made to them not to do drugs again. He reacted also very testily when Raffaele wasn't sure what he did that night.

I don't believe Amanda Knox would have to fear if she would tell her parents what she did, but has she ever been sincere to them, or has she lied to get away with whatever it was that needed covering up? That's the problem in my opinion. Amanda Knox cannot take criticism and that is why she will not open up to her parents. Instead she is deceitful and cunning. It always worked, why change now?

I have serious doubts that her parents approved of her idea of moving in with a boyfriend only weeks after arriving in the US. It was Amanda herself - and probably without consulting with her parents - who decided she would be better off away from them. Why would that be? I think once at home without supervised and recorded visits, her parents might have asked the right questions and she didn't like it.

I can highly recommend John Follain's book to everyone. He includes a lot of quotes from Amanda's family describing Amanda's character. They offer a lot of details that without them, we would have never known, but instead of being proof of how wonderful, unique and charming Amanda was and always has been, they rather show that she stood out like a sore thumb, even in Seattle. They downplay everything she does and excuse her behaviour, trying to make it out as something it isn't. I was left wondering why they offered this much insight in the first place, if it doesn't help their case?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
--- snip ---

I don't think Edda was a present mom, if you know what I mean. She may have been around, but doing her own thing. Knox's need for attention, even negative, points to someone who was discounted. Curt certainly wasn't around. Mom busy with a new born, and a much younger guy. Knox is insecure,with low self esteem for a reason.

Everything about her, is screaming for attention. She has distanced herself for a reason. If I was Edda, I'd be perturbed, right now. It's one thing, that they've told her to lie low. But, it seems that Knox escaped with the first available guy.

--- snap ---


I couldn't agree more with what you just wrote.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
...
More tea, I'm English, can't you tell by my tweed suit and large outlandish pipe?
(edited his text using spelling checker set to British English)

Tea, scones, anyone for tennis?
Pulling out saucer-sized watch from waistcoat pocket, he exclaims, My god man, heavens, look at the time, I must be orft, I have a recital of Shakespeare before the King no less

Hail me a horse and carriage


Looney John probably prefers his imaginary private jet.
Top Profile 

Offline Maria


Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I have just down loaded John Kercher's book on Kindle
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi Jackie...LOLZ back at ya....But now look at what you've done. Anglo will never be back now... wa-))

Or BMF 1950. What's the deal, btw, with trolls adding 4 numbers after their username? sun-)

I'm wondering if you're watching the Murdoch trial going on? Some great lawyering going on. On answering a question, Murdoch says : * Well, I was far away *. Oink.
...)


I haven't seen anything on Murdoch yet, but will look into it!

As for BMF and Anglo, they will be sorely missed - but cry not, fair Cape, for The Pantheon of FOA Hacks and Fakes will help us to keep them in our hearts. Always.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 889

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Maria wrote:
I have just down loaded John Kercher's book on Kindle


I'm looking forward to buying a copy of Mr. Kercher's book. I hope he blasts the accused and their enablers with both barrels.


BTW, have you seen this interesting poll (taken by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation) re Knox's upcoming book:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/20 ... -book.html

Image

On the whole, Canadians appear to be quite reasonable, don't they?
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Zorba, you make my sides ache!!

Seriously, though, at this point in time, I think everyone should remember that Knox herself is driving the bus.
She is an adult, and she is basically soley responsible for the decisions made about her book, her life, and her defense.
I would be curious to know, from a legal standpoint, if the Mellas clan were even privy to most sessions that Knox had with her attorney. I know that they may have paid for her defense, and even mortgaged their houses, but, legally, if the attorney was hired for Knox, isn't there such a thing as client/attorney privilege?
I know they spent tons of time in front of the media, presenting a united, family front, but, would they have been involved in all of the inner workings of the defense team? I know of situations here in the States where the parents and grandparents have footed the bill, but were excluded from meetings because they were not considered the client.
Does anyone know how it worked for the Knox team?



Hi Napia, sorry, I'll give your joints a rest.

I think you're correct, it's mad though, because even between the client and lawyer, it works like this: the lawyer may know, may often sense it well, through experience, and after all, it is not a lawyer who gets all nervous, as they visit courts, prisons, speak with all kinds of people, but the client imprisoned when seeing the lawyer, experiences the lawyer as the biggest helper, the closest confidant, only cutting short at telling the lawyer everything, unless the client is absolutely stupid, but as long as the client tells the lawyer I'm innocent it wasn't me, then the client must/is obliged to work according to that, even if he/she senses or even knows full well that the client is lying, at the point the client actually reveals the truth, and says it was me, the lawyer is obliged to act accordingly and if the lawyer then defends the client and knowing that client to be guilty because the client actually said it outright, then the lawyer would be breaking the law to continue. That's the code of ethics which means if they break any of that code, they can lose their licence to practise.

A lawyer, if having mapped out a course according to, my client is not guilty, will stop the client in his/her tracks if that individual starts to admit guilt, as the lawyer knows that he/she must then stop defending that client as a not guilty party, rather than change the whole thing around, a lawyer may literally shove his/her own hand over the client's mouth. As regards murder tho ugh, I do not know how many lawyers would stop the client changing his/her tune.

What I'm saying though, is that I reckon Knox and Sollecito's lawyers sensed the truth, there's so many moments of time spent together that the client (Knox or Sollecito) would have been tangling themselves up but it's different messing up when talking to your lawyer than it is when you are talking to the police, they the lawyers would have just ignored things the clients said that were messy and self-incriminating as long as they the clients did not come out with it straight: like, I am in fact guilty but....
Lawyer: woo there, stop...

Lawyers, on a job, are being paid, and also do not like having their job taken away, as it is a big inconvenience, a lot of work has already been put in to it for instance.

Once the pair were incarcerated, lawyer's visits were to the prison, nowhere else, and at court, if the accused are not in the courtroom but at the courthouse locked in a cell, the lawyer either sees them in a cell, but mostly in a special room. Seeing a lawyer is always a comfort to the client, Knox or Sollecito's family could only have spoken to the lawyers if they made an appointment to do so and they do not make appointments for free, other than that, they would only get to see the lawyer in the court, but the family are not allowed to go into one of the special rooms, that is off-bounds to everyone, the police too; anywhere except the public areas in court are off-bounds to everyone except those authorised to be there, like clerks, judges or lawyers. Police can't just barge in either.

A lawyer can be phoned of course but how long would anyone speak and in serious cases, family of the accused wouldn't be able to ask much over the phone, a lawyer mainly tries to put a family at ease but will be serious about the prospects.

I expect Knox and Sollecito's families had some time, paid for, with the lawyers but nothing like the hours Knox and Sollecito spent.
However, lawyer's fees are nothing like the fees in America or even Britain.


Keep 'em coming, Zorba. Nothing in the world like a good chuckle. Good for the soul.
Thanks for this explanation. I realize that Amanda never would have confessed to her lawyer. I understand that he would be obligated to deal with her confession. What I was thinking about was more along the lines of discussing the evidence and procedures with her with her parents present. I picture myself, in this position, listening with a mother's ear, making my own determination, based on what was being said. While an attorney would not have asked her 'Did you do this thing?", he may, of course form an opinion about what was said or not said. And a parent would certainly be able to do this also. I guess I'm still wondering just how much Edda actually heard from her daughter's own mouth.



I agree, sometimes as I said, lauiging about how ridiculous some of the people we've been dealing with is the only way to deflect their antagonising, most often nasty games.


Again, on sitting in with a lawyer, there's absolutely no way that could happen.
Once you are in prison, you do not get to make appointments to leave prison to see your lawyer. The lawyers have to visit the prison as a lawyer.
They cannot visit as a friend.

In the UK and in Italy prisoners are brought over from the cells or complexes that they are housed in, depending on the category of prisoner they are, depending on the sentence they received, and they are placed together in a hall-like space, where there are a number of prison officers watching.

For lawyer purposes, which, obviously need to be confidential, the hall-like set-up with others present would be highly inappropriate.

Visits from family and friends are limited: 1 or 2 a week, after all, one is a prisoner and if every single day you got time out to sit there with your friends and family then it'd be too easy.

Lawyers, they could visit every day, but you'd need to be a very rich client to have them do that, it isn't the most pleasant experience for them either, as the amenities are as basic as basic gets and the room you may sit in with your lawyer, may not differ too much from the rest of the place. That means, if you are in an old prison, such as those Victorian ones, that ought to have been demolished ages ago, the room you get may not be much different from a cell, unless they've built some new stuff there.

Thus, to conclude, I am of the opinion that Knox, her family and the lawyers never got to congregate, ever.
The family will have asked the lawyer to tell her this and tell her that, as the lawyer will have seen far more of her than the family did.
That means Knox was free to sit there and pretend to herself that she was some kind of a newborn Italian without having any immediate lag-effect from the family looking at her with raised brows when she talked a lot of doo doo.


As I said they'd have phoned the lawyer and the lawyer will have called them too, but as they were well-aware of being listened in on, they'd have been restricted in what thy could discuss.

The knowing about being monitored, listened in on, is something any fool would soon realise there is a danger of when sat in a police station or anywhere else.

I believe Knox and Sollecito were certainly fully aware of being listened in on, Sollecito was Italian, he knew that stuff, he did definitely.

Same as Guede, was not born yesterday, knew what happened to people when followed by the police, when he spoke from Germany, he knew that there was a 100% chance that the police were listening in on his every word, therefore, all of what he said can be taken with a pinch of salt, same thing with his two chums.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia,

However, when Knox & Sollecito were in the Bubbles high-end lingerie store, they were not acting, and their laughing, joking, having fun, was exactly a register of them after Meredith's death.

There's no way in the world a reasonable person could have behaved the way they did if they cared a shit about Merediith. This also nullifies Hellmanns stunted reasoning, in context his ideas were like someone in a rush, wanting to get it done with he was like the tea boy that took over the garage when the mechanics were out to lunch, damned glad he did'nt mend my brakes.

Hey Napia and everyone, you know what, right opposite the University Knox attended, there were stores and they sold underwear, in six-packs for hardly any money, yet it appears Sollecito treated Knox to an hour in the street lined with stores either side of the street selling expensive, exclusive lingerie; what's the sense in going there then if you just needed some underwear.

I tend to believe the shopkeeper on this, as he overheard them talking about going and having hot sex, so this titillation continued even though Meredith had only just been scraped off the tiled floor where she lay in a pool of congealed blood.

And they want to have us believe the pair of them were nice kids, duh!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:

You know, I think they knew, but they just did not care, they simply could not bear the idea that she would have to serve time in prison to pay for what she had done, so this means in that way they are, or became true criminals themselves. This would explain how it is that Knox immediately moved in with some guy, and it seems to point to the fact of them knowing but then in reality, once Knox returned, the knowing and having her live with them, is something they could not stomach, it is hard even if you've lied and cheated to force things in order to get a family member released, to know they did it and to them have them around you. I mean, how long can any person keep up the fake niceties and all that, the fake similes saying, Oh look we are all so wonderfully happy and okay now

Seems that Sollecito told dad some stuff about the knife that he was very afraid of, he probably said it was Knox, with one of the others, Lumumba or Guede or he simply didn't know, but that she used my knife dad, you know I'd take it back n forth to cook as you know I'm very particular about my knives.


So he'd been telling dad all this stuff only dad and wifey are muddled up as they being intelligent enough, were trying to believe him, when they kept being confounded by all the stuff that made no sense to them, in the end they knew and decided they had to keep on helping, but I bet you that dad was angry, it was not all wow we're free when Sollecito got out of prison, I wouldn't be surprised if dad gave him either a real good lecture or a slap, after all, though Vanessa was responsible fore herself, I am guessing if this had never happened she never would have done dishonest things but as it was her kid brother she could not help herself, that means, Raffaele S's behaviour cost his sister her career and good name, it cost dad to tons of dough and stress at his age bad and dangerous for the heart.

All of the above, I reckon applies equally to the Knox situation, look at the trouble she caused, and if they know she did it, then how could they just ignore it. The only way they could ignore it, can ignore it, and not get into arguments with her and freak out at her, is by not having her at close quarters, hence the distance. On the other hand, Knox herself cannot bear looking into the eyes of those in her family, I expect she now makes excuses all the time for not being able to attend family shit.


Phone 1 to phone 2

Phone 1: Yes I've had stomach ache all week, must have been something I ate, I'm sorry, I wanted to come!
Phone 2: No that's okay, of course, we understand, you take it easy, bye, luv you

Phone 1: clunk
Phone 2: clunk

Ma: Thank Christ for that, she ain't coming
Christopher Colombo: Pain in the ...


Hi zorba,

I believe that the Knox/Mellas family and the Sollecito family are completely different.

I don't think that Raffaele Sollecito would have to hide what he did from his family. He knows he is safe with them and that they will always protect him, no matter what. His father - unlike Edda Mellas - is not afraid to speak his mind. He told Raffaele during his prison visit that he was disappointed in him, because he had broken the promise he made to them not to do drugs again. He reacted also very testily when Raffaele wasn't sure what he did that night.

I don't believe Amanda Knox would have to fear if she would tell her parents what she did, but has she ever been sincere to them, or has she lied to get away with whatever it was that needed covering up? That's the problem in my opinion. Amanda Knox cannot take criticism and that is why she will not open up to her parents. Instead she is deceitful and cunning. It always worked, why change now?

I have serious doubts that her parents approved of her idea of moving in with a boyfriend only weeks after arriving in the US. It was Amanda herself - and probably without consulting with her parents - who decided she would be better off away from them. Why would that be? I think once at home without supervised and recorded visits, her parents might have asked the right questions and she didn't like it.

I can highly recommend John Follain's book to everyone. He includes a lot of quotes from Amanda's family describing Amanda's character. They offer a lot of details that without them, we would have never known, but instead of being proof of how wonderful, unique and charming Amanda was and always has been, they rather show that she stood out like a sore thumb, even in Seattle. They downplay everything she does and excuse her behaviour, trying to make it out as something it isn't. I was left wondering why they offered this much insight in the first place, if it doesn't help their case?



Hi there Nell,

What you say here, may be exactly correct.

Raffaele S did not have the luxury of being in a foreign country where he could use that to pull the wool over his dad's eyes.
As I said yesterday, dad knew exactly what was what. This knowing what is what was something that surprised me a lot in Italy, I mean I had a girlfriend, her parents were not even living in Rome, but they bought an apartment for her, and she lived there, studied and had to deliver too, apart from that, she appeared to be independent, living alone, etc, but was not independent, as everything was paid for by dad, of course, because Italians are some of the most sensible, clever people, I have have ever come across and they are very warm and caring, it figures that if the family has the means, they gladly sponsor the children, but it does not, in any way shape or form, simply mean they the children can all carry on in some far away town or city like they are on that American TV show called Sixteen where the parents absolutely show the kids how best to behave like a spoilt brat, no, so dad, who had worked and studied hard, day in and day out, and having but one son, had all of what he had worked for as well as the good family name invested in the son, not in the daughter.
This investment of name and family, etc, is something that is still particularly strong as goes traditional thinking.
I'm not saying they were as strict as Muslims, with family values, but Italian family values have always been strong, not too much difference though, seeing as how the son's name is the one carried through and the daughter if marrying, gets the husband's name.

It can be worked out when put into the economic context, where money had always been tight, like there are no hand-outs or better said, there are hardly any social security benefits, or if there are they are some of the lowest in Europe, therefore making a career out of drawing benefits never an option in Italy.
What this has always meant in Italy is if you do not have a way to earn a living you are dependent on either friends or family, yet growing up you already know that it is the family who will sponsor you and not your friends.
So it is almost inbred thinking, and let's say they would never need to discuss that bit, as it is the way things have always been.

The psychology of people who go from being adolescents who are still run by their parents, means where a person has parents who are less nice or very demanding, animosity may flourish, like being dependent on someone but hating having to be like that your having no other options.

Yet if your pampered children are themselves simply unpleasant then no amount of love and care may be able to change that.
One cannot say that just because a family with means provides for the children, it means, necessarily, that they will become or turn out to be arrogant swines.

Precisely the great depth of attention, solidarity, love, care and nurturing may mean, in many cases, that such children go on to become very valuable members of society.

Children that may turn out really well, may have become that way precisely as a result of the proper & caring upbringing by such parents, the parents who are clever enough to keep their kids grounded, the type of Italian parents who do know the cost of living and aren't fooled easily, the typical type of parents in Italy.
That's why you are exactly right Nell, Sollecito's dad knew what was what and didn't take any crap from his son, but he certainly went out on a limb, to save the family name.
He went way too far, and I also do not believe he ever would have been prepared to do anything wrong before, it was only because it was his son that he also became criminally-minded.

There would be no such thing as dad, money is finished again can you shove another 300 my way, no way, that's not how it works, especially not in Italy, because sensible parents want their kids to turn into good adults who know the value of everything, they do not want spoilt kids.

Seeing as how Raffaele was into smoking, it costs lots, if you are a proper smokey joe it'll cost you at least 10 euros per day but more like 25, and that added up x 30 or 31 days (month) is a whole lot.

Thus to conclude, money has always been an issue, before and after Meredith's murder, it was an issue for Knox and Sollecito alike.

Even Knox's parents tried to teach her to pay her way, they had not given her the money to go off to Italy, they would have then wanted to determine everything so it was Knox who wanted it her way, and worked glad to be out of their control.

Yet the family now want us to believe they spent millions and mortgages their homes, I'd love to see the documentation proving that nonsense. Truth is, I believe, they all got paid and it was arranged though Marriot, he sorted all of those arrangements out for them, and it paid his fees too.

To Sollecito, having Knox was a way to feel relief from the hold o f family constraints, that he was under. For he was an adult yet not free to live exactly the way he wanted to, so these situations sometimes mean children of the well-to-do also become decadent either through being spoilt or because they want to rebel, so drugs are a useful material to dispense of the feelings of being run by someone else.

I expect, the more dad told son to stop that spinello (joint) use, the more he, Mr Raffaele Sollecito, felt like going against the grain. He had that about him, this attitude, I most often have not been able to put it into words, but basically, Raffaele is an self-entitling arrogant swine.

He despised being in that situation, but having had the means wealth brings all his life, enjoyed the fruits of that wealth while despising his situation, which allowed him to assert himself as one above others but with an antagonistic streak.

Listening to what you posted Nell, I took an instant dislike to Dad because of what he said, his wording, the little negro, that is typical of the xenophobia among some Italians, so he is thus one o f those typical southern brands of people, that show how evolved they are by coming out with such stuff; if anyone was a racist, he definitely was and is, saying that.

For by wording it that way, he shows that for n o reason at all he despised Patrick Lumumba, but why, what had he done.

Raffaele Sollecito gives the game away, when he says (in what you added here Nell) that he would be please when all of them are re;leased, all of them including Patrick, but who in hell was Raffaele Sollecito to determine whether or not Patrick, whom he had no knowledge of at all, was or was not guilty.

Sollecito trying to feign innocence, gave the game away on that one by going to far in his including Patrick in it, he tried to come across convincing but made a big mistake there.

It's nuts what he said. If he had been on the level, at most he could account for exclusively his very own sorry self and Knox, but Patrick? Nope it's nuts, it shows he was lying just as he was when he tried, over-abundantly and beyond all calling, to help the police by telling them stuff that he could not know. This is the sign of a person with lots to hide.

Now you put it that way, I see that there is a real possibility it was Knox that engineered her moving in with that guy, I can imagine that the truth is, the family were pretty shocked when she so suddenly already had a new guy, and was moving in with him. I'd say they made excuses like well she was in prison all that time, etc.

Can also conceive of the idea that there's no way Knox and Mellas could have gotten on under a single roof.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Jackie wrote:
zorba wrote:
...
More tea, I'm English, can't you tell by my tweed suit and large outlandish pipe?
(edited his text using spelling checker set to British English)

Tea, scones, anyone for tennis?
Pulling out saucer-sized watch from waistcoat pocket, he exclaims, My god man, heavens, look at the time, I must be orft, I have a recital of Shakespeare before the King no less

Hail me a horse and carriage


Looney John probably prefers his imaginary private jet.



I dare say, however, accompanied by a team of nannies, butlers and horse footmen, who could tend to his parachutes, etc.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I received my copy of "Meredith" the Kindle verison from http://www.amazon.com at 12:46 a.m this morning. Here's an excerpt from the book:

"Just as in the original trial, Judge Hellmann was obliged to compile a report, detailing how he, the second judge and the jury had reached their decision. When the report of more than 120 pages was released in December 2011, I found it difficult reading, and found it hard to believe the points of evidence that had been established beyond any doubt, had been overturned. In the report, Hellmann seemed to be saying that all the evidence pointed to only one person being in the house when Meredith had been killed, and that the alleged staged break-in at the cottage was not so, but in fact a real break-in. This flew directly in the face of the report that had been published after the main trial. It brought our family’s understanding of what might have happened to Meredith that terrible night back to square one. I found his assertion that there had not been a simulated break-in astounding. In the main trial report, Judge Massei devoted several pages to analysing why the break-in must have been staged. This involved meticulous detail regarding how an intruder could not have climbed up the wall to Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom window, and how, even if he had, he would have had to climb twice, once to open the shutters and the second time to climb with the rock used to smash the window."

....

"As far as the prosecution was concerned, it was only the verdict that had let all of us – the prosecution, my family, Meredith herself – down."

....

"The prosecution is now preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court in Rome. In this instance, they can only appeal on points of law. This appeal, then, will not take the form of a trial, but a review of all the documentary evidence concerned with the case. The court might uphold the acquittal decision. Equally, it might uphold the original convictions. It could even request a retrial. What had once seemed simple will now become complicated again – and now that Amanda Knox is at home in America, the situation may become political again."

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 3732-3735). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 3623-3624). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 3626-3635). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hey Ergon how much shipping and other fees do you have to pay on that as where I am it all amounts to approx. 30 dollars for a book that via your route costs half of that!

I'd rather/gladly send John 45 dollars and know he gets something than that these bookselling sharks pocket the lot (almost anyhow), 50% profit is way over the top.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Formats

Amazon Price
New Kindle Edition $14.68

Hardcover new $22.55, used $25.80
Paperback $19.78

Just saw that the version I was looking at was HARDCOVER.

But here above, seems the second-hand version is more expensive than used.. huh?

I really want John's book, can't say that about any of the others except for Follains one.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

That might be a UK thing, Zorba. I got my Kindle copy of the hardcover downloaded to my computer for $9.99 U.S. (no tax)

Everybody, the book is gripping reading. John Kercher uses his journalistic training to convey a powerful, human story. And he makes it clear, that the family considers it Hellmann's failure as a judge, to render justice. He considers Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty. And, he decries the political aspects of the trial.

Everyone, please support the family by buying the book, in whatever way you can.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It depends where you are re: shipping, zorba, in case you're still in the UK or on one of the off coast islands or wherever. Delivery of the hardcover is FREE and it's only 10.53 pounds (no VAT) which is cheaper than the high street stores and John Kercher still gets the maximum royalty. The order form is here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meredith-Daught ... rd_title_0

Here's the Kindle order form http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B007 ... d_i=468294

Ignore the "used" pricing. Do you want the book downloaded to your PC? That's 8.99 pounds for the digital version (inc. VAT) Look on the upper right hand side of the page, the green box which says "1-click" "how buying works" and "available on your PC".

Hope this helps.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
It depends where you are re: shipping, zorba, in case you're still in the UK or on one of the off coast islands or wherever. Delivery of the hardcover is FREE and it's only 10.53 pounds (no VAT) which is cheaper than the high street stores and John Kercher still gets the maximum royalty. The order form is here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meredith-Daught ... rd_title_0

Here's the Kindle order form http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B007 ... d_i=468294

Ignore the "used" pricing. Do you want the book downloaded to your PC? That's 8.99 pounds for the digital version (inc. VAT) Look on the upper right hand side of the page, the green box which says "1-click" "how buying works" and "available on your PC".

Hope this helps.



Thanks Egon, I'd simply order it immediately online if I used credit cards, but I don't.

Where I live people use credit cards far far less than is the case in America, Canada or Britain.

Where I am stationed is in a European country, not the UK.
However, the book has not been translated and therefore I find that the bookshop chain is simply making too much profit and I've let them know that too.

I may arrange it through family back home.
Think I will prefer the online version after all, as I find it easier to read than from a book.

There are other ways here to buy online, without the need of a credit card, very secure ways, I order all the time, parts for my vehicles, other stuff, I use online banking that runs with a special system, just looked and the only way I can get the books at present seems to be by using credit cards, so will need to find them in bookstores.

Tried ordering direct from Hodder, they use credit cards too, so no go for me.

A new system is being introduced using SEPA which means the same details will be usable wherever you are in Europe when purchasing

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
It could also be, Napia, that Edda is not asking the hard questions, because even if she KNOWS, as long as she doesn't hear anything, she can stay in denial. And, as I said. Knox is in the pound seat, at the mo. The money will be hers to dish out, if she so wishes to.

I don't think Edda was a present mom, if you know what I mean. She may have been around, but doing her own thing. Knox's need for attention, even negative, points to someone who was discounted. Curt certainly wasn't around. Mom busy with a new born, and a much younger guy. Knox is insecure,with low self esteem for a reason.

Everything about her, is screaming for attention. She has distanced herself for a reason. If I was Edda, I'd be perturbed, right now. It's one thing, that they've told her to lie low. But, it seems that Knox escaped with the first available guy.

The only thing the Mellas/Knox clan are thinking about right now..is the $$$$$$$$$'s.


Hi, capealadin. I totally agree with this. Screaming for attention, yep, that really sums it up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Has anyone seen this yet? https://www.facebook.com/FreeMeredithKercher?filter=2
Apparently the FOAKERS have set up a Facebook account acting as if they are advocates for Meredith.
I don't have an active Facebook account, so I haven't accessed the entire page, but what I read is sickening.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Has anyone seen this yet? https://www.facebook.com/FreeMeredithKercher?filter=2
Apparently the FOAKERS have set up a Facebook account acting as if they are advocates for Meredith.
I don't have an active Facebook account, so I haven't accessed the entire page, but what I read is sickening.


Yes, I saw the page. A few diehard 3rd rank FOA trying to distract and provoke us; set up in April in a pathetic attempt to counteract John Kerchers book. I plan to ignore them.

Note: All proceeds from the sale of "Meredith" are going into the fund set up in her name. Please buy and review it for others.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Maria


Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 7:34 pm

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I was chuffed to download the kindle version before I left for work this morning as I wasn't expecting it until tomorrow (UK time) and then when I got home tonight a hard copy had also arrived. I have probably pre ordered loads of times and can expect crates of the book to arrive this week. I don't begrudge a penny!

I tried to read it on the train this morning but it was making me cry so will read it next week when I am on holiday.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:50 pm   Post subject: AFTERWORD   

From the afterword section of "Meredith"

"I had never heard of the ‘white feather’ phenomenon until some years ago. The story goes – or so I was told – that when somebody close to you dies, they occasionally send you a white feather to let you know that they are fine and thinking of you. Whether this was true or not, I could have no idea. In the days after we were allowed to bring Meredith home and bury her, I went to the cemetery alone and, when I returned to my car, a small white feather was fluttering by the driver’s door. Soon after, I visited Meredith again – and again I saw a single white feather. After this, it happened on several occasions – but I always thought that it was simply a coincidence. That was until, sometime later, Stephanie and I were sitting in the garden at a table, and as we talked, a pure white feather floated down and settled between us. I looked up into a clear blue sky. There were no birds. For the first time, I wondered if Meredith really was communicating with us. It was so easy to think that this was a stupid superstition, but I would not stop myself wondering if it was something more. Then, quite recently, I had a coffee in London with one of Meredith’s friends from Perugia, Natalie Hayward. We had been talking generally and about Meredith. When we left and stood outside South Kensington Underground Station, to my amazement a white feather suddenly floated down between Natalie and myself and settled on her hand. I looked up. Once again, the sky was pure blue and there was not a bird in sight. After Natalie left, I stood at that point for a full ten minutes, looking skywards, and not one bird appeared. Since then, I have heard and read of other people’s similar experiences. From this moment on, I like to think that, in some comforting way, Meredith truly is communicating with me. You may think me stupid or superstitious, but it is an experience I have never had before, and for every white feather I see, the feeling grows stronger"

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 3758-3764). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.

I don't intend to post whole sections of the book, and i don't want to spoil it for anyone. Buy a copy please, and if I can find an address for Meredith's fund, I'll post it so those who can may make a donation for a very worthy cause. But this passage from John Kercher was truly moving. Like him, I believe that Meredith is fine, and that she is thinking of her family.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: AFTERWORD   

Ergon wrote:
From the afterword section of "Meredith"

"I had never heard of the ‘white feather’ phenomenon until some years ago. The story goes – or so I was told – that when somebody close to you dies, they occasionally send you a white feather to let you know that they are fine and thinking of you. Whether this was true or not, I could have no idea. In the days after we were allowed to bring Meredith home and bury her, I went to the cemetery alone and, when I returned to my car, a small white feather was fluttering by the driver’s door. Soon after, I visited Meredith again – and again I saw a single white feather. After this, it happened on several occasions – but I always thought that it was simply a coincidence. That was until, sometime later, Stephanie and I were sitting in the garden at a table, and as we talked, a pure white feather floated down and settled between us. I looked up into a clear blue sky. There were no birds. For the first time, I wondered if Meredith really was communicating with us. It was so easy to think that this was a stupid superstition, but I would not stop myself wondering if it was something more. Then, quite recently, I had a coffee in London with one of Meredith’s friends from Perugia, Natalie Hayward. We had been talking generally and about Meredith. When we left and stood outside South Kensington Underground Station, to my amazement a white feather suddenly floated down between Natalie and myself and settled on her hand. I looked up. Once again, the sky was pure blue and there was not a bird in sight. After Natalie left, I stood at that point for a full ten minutes, looking skywards, and not one bird appeared. Since then, I have heard and read of other people’s similar experiences. From this moment on, I like to think that, in some comforting way, Meredith truly is communicating with me. You may think me stupid or superstitious, but it is an experience I have never had before, and for every white feather I see, the feeling grows stronger"

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 3758-3764). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.

I don't intend to post whole sections of the book, and i don't want to spoil it for anyone. Buy a copy please, and if I can find an address for Meredith's fund, I'll post it so those who can may make a donation for a very worthy cause. But this passage from John Kercher was truly moving. Like him, I believe that Meredith is fine, and that she is thinking of her family.


Sharing from the heart, without fear how others will judge. The truth. I wouldn't have expected anything different from this brave man.

RIP Meredith
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
I received my copy of "Meredith" the Kindle verison from http://www.amazon.com at 12:46 a.m this morning. Here's an excerpt from the book:

"Just as in the original trial, Judge Hellmann was obliged to compile a report, detailing how he, the second judge and the jury had reached their decision. When the report of more than 120 pages was released in December 2011, I found it difficult reading, and found it hard to believe the points of evidence that had been established beyond any doubt, had been overturned. In the report, Hellmann seemed to be saying that all the evidence pointed to only one person being in the house when Meredith had been killed, and that the alleged staged break-in at the cottage was not so, but in fact a real break-in. This flew directly in the face of the report that had been published after the main trial. It brought our family’s understanding of what might have happened to Meredith that terrible night back to square one. I found his assertion that there had not been a simulated break-in astounding. In the main trial report, Judge Massei devoted several pages to analysing why the break-in must have been staged. This involved meticulous detail regarding how an intruder could not have climbed up the wall to Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom window, and how, even if he had, he would have had to climb twice, once to open the shutters and the second time to climb with the rock used to smash the window."

The break-in was staged and there was a cleanup of the crime scene. That's the crux of the case. That doesn't matter because the murderers are free the whole prosecution case is discredited Knox and Sollecito got away with murder because they're rich kids because they knew they could get away with anything. That was why they knew they could murder in the first place. That was almost what Sollecito at least was trying to prove - untoucheable. Sollecitos father to Sollecito "don't worry son - money can make water flow uphill".
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
The break-in was staged and there was a cleanup of the crime scene. That's the crux of the case. That doesn't matter because the murderers are free the whole prosecution case is discredited Knox and Sollecito got away with murder because they're rich kids because they knew they could get away with anything. That was why they knew they could murder in the first place. That was almost what Sollecito at least was trying to prove - untoucheable. Sollecitos father to Sollecito "don't worry son - money can make water flow uphill".


I appreciate your perspective a lot more than that which still encourages people to believe the Supreme Court will rule against the lovebirds, yet seems paralyzed by threats of legal action, just saying.

I make no claim as to which way the ruling will go, but remind people that political considerations are still very much in play. It shouldn't be that way, but, was always obvious, except for those who didn't want to see that. The evidence proves without a doubt that Meredith Kercher was murdered by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, along with Rudy Guede.

All we can do is pray for justice, and wish the Kerchers well. Anything is possible.

Meredith Kercher, RIP.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yesterday was Madeleine McCann's day, or so it seems. An overflow of pro-McCann articles arose from the UK insisting that she is still out there...somewhere...alive. Poor girl. May she rest in peace.

Marriott can learn something from the McCann's. Their media campaign has been more aggressive than his. Anyone who dares to doubt the McCann's fairy tales were sued for libel. UK media are pro-McCanns and represents only one side of the story. Many supporters believe the McCann's since what parents kill their daughter and keep 'searching' for her? That never happens.

As we see in the Meredith Kercher case such a media campaign automatically results in an anti attitude against anyone who is opposed the main line of the campaign. In this case it is the Portuguese investigators, in the Kercher case it is the Italians. However in the McCanns case it was actually British sniffer dogs who showed what really happened there. Dogs that sensed a dead body inside the apartment, in the garden, on Madeleines clothes and favorite toy, on the mothers clothes, in the parents rental car. Blood was found inside the apartment, and inside the rental car.

Now, I don't mean to start a Madeleine McCann discussion here since that doesn't belong on this board. But what I like to show is how the same people can react differently when similar BS is right in front of their eyes, and turn to tactics they supposedly despise. How in the world is it possible that a site like TJMK puts up a pro-McCann article, then after several members post long and detailed comments outlining that the McCanns were probably involved, TJMK then starts removing those comments stating 'unsubstantiated claims' and declares the comments closed? FOA style all the way.

I shake my head in disbelieve. Eddie and Keela didn't lie ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Yesterday was Madeleine McCann's day, or so it seems. An overflow of pro-McCann articles arose from the UK insisting that she is still out there...somewhere...alive. Poor girl. May she rest in peace.

Marriott can learn something from the McCann's. Their media campaign has been more aggressive than his. Anyone who dares to doubt the McCann's fairy tales were sued for libel. UK media are pro-McCanns and represents only one side of the story. Many supporters believe the McCann's since what parents kill their daughter and keep 'searching' for her? That never happens.

As we see in the Meredith Kercher case such a media campaign automatically results in an anti attitude against anyone who is opposed the main line of the campaign. In this case it is the Portuguese investigators, in the Kercher case it is the Italians. However in the McCanns case it was actually British sniffer dogs who showed what really happened there. Dogs that sensed a dead body inside the apartment, in the garden, on Madeleines clothes and favorite toy, on the mothers clothes, in the parents rental car. Blood was found inside the apartment, and inside the rental car.

Now, I don't mean to start a Madeleine McCann discussion here since that doesn't belong on this board. But what I like to show is how the same people can react differently when similar BS is right in front of their eyes, and turn to tactics they supposedly despise. How in the world is it possible that a site like TJMK puts up a pro-McCann article, then after several members post long and detailed comments outlining that the McCanns were probably involved, TJMK then starts removing those comments stating 'unsubstantiated claims' and declares the comments closed? FOA style all the way.

I shake my head in disbelieve. Eddie and Keela didn't lie ;)


Yep, I saw that, but then I'm not surprised TJMK acted that way. They removed a series of posts about Anne Bremner's DUI, which was totally disrespectful of the TJMK volunteers who put it up in the first place. She was a prominent FOA who tried to get away with what she had done, and it was on topic, as similar to the tactics practised by the Amandii. But then, that place is run like a tight ship, and some get special treatment, while others get.. deleted. Yes, like the FOA, and I warned people a long time back that they shouldn't criticize others for what they themselves did. I hate hypocrisy, which is why I am um, so popular :)

Madeleine McCann is not OT. I wrote about the similarities of the two cases, and will write some more again. Today was supposed to be about John Kercher's book, but, when I saw the comment on TJMK and the reaction, then I will repeat what I told Peter Quennell a long time ago: "faint heart never won fair lady".

And I'm sorry, but I believe that Madeleine McCann is dead, and that her parents know how that happened.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

nice photo of perugia (can't delete posts)

Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

A new article from Barbie Nadeau: Meredith Kercher's Father on 'Our Daughter's 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 Apr 27, 2012 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Yep, I saw that, but then I'm not surprised TJMK acted that way. They removed a series of posts about Anne Bremner's DUI, which was totally disrespectful of the TJMK volunteers who put it up in the first place. She was a prominent FOA who tried to get away with what she had done, and it was on topic, as similar to the tactics practised by the Amandii. But then, that place is run like a tight ship, and some get special treatment, while others get.. deleted. Yes, like the FOA, and I warned people a long time back that they shouldn't criticize others for what they themselves did. I hate hypocrisy, which is why I am um, so popular


Yes, and they are going to go back up. Not on TJMK perhaps, but those articles they took down will certainly be going back up HERE. For otherwise, once you become afraid of stating the truth....then you may as well pack up and go home and that's not what PMF is all about.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:


I see the FOAKers are there on the attack already. Shame.

It is clear, they are terrified of John Kercher's book. There is another reason of course, that they fear it so. The views of the victims carries weight with the public. All this time, the FOAKers have dismissed the Kerchers and their views with the claim that they have little or no understanding of the case and haven't really followed the evidence. John Kercher's book makes a mockery of that claim, demonstrating that the Kercher's understand the case only too well and far better then most. That not only reinstates the weight of the views of the victims, but also makes them authorities on the case. Of course, we've said this all along but now the Kerchers are not so easy for the FOAKers to dismiss and they know it, hence the panic.

The only thing the Kerchers don't fully understand and is the greatest saddness of all, is why their daughter was subjected to such a brutal ordeal by people she knew and trusted.

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


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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
And I'm sorry, but I believe that Madeleine McCann is dead, and that her parents know how that happened.


I couldn't agree more. Moral of the McCann tale is don't leave your four year old and two year old twins on their own in strange country while you get pissed in the bar over 250 yards away. They are guilty of, at best, child neglect and at worst, murder. Probably the former.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
That might be a UK thing, Zorba. I got my Kindle copy of the hardcover downloaded to my computer for $9.99 U.S. (no tax)

Everybody, the book is gripping reading. John Kercher uses his journalistic training to convey a powerful, human story. And he makes it clear, that the family considers it Hellmann's failure as a judge, to render justice. He considers Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty. And, he decries the political aspects of the trial.

Everyone, please support the family by buying the book, in whatever way you can.



Hi Ergon, and one and all,

I ordered a copy online just a moment ago, and it feels like the best thing I've done in a long time, very pleased with myself, seems his book is selling well, and if that is correct that makes me even happier.

Additionally, I would actually like to be able to get a paid for download, I find it easier reading from a screen these days, though one could read a book in the bath, if one has a bath (don't try this under the shower) but be advised, it is not recommended that you attempt reading your book on the computer while soothing your aching limbs in a tub of hot water.

Years ago I wanted to be a singer and my old dad said, Well son, practice in the bath!
He gave the same advice to my cousin, but he was an electrician!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Good Morning all.

Your post says it all, Michael. Well, both of them. What happened to transparency??????????? The only people who should be protected are The kerchers.

Well done, Zorba. You did it. Good on ya. I always feel so sad when the McCann case is mentioned. I never wanted to believe that the Mother or Father could do it. But, something was so off...........

I read Barbie's article, AND the comments. Brmull was excellent, and moviecar ( :) or something close. As for the Foakers? They're showing the whites of their eyes.

_________________
"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 Apr 27, 2012 1:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks for the pic, Troon. Such a beautiful old City. The chokkies aren't half bad, either :)

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Good Morning all.

Your post says it all, Michael. Well, both of them. What happened to transparency??????????? The only people who should be protected are The kerchers.

Well done, Zorba. You did it. Good on ya. I always feel so sad when the McCann case is mentioned. I never wanted to believe that the Mother or Father could do it. But, something was so off...........

I read Barbie's article, AND the comments. Brmull was excellent, and moviecar ( :) or something close. As for the Foakers? They're showing the whites of their eyes.


Good morning, capealadin. Well, you called this over two weeks ago. FOAKERS are frightened by the release of this book. Spot on!

I have been reading the different available sites over the last few months, and what I saw was an attempt to totally discredit Mr. Kercher. Immediately after the release of K & S the comments on HuffPO and like places changed to one of attacks on the Kerchers, John specifically.
Suddenly, like magic, now that Mr Kercher has released his book, comments have turned to sympathy and compassion.
You all know what I am talking about. Basically, the Kerchers have been duped.
And, (you can see this for yourselves if you check comment boards), the comments are now trying to show sympathy for Mr. Kercher and his loss, blaming his suffering on the fact that Guede has gotten a light sentence.
Most Foaker comments are now referencing Guede, almost to a person. I believe this is the new play in the PR handbook. Back off the Kerchers, play up Guede and his short sentence. Seriously, my BS-O-Meter is tracking this on high. This is their NEW position.


Last edited by Napia5 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Ergon wrote:
That might be a UK thing, Zorba. I got my Kindle copy of the hardcover downloaded to my computer for $9.99 U.S. (no tax)

Everybody, the book is gripping reading. John Kercher uses his journalistic training to convey a powerful, human story. And he makes it clear, that the family considers it Hellmann's failure as a judge, to render justice. He considers Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty. And, he decries the political aspects of the trial.

Everyone, please support the family by buying the book, in whatever way you can.



Hi Ergon, and one and all,

I ordered a copy online just a moment ago, and it feels like the best thing I've done in a long time, very pleased with myself, seems his book is selling well, and if that is correct that makes me even happier.

Additionally, I would actually like to be able to get a paid for download, I find it easier reading from a screen these days, though one could read a book in the bath, if one has a bath (don't try this under the shower) but be advised, it is not recommended that you attempt reading your book on the computer while soothing your aching limbs in a tub of hot water.

Years ago I wanted to be a singer and my old dad said, Well son, practice in the bath!
He gave the same advice to my cousin, but he was an electrician!


Zorba, you caught me out. With all of the activity in my household, hiding in the bath with a book is my secret pleasure.
It works out well for the authors, in the long-run. My copy of Follain has already taken a dip, I have already donated the second copy I ordered, so, I'm in need of a third! Don't mind a bit.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Now, I don't mean to start a Madeleine McCann discussion here since that doesn't belong on this board. But what I like to show is how the same people can react differently when similar BS is right in front of their eyes, and turn to tactics they supposedly despise. How in the world is it possible that a site like TJMK puts up a pro-McCann article, then after several members post long and detailed comments outlining that the McCanns were probably involved, TJMK then starts removing those comments stating 'unsubstantiated claims' and declares the comments closed? FOA style all the way.

I shake my head in disbelieve. Eddie and Keela didn't lie ;)


Hi Max,

I wouldn't say that the piece about the Madeleine McCann on TJMK was pro-McCann. In fact, Pete noted that the police might conclude that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance and possible death:

"It may be that one day the British police eventually do conclude that her parents had a role in Madeleine’s disappearance and possible death, or simply declare that they have hit a brick wall."

Distemper wrote a post about the case that contained numerous unsubstantiated claims. I asked distemper to cite credible sources such as witness statements, verbatim quotes etc to support his or her claims. It's important to maintain the same principles we expect when discussing the Meredith Kercher case, namely to support our opinions and claims with some kind of proof. It's what separates the pro-Meredith websites from the FOA websites. If you read what I've written on TJMK, you'll see that I support my claims with reference to official court documents, court testimony, verbatim quotes made in the media or reports from objective journalists such Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau. Pete was concerned about some of the comments being libellous.

I don't know what happened in the Madeleine McCann case. However, I don't think that Madeleine died in some kind of accident and that her parents disposed of her body. I do know that there wasn't enough evidence to charge them and that the McCanns accepted damages for 550,000 pounds and a high court apology from Express Newspapers over "utterly false and defamatory" stories published about the disappearance of their daughter in 2007.

It was explained to me some years ago that it was highly unlikely that the McCanns could have pulled off such a grotesque cover-up, so I wasn't surprised that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, of Scotland Yard’s homicide and serious crime command seems certain that Gerry and Kate McCann had nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance:

“He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory – promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral – that the McCanns had anything to do with her disappearance.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/2 ... -yard-case
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:48 pm   Post subject: I MUST be Irish :)   

A quick note: With all due respect for every body, the Madeleine McCann case has so many similarities with the murder of Meredith Kercher it is truly noteworthy.

- A major PR campaign launched by parents to shift attention away from themselves, or, their daughter.
- Attacking a prosecutor/policeman for simply doing their job.
- Forensic evidence that clearly indicates the involvement of the accused, the placement of the body, the proof of a death.
- LCN DNA, 15 alleles (of Madeleine), a disputed report claiming 'contamination', and 'mixed profiles', oh my.
- Gumshoes from one country passing judgement on the police procedures of another.
- Political interference at the highest levels.
- Inconsistent, highly improbable stories.
- The arc of how the McCanns, and Knox, quickly went from being witnesses to suspects.

Each site has the right to limit or close comments, as TJMK did. And here, on this site, we have the right to comment on it, and we have the right to speculate on the case without being asked to provide links to established authors or news sources (I guess we never learned anything from the Wikipedia debacle) as if half the stuff we write about Amanda Knox is not speculation or 'unsourced allegation' also. I, for one, would not subscribe to double standards. And I do not share a particular respect for the Guardian, or the Metropolitan Police, at this time.

Just as someone once presented a series of questions that they suggested reporters ask Amanda Knox, here is a list of questions that Kate McCann actually refused to answer http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/08/th ... nanswered/ to the Portuguese police, and here is the recent ruling of the Portuguese High Court http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... -book.html ordering the return of police investigator Goncalo Amaral's book "Maddie the Truth of the Lie" that the McCann's lawyer had had seized, in an example of libel chill we have had quite enough of here, thank you.

From the ruling, "We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine’s whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.

We do not see that the right of the book’s author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.

In the same way, concerning the applicants’ right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.

In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic’s Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.

Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct from the penal process’ guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry’s Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
"

In other words, the McCanns forfeited their privacy rights by mounting a PR campaign, thus opening them up to counterclaims about their motives and guilt, and Inspector Amaral had the constitutional right to freely express his views, based on the evidence at hand.

I can see that some "owners" of certain websites might worry about 'libellous statements'. Is that why they removed the posts made in good faith by long standing members about FOA lawyer Anne Bremner's DUI? Do you agree with that? Is that indicative of a secret belief that Knox acquittal is going to be upheld and therefore they light be liable for damages to her and her friends? Otherwise I wonder what makes them so er, nervous.

But, concerning Madeleine McCann. I hope that in our passion for Justice for Meredith Kercher, we have not forgotten our passion for true justice for EVERY ONE. Another girl died in 2007, and her death, while it obviously cannot take over this forum, can never be OT.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: I MUST be Irish :)   

Ergon wrote:
Each site has the right to limit or close comments, as TJMK did. And here, on this site, we have the right to comment on it, and we have the right to speculate on the case without being asked to provide links to established authors or news sources (I guess we never learned anything from the Wikipedia debacle) as if half the stuff we write about Amanda Knox is not speculation or 'unsourced allegation' also. I, for one, would not subscribe to double standards. And I do not share a particular respect for the Guardian, or the Metropolitan Police, at this time.


Hi Ergon,

There is a difference between speculating and making unsubstantiated claims.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi, The Machine,
And you have a right to make that distinction, and enforce it, on TJMK. Here, we're a bit mavericky, and if we see a selective application of that distinction, we might er, comment on it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, The Machine,
And you have a right to make that distinction, and enforce it, on TJMK. Here, we're a bit mavericky, and if we see a selective application of that distinction, we might er, comment on it.


I wouldn't say that I enforced it on TJMK, but I expect posters to be able to support any claims they make with some actual proof . For example, Michelle Moore still maintains that the knife didn't match the wound on Meredith's neck despite the fact that multiple prosecution and defence experts all agreed that the knife was compatible with the large wound. She made herself look a complete and utter fool with her ignorance of the basic facts of the case.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I was referring to TJMK 'enforcing' whatever rules it sees fit. Sorry I didn't make that clear, but I have no idea whether you're a TJMK 'main poster' or have the power to impose that. From what I saw of the comments on TJMK, someone speculated that Kate McCann may have caused an accidental death. You call that an 'unsubstantiated allegation'. We disagree, and I will leave it at that.

Still, when someone on dotorg 'speculated' that Amanda may have been sexually abused, did you make that distinction then as well, and speak up? If not, then why not?

And I did ask you: "Is that why they removed the posts made in good faith by long standing members about FOA lawyer Anne Bremner's DUI? Do you agree with that? Is that indicative of a secret belief that Knox acquittal is going to be upheld and therefore they might be liable for damages to her and her friends?"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The Strange Case of Greg Hampikian's Resume:

At one time I thought the Knoxii were holding out Hampikian to be an "independent" expert. Later they claimed his role was that of consultant to the Knox family but not part of the defense team. Now Hampikian claims to have analyzed crime scene DNA as part of the defense team!

"Knox's defense team sought out and received permission from the Italian court to have Hampikian analyze the DNA evidence gathered from the crime scene."
http://www4.nau.edu/insidenau/bumps/201 ... Eo.twitter

i know he wasn't listed as part of the defense team. Does anyone know his actual role?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
I was referring to TJMK 'enforcing' whatever rules it sees fit. Sorry I didn't make that clear, but I have no idea whether you're a TJMK 'main poster' or have the power to impose that. From what I saw of the comments on TJMK, someone speculated that Kate McCann may have caused an accidental death. You call that an 'unsubstantiated allegation'. We disagree, and I will leave it at that.

Still, when someone on dotorg 'speculated' that Amanda may have been sexually abused, did you make that distinction then as well, and speak up? If not, then why not?

And I did ask you: "Is that why they removed the posts made in good faith by long standing members about FOA lawyer Anne Bremner's DUI? Do you agree with that? Is that indicative of a secret belief that Knox acquittal is going to be upheld and therefore they might be liable for damages to her and her friends?"


This is what I wrote:

Hi distemper,

You’ve made a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Please cite credible sources such as witness statements, verbatim quotes etc to support your claims.

Posted by The Machine on 04/26/12 at 02:49 AM | #

This is distemper's post:

"I have to agree with Dennis, I too have followed this from the beginning and am certain they have something to do with her disappearance. The McCanns have changed their stories on more than one occasion and they have told countless lies.

They set up a limited company within days of Madeline going missing. The money donated by people has paid their mortgage on occasion and pays for them to continually persecute a former member of the PJ without justification. The fund is there to primarily benefit the parents and for them to bring in legal teams. Only 13% has been used to fund searches.

They also hired a PR company within days and we all know about them and how they are used to sway public opinion!

On the night she disappeared when everyone one was out looking for her daughter Kate openly admitted in a BBC interview that neither of them searched for Madeline when she disappeared.

Against police advice within hours they had called relatives and told them to contact press and TV in the UK and tell them of her coloboma. When told this could put Madeline in danger, Gerry said in terms of marketing it was a good ploy!
On 17/05/2007 they started proceedings to have Madeline made a ward of court, 2 weeks after she went missing..
There is no evidence to support the theory of abduction, there are numerous inconsistencies to their stories and those of their friends the "Tapas 7" who also changed their versions of what happened that night.

They all refused to take part in a police reconstruction, that may have helped solve some of the inconsistencies. This I believe would have proved they were all lying as none of their timings matched up.

Jane Tanners statements are laughable regarding the sighting of the supposed "abductor" and she yet she apparently walked within a few feet of GMcCann and JWilkins who both admitted they never saw her or anyone else on the street. Not to mention she falsely accused an innocent man who looked nothing like the description she gave, but was insistent it was the "abductor" none the less!!

David Paynes statements are difficult to read as he flounders around, avioding questions and trying to match things up with other statements.

Matthew Oldfield couldn't decide if he had been in the apartment at 2130 or just listened out side, he gave varying accounts of his actions and described the interior of his own apartment saying it was in McCann's.

Kate discovered Madeline missing at 2200 yet the police were not called for another 50 mins until 2250."

Let us not forget these so called professionals all left their very young children alone every night in Portugal while they all went out eating and drinking. Gerry says they were incredibly close but in fact were at least 70m away, that is not incredibly close..
The list goes on and on and on....... and the trouble with liars is they have short memories."

I've underlined the unsubstantiated claims.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Still, when someone on dotorg 'speculated' that Amanda may have been sexually abused, did you make that distinction then as well, and speak up? If not, then why not?


I don't recall this discussion. I have no problem with someone speculating this might have happened. However, it would be libellous, if a poster accused someone of sexually abusing Knox without any proof.

Ergon wrote:
And I did ask you: "Is that why they removed the posts made in good faith by long standing members about FOA lawyer Anne Bremner's DUI? Do you agree with that? Is that indicative of a secret belief that Knox acquittal is going to be upheld and therefore they might be liable for damages to her and her friends?"


You know my feelings about this. There was no secret belief that Amanda Knox was going to be acquitted. Anne Bremner admitted drinking and driving and served time in the slammer for her crime. Any posts on TJMK about this are not libellous and TJMK could not be held liable for damages for reporting what happened.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Machine and Ergon. If TJMK wants to remove every post containing an unsubstantiated claim there would be a whole lot less comments suddenly. Of course, The Machine has every right to ask to cite some sources but before the poster had a reasonable chance to reply, his post was already deleted and posters were asked to not post any further comments.

I am very much anti any PR campaign as they just try to mess with your head IMO. I do consider anything coming from the UK pro-McCann. I hardly every see an objective article pointing out the evidence against the McCanns. It is always about the 'search' for the missing girl. The article in the guardian doesn't give me much hope anything will change. Seems like they already made up their minds.

Just like Ergon I see the similarities between the Kercher and the McCann case. I am not going to discuss every piece of evidence in the McCann case but like I said before ..the dogs were not wrong...the statistical chance of the 2 dogs making a whole series of false alerts is practically zero... Contamination, mixed DNA we have all heard that before.

Forget what you read in the UK media, follow the dogs and compare the story of Madeleine's mother leaving her kids unattended with the door open, discovering her daughter missing, somehow knowing she was taken and then leaving her other 2 children with the invisible abductor around with Amanda's nonsense about taking a shower in the bloody bathroom. It is all bollocks and made up for a specific reason. I value the statistics (dogs, DNA) and see the overall picture. For me the answers in the McCann case are just as clear as in the Kercher case.

All JMO. Too lazy to dig up a bunch of links, verbatim quotes or whatever ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The Machine, I am going to take some time to respond to this properly, plus I'm taking a well deserved weekend off.

As I said before, I have the utmost respect for the team at TJMK and both PMF's, at least for the work that they accomplished in presenting the truth in the case for Meredith Kercher. Nothing will ever change my view on that. I may have had personal differences with some, and even was angry about what I saw as the unfair treatment of long term members (never for myself) but felt at least we were united in a common cause for Meredith.

But, I'm sorry, I see that when a puff piece is written about Madeleine McCann, and some one makes a comment about the parents that no one would even question if it were made about the Knoxes, then I call it double standards. Asking for cites? Please. Where have we seen it before? Deleting unpopular comments. Where have we seen it before?

The fact is there is widespread interest in the McCann case in the UK, and many have now come to believe the true story has been obscured by a well conducted PR campaign, and, the threat of litigation.

We already had an infestation of 'lawyers' here threatening us with libel chill. TJMK's owner can run his site as he sees fit, and I have no problem with that. But one thing that we at dotnet will do, is allow the free expression of ideas, regardless of whether they might be called unsubstantiated or not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

http://www.lettera43.it/cronaca/giustiz ... 548887.htm

Raniero Busco acquitted by appeal court for the murder of his girlfriend Simonetta Cesaroni. 'Super expert' claims the original experts got it all wrong. The bite mark was not a bite mark. There is no proof.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks for the link, Max. Uffa. I have a really busy day tomorrow, but I'm going to get to it later. Am I going to be shocked? Is this going to be par for the course?

Very valid points, btw, as to the posts upthread. It's the posters who make up the calibre of the sites. This doesn't take away anything from the Admins or Mods.......WHEN decency is adhered to. When there is fairness, and openess. Members don't want to have to question the integrity of Admins. Or private agendas. Then I call shenanigans.

Machine, your integrity is never open to question. You have my utmost respect, and thanks for your input. Your goal, your only objective, is justice for Meredith. And, you are appreciated. Much.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello friends,

How awful, to see on Barbie's pages, those idiots telling us and her, that they are going to give her this one even though they were 'real against her in the past'. How bad is that, when a person is totally insincere, yet does not have the intelligence to make any proper, least of all valid points, in a respectful way, e.g, by not using aggression and so pretends to give a shit?

I'm sure Barbie's is just sat around waiting to be praised by those without an inkling of intelligence NOT.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

John makes the pioints
1/ that whatever the Hellmann court made of things by dismissing evidence, what then, asks John, about the remaining abundance of evidence.
2/ he fails to grasp (so do we and many more) how it is that a judge can dismiss the very evidence a judge that went before him spent eight (8) pages on explaining, and according to that, deciding that there must have been a mock-up burglary.

These things John mentions, are not simply to mention as passing but are what will form grounds in the Supreme court for other judges together deciding that if Hellmann has not obeyed the codes that say according to law there must be a true basis for reasoning, otherwise it would mean, if there is no proper explanation as to part of evidence already entered and agreed on by other judges, that this handling of things in that way counts then as an incorrect administering of the law.

For if following judges were to simply dismiss evidence and reasoning of their predecessors without replacing it by stronger evidence showing how what went before was incorrect, then it would mean that judges had the power to simply do whatever they liked, and that would not be lawful, particularly because in Italy there is no discretion available to individual law people with which to suddenly start making up their own rules, no, in Italy for every crime there is a written law, meaning if you kill then the sentence must be between 21 and 26 years or otherwise for life but a judge or set of judges cannot simply say well, let's give you 9 years because you grassed on your chums over there or we will make a deal with you.

In Italy, things do not exist this way, not in any official capacity; it may take place secretly, though I doubt it, for what crook would risk grassing up his/her chums to have the prosecutors not keep their word and send the person away for a long time after all, anyhow?

So, in Italy, there's no real let's make a deal then I'll tell you stuff, not the way it takes place in America and in the UK.
Having told the truth though, would mean that any future prison regime would be different for an individual that has been able to show that he/she had decided to tell the truth, this bit would mean that a true basis could then be formed for rehabilitation, making it possible to really set about at least attempting to rehabilitate an individual, and it would allow such things as being allowed to go into the community on days jobs and later on getting the parole that others do not. I doubt Knox and Sollecito would have been given any of these rewards/benefits, not the way they were positioned.

As far as we know... isn't it true, that Sollecito remains indeed at home with daddio, drinking whisky perhaps from a jar-o, to smother his thoughts most likely, and stifle his ... depressive state of mind, that he had already been suffering with before Meredith was murdered, at least he was suffering with problems, at lest going by what we have been able to gather, he had departed on his road to not enjoying just a few joints but his path of self-medication, potentially many drugs in the mix, coke, speed, heroin, XTC, anything really.
Yes, so does he stay with daddy, not as much stay as be under dad's protection, meaning dad's own prison.

Raffaele let his side down; the family, and even though they laugh and cheer for the outside world, I bet dad gave him more than one good bollocking, him getting out of prison didn't get his sister her career back and that situation isn't going to look great no matter what they pretend, considering it was not the fact of the circumstances concerning brother-boy, but instead things sister and dad undertook, which made them criminals in their their own right.
This means, I would say, no nice new little job in the town hall, or any governmental post, though, I don't know about that for sure.

The feeling I get is (considering how what Nell posted shows exactly how dad got very uptight with his son about how he had not changed his behaviour, the behaviour he'd already promised to change long before Meredith's murder) that it sounds like dad was saying, dammit, look at how you were already, look at what you promised us, and look where you are now you idiot.

Seems like Meredith's murder was the result, partly, of a culmination of bad behaviour that dad had been trying to prevent.
Dad had been trying to make sure things would improve, dad didn't fear murder, dad was worried about his son's self-destructive lifestyle or lack of lifestyle, the on-going problems culminating in things worse than dad had ever imagined or feared could happen, the self-destruction of his son was what he had been worried about and then what??? murder? He must have been saying to his son, see what I told you, you fool. And it was like for Christ's sake, I told you, you promised, and now look what you've gone and done you stupid little shit.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Everyone,

Regarding the McCann case. Now, I'm not putting it out of bounds or cautioning against specific comments about it. However, I do have a little bit of concern about it. I don't want discussion of it taking over the board and would prefer that members stick to general case comparrisons, rather then going into deep detail and argument on the McCann case. This is for several reasons. Firstly, everyone that is here has come here due to an interest in the Meredith Kercher case, meaning they know a lot about it or wish to know a lot about it. The same cannot be said about the McCann case and whilst some may be interested, many would not wish to have to go off to learn about a whole different case just so they can follow what's going on in this case. The second point, is that the McCann case is just as infamous, controversial and emotive, if not more so, then the Kercher case and were it to become a main topic of discussion here we would quickly attract new members to PMF who would sign-up solely to discuss the McCann case and that is something I'd like to avoid. Finally, there is a very fine line between good case debate and things going too far, between the stating of facts and libel, or between deduction and conspiracy theory. Members are able to go into such detail on the Meredith Kercher case here because the forum is policed by a staff that each individually has an intimmate working knowledge of the Meredth Kercher case and as such, with the help of knowledgable members, are able to keep things on track, legal and sane. PMF is specialised in the Kercher case. The same cannot be said regarding the McCann case or other cases. I myself certainly don't feel qualified to police such a discussion as an Admin, since whilst I am familiar with the McCann case, I certainly wouldn't describe myself as an expert on it. That would mean I would have to administrate any such discussion far more harshly, in order to err on the side of caution. Members may assume that the manner in which we debate (and have done so throughout our history here) the Meredith Kercher case can simply be transplanted on to any case someone decides to raise here, but that isn't the case, for the reasons given above.

_________________
"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 Apr 28, 2012 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi, Zorba and everyone. I agree with your opinion about Papa above. I also noticed as I read, Papa is coaching his son.

This line, especially:
" and then the f@cking point that you have could avoided the joints .... You promised a few years ago about it, didn’t you? You gave us your promise, to me and to your sister that you would not have used them again, and instead you have not given a f@ck .... is that clear?“

Papa, IMO, is not allowing his son to complete sentences for a reason. Papa KNOWS they are being recorded. He is trying to lead his son. This statement above is Papa's way of distancing himself and Vanessa from the current knowledge that Sollecito is doing drugs. His comment that Sollecito promised him and his sister "a few years ago" sounds as if Papa and Vanessa had absolutely NO current awareness of drug use. Does anyone here believe that Papa had no knowledge what his son was up to? He states this, then at the end, he says, "Is that clear?".

Maybe I'm biased, but, the way I have read this prison conversation, I see weaseling in every sentence. Papa is pissed off, for sure. And he is trying to let his son know which direction this thing should go.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi everyone - I'm a regular reader but this is my first post on .net. Shame about the split but two pmf's = double the effort for Meredith as far as I am concerned.

I downloaded John's book yesterday and had read it by last night. I was apprehensive about reading it as I thought it would be too upsetting but, quite the opposite, it is so lovely to forget all the horror for a short while and have Meredith larger than life on the pages. Don't get me wrong, there were a few tears but the book achieves exactly what John wanted and he has written it perfectly - I'm not surprised the FOA are terrified of it. I will be putting a review on Amazon and, like Follain's book, forcing it on friends/family urging them to read it.

Keep up the good work with the forum. ps. where is the wonderful Daisy Steiner???

As always, RIP Meredith
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Hi, Zorba and everyone. I agree with your opinion about Papa above. I also noticed as I read, Papa is coaching his son.

This line, especially:
" and then the f@cking point that you have could avoided the joints .... You promised a few years ago about it, didn’t you? You gave us your promise, to me and to your sister that you would not have used them again, and instead you have not given a f@ck .... is that clear?“

Papa, IMO, is not allowing his son to complete sentences for a reason. Papa KNOWS they are being recorded. He is trying to lead his son. This statement above is Papa's way of distancing himself and Vanessa from the current knowledge that Sollecito is doing drugs. His comment that Sollecito promised him and his sister "a few years ago" sounds as if Papa and Vanessa had absolutely NO current awareness of drug use. Does anyone here believe that Papa had no knowledge what his son was up to? He states this, then at the end, he says, "Is that clear?".

Maybe I'm biased, but, the way I have read this prison conversation, I see weaseling in every sentence. Papa is pissed off, for sure. And he is trying to let his son know which direction this thing should go.


Hi Napia

Those lines were the ones that got me too Napia.

Right, also the bit about carrying the knife back and forth *(was it that dad said I told you about doing that?) sounds like Sollecito was taking his own knife there, when he went to be there at Knox's, in order to cook, as he probably liked his own knives.
See, I've always really been able to imagine him doing that, taking a knife back and forth, (not just his ordinary creepy knife he used to carry around), as I'm a trained chef and used to cook so much at other people's places.

Sometimes I took lots of stuff, only to find out that they didn't even have as much as a 3 inch potato knife, or if they had something that resembled a proper kitchen knife then it was blunt and the blade all bendy.

Now as a chef, I have all sorts of knives, all very sharp , little ones for doing delicate jobs, like slicing easily through the skin of a mandarin in order to open it out to form a butterfly to decorate a dessert, or very small knives for use on an apple when cutting a swan out from it for a dessert decoration.

Apart from that if I'm really cooking, I need my apple bore, different sieves, un couteau d'office (an office knife) which is a small knife but then a regular one that every chef must have. Then the knife sized in between that and what is called a BATTER, which is a large chef's knife, I need my masking bag, pallet knives, le Couteau L'Économe (as the word econome implies, peeling stuff economically producing less waste), I need whisks, sometimes my chapati pan, I mean I can do a lot with one decent knife if I have to, but I've sometimes cooked for 100 or more people on my own and well, and ended up freaked out when they'd expected me to cook but had hardly any pans, not even big enough like for 4 people let alone 34, or 50, all of these amounts of people are the numbers I've cooked for, my first big deal was cooking for about 35 or 40 people, when you have to think up how many vegetables to buy for that amount, it's hard when you've never done it.

After a while, I always took my own stuff, also when cooking at friend's places, took my knife case, herbs and spices, because lots of people have hardly any or have maybe a pot of oregano that was used for the last time in 1973, people just do exist like this, even tho ugh they have friends who are great with culinary thins and nutrition.
Another thing they'd say was it's okay, come at 7, then they'd expect me to have the lot done in an hour for a whioe party of people, I let people really make a fool of me like that, listening to their nonsense; there's them all party-polite and social and enjoying drinks and there's me stuck in the kitchen running around like a blue arsed fly. It's not pleasant, especially when you do have experience and already said, hey I have to get started on time,.. only to be told by some idiot that cannot cook and never has, no it's okay, come at 7, bla bla bla, once or twice I knew it wasn't okay but let myself become their village cooking idiot by going along with it

This is all why I can imagine Raffaele Sollecito taking his knife along with him, with absolutely no ill-intention, mostly from what I saw, people in Italy are really particular about food and mostly they can cook.
If Knox did grab his knife it must have drove him nuts later after what happened, he must have freaked out.
They could dump some stuff like dirty clothes but they couldn't dump the knife so easily, and their clothes were not necessarily covered in blood, even a wound like that does not mean that when the knife was released that the blood came out all at once, but as log as heart is pumping and desperately trying to pump blood around the body, first to the vital organs then the heart will pump the blood out of the body until the heart stops, like by a person drowning in the blood filling the lungs.

I think they stood back, once Meredith had been stabbed, and went back and forth, after doing that I can hardly see either Knox or Sollecito deciding to try to save Meredith because they decided she had to die once they'd gone that far. And I think that bit may have been Sollecito too saying, no, we cannot now do anything, or we will spend the rest of our lives in jail, because Knox made that comment about, if it had been up to me.

What a weird thing to say, if one had nothing to do with it one would not be making up excuses trying to make out that one cared when it was obvious neither of them did, but that's what they started trying to say, like that they cared, that Meredith was her friend, and Sollecito's lame, feeble and insincere, 'that poor girl, she did not deserve it' bullshit, was hardly convincing.

I'm sure if either of them had meant anything they said sincerely, we'd have picked up on it, instead of feeling ill when hearing their whining voices or twisted faces.

I'm certain that Meredith and Knox had a big bust up, and the shock Knox got when she found out she in no way would be able to walk over Meredith, maybe that they pushed, shoved, had the argument, but Knox could not win when she thought she simply would, she became a real bully, and nor simply being able to push Meredith around drove her insane, f she had laid a finger on Meredith as in violently, I reckon Meredith would have stood up to her and maybe it Knox who got hurt too and at that point she went and got the knife.

I sure would like to know how that all went.

What I feel is that no matter what kind of fronts either one of the two put on, no matter what fronts their families invent for them, no matter what excuses all of them make and no matter how much they all fake, that it cannot be hidden forever, even if Solecito does not get locked up again with Knox having refuge in America, I reckon his mind is going to screw him up, screw him up for the good of this case, because there's something very wrong with him, it is not only Knox.

I can't help thinking that if Sollecito should happen to get run down by a tram that everyone in Seattle there will be saying how sorry they are while secretly clapping their hands with relief, because he is liability for them and all they did, if he cracks, all of those things the family in Seattle undertook, all of the deceit.

As far as I am aware one does not need to be a routine criminal with experience to work things out such as the fact that if one did happen to be at a police department and had something to hide one would know immediately not to be talking as you'd never know who is listening in, if Knox and Sollecito did not become aware of suchlike then they must have been even thicker than I imagined they are.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ripple





_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Great Choices, Zorba, as I am sitting here waiting for my book. It's coming Monday. I've decided to stop reading some of the sites today, there are so many excerpts from the book, I feel like I'm reading most of it already. I want my copy in my hands.
I wish I knew how you imported these tunes from YouTube. There is one insturmental that reminds me of Meredith.
It's the instrumental from St Elmo's Fire. Can you tell me how to do this?
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 Apr 29, 2012 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dollycat wrote:
Hi everyone - I'm a regular reader but this is my first post on .net. Shame about the split but two pmf's = double the effort for Meredith as far as I am concerned.

I downloaded John's book yesterday and had read it by last night. I was apprehensive about reading it as I thought it would be too upsetting but, quite the opposite, it is so lovely to forget all the horror for a short while and have Meredith larger than life on the pages. Don't get me wrong, there were a few tears but the book achieves exactly what John wanted and he has written it perfectly - I'm not surprised the FOA are terrified of it. I will be putting a review on Amazon and, like Follain's book, forcing it on friends/family urging them to read it.

Keep up the good work with the forum. ps. where is the wonderful Daisy Steiner???

As always, RIP Meredith



Hi dollycat and welcome to PMF!!! :)

I'm glad to hear that you've found John Kercher's book a great read. I'm also most glad to hear that it lives up to all the FOAKer fears. Perhaps now, much of the nonsense they like to put around the Web about the Kerchers can be put to bed. Please be sure to share your review of the book with us here! :)

I look forward to reading you, dollycat :)

_________________
"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 zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Great Choices, Zorba, as I am sitting here waiting for my book. It's coming Monday. I've decided to stop reading some of the sites today, there are so many excerpts from the book, I feel like I'm reading most of it already. I want my copy in my hands.
I wish I knew how you imported these tunes from YouTube. There is one insturmental that reminds me of Meredith.
It's the instrumental from St Elmo's Fire. Can you tell me how to do this?


Hi Napia,

Well, the other day my method didn't work but today it did.

I haven't got it exactly right as I have to 1/ First make a post, then submit it with nothing in it
2/ Open your You Tube video, on You Tube, then copy the URL from the Explorer Bar at top of page
3/ Now here in PMF, click to edit your empty post, you will see all of the options, one of which is You Tube (not the other video options, nor You Tube HR) just ''You Tube'', click on the You Tube option.
Two sets of brackets will appear in your post tht you have not yet re-submitted
4/ Paste your You Tube video URL in between the two sets of squared brackets, and submit the post.

Hope this doesn't sound complicated as it isn't.


Hey, today a parcel arrived, it was for the guy next door and he wasn't home so they knock at the neighbour's so they don't have to come back, but looking out of my window I thought, huh, that's quick, excitedly thought for a sec that it was my book already, anyhow, like you I'm looking forward to reading John's book.

I think I will get the Follain's one too, it's the only other one I think is worth the time, with the exception of things from Barbie and Andrea.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dollycat wrote:
Hi everyone - I'm a regular reader but this is my first post on .net. Shame about the split but two pmf's = double the effort for Meredith as far as I am concerned.

I downloaded John's book yesterday and had read it by last night. I was apprehensive about reading it as I thought it would be too upsetting but, quite the opposite, it is so lovely to forget all the horror for a short while and have Meredith larger than life on the pages. Don't get me wrong, there were a few tears but the book achieves exactly what John wanted and he has written it perfectly - I'm not surprised the FOA are terrified of it. I will be putting a review on Amazon and, like Follain's book, forcing it on friends/family urging them to read it.

Keep up the good work with the forum. ps. where is the wonderful Daisy Steiner???

As always, RIP Meredith



Wow, that's fast reading Dolly!
Sometimes you get one like that, that you cannot put down, I think it's going to be like that for me, with this book from Mr Kercher... such a truly lovely gentle gentleman.

Don't be afraid of writing here, much appreciated if you do.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=193099

RS moved out of daddy's house to Verona. To study and have some privacy. Dad will call every hour to make sure he is not doing any drugs, carrying knives around and getting involved with crazy girls ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks, Zorba, I'll try this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=193099

RS moved out of daddy's house to Verona. To study and have some privacy. Dad will call every hour to make sure he is not doing any drugs, carrying knives around and getting involved with crazy girls ;)


Well, he'll probably just turn his phone off.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
max wrote:
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=193099

RS moved out of daddy's house to Verona. To study and have some privacy. Dad will call every hour to make sure he is not doing any drugs, carrying knives around and getting involved with crazy girls ;)

Well, he'll probably just turn his phone off.

No no, cats are not allowed :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello Dollycat......and welcome......

Daisy is alive and well and fabulous. I love her posts. I suppose, in part, it's because she's a Northerner? and tell it like it is?

I'm so hoping John Kercher's book does well.....not least because the family won't accept any money, and this is a wonderful tribute to the VICTIM..who has been pushed into the shadows . And, by whom? or what?

Max, to Verona? The place of Romeo and Juliet? Well,in theory. Tisk.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

able to raise things on this forum that were dismissed (for what reason) before the split

incredible co-incidences main one has already been covered and here it's been admitted
the first prosecution report was considered dogma before the split - don't divert from that
don't move away from that -- but we now know it's full of holes because the prosecution
case was thrown out

the report failed the prosecution failed. for whatever reasons not just recently but from
the start there were inclusions or omissions in the prosecution report rendering it flawed

I already said of at least one flaw - why use Curatolo as the main witness - however hard
(before split) .org tried to bolster him into being credible (remember somealibis policeman
act - "rocking back on his heels and sniffing Curatolo for alcohol"). Curatolo was a COMPLETE
KOOK a professional witness (yes?) and even worse - a heroin addict and a heroin dealer
- couldn't be trusted to know what day it was.

and as a witness - vague - a sighting - far weaker than Kokomani who had Knox and Sollecito
waving knives in his face.

but Kokomani was thrown out ...
but if they'd have kept Kokomani in - hell papa Sollecito and the FBI guy Steve Moore have both
accredited Kokomani as a witness - they're worried about him

Kokomani is vocal and quite relaxed about it (because he has the photos?)
he has a lot of information - should hook up with Guede

anyway ...

the big co-incidence #1 which was dealt with here - finally admitted - that something had gone on
was the phoned bomb threat to the address the phones of Meredith Kercher were found dumped at
a "prank call" that there was a bomb under the householders toilet ... made the householder upon
finding the ringing (Amanda Knox for four seconds) phone sure those phones got to the police - the
postal police promptly and unexpectedly to Knox and Solleceto, turning up at Villa della Pergola
(murder house) to return them ...

before the split that unbelievable co-incidence was glossed over - it was a co-incidence - it was never
explained "the party line" the forum then completely controlled by "skeptical" bystander who has
always said her opinions on this case are neutral (how has that worked?)

#2 the injured cat - cat's don't get injured often - injured that evening ..

blood on light switch of downstairs flat (cat blood)
documentary a year ago said there was a blood trail outside to the flat (cat blood)

The cat was quite badly injured that night. It's ear was sliced.

Sollecito is stupid and immature ... a knife freak - I think he injured the cat as a demonstration of power.
They were always after the dope plants - they had been down there to steal them after some argument
Sollecito had probably held up the cat and cut it's ear (as a demonstration of power) to scare, intimidate
to make him look "psycho" (he likes that) just to be a terror - to scare Meredith Kercher ...

just something --- my question. Just as to why I was raising the cat again - It hasn't been accepted as something
that happened - it's a scenario

there needs to be discussion of how the cats ear got injured - that will NOT have happened by accident
cats don't get injured like that - also - the cat blood got onto someone and that blood got all over the
place downstairs - how and when?

I just want some discussion of it now we can.

ok later thinking about it - the blood trail may have just been the cat running back downstairs bleeding ...
It was pretty badly injured - early in the evening (don't cats fight in the early morning) ... the cat was
handled bleeding - someone got cat blood on them (that got onto the downstairs lightswitch - so someone
was downstairs right after) ... A cat badly injured (which could only happen fighting another cat (unless
trapped in a door?)) would not be particularly social. Also don't cats fight in early morning. I think the
knife freak Sollecito cutting the cats ear fits - as far as scenarios go it can't be dismissed - Sollecito / Knox
were out to use knives Meredith Kercher was taunted with knives - they started by taunting the cat ...

I'm basing that on the cat being injured upstairs -- now I'm wondering why this means so much -
but cats rarely get injured and if injured a cat wouldn't let anyone near it
it was improbably accidentally injured badly that specific evening


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:09 am, edited 18 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Troon,

You have it right. We are able to discuss ( debate :) here, as against some * other * sites. That's because Michael is honest, tells you WHY he deletes posts..( I don't think he has ever done so) .

This site, with Michael, Ergon, Nell, and really good posters, can feel comfortable, that everything is above aboard. No hidden agendas ( HELLO, .ORG, and TJMK.) and we are all treated with respect.

Trolls are given norice. Warnings. There are no lackeys here, no kow=chowing. No hidden agenda's.

This is an honest place to be.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

All contributions are so appreciated. There are so many knowledgeable posters ...for MEREDITH.

John Kercher's book is such a loving tribute, to a daughter who was so loved, and so missed.

I can't help feeling so grateful that I'm not him. Just seeing the beautiful pics, re-living through him, the experiences with his daughter, makes me cry.

No wonder, then, that I hug my sons extra tight, and my grandchildren. hugz-)

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

Offline dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
dollycat wrote:
Hi everyone - I'm a regular reader but this is my first post on .net. Shame about the split but two pmf's = double the effort for Meredith as far as I am concerned.

I downloaded John's book yesterday and had read it by last night. I was apprehensive about reading it as I thought it would be too upsetting but, quite the opposite, it is so lovely to forget all the horror for a short while and have Meredith larger than life on the pages. Don't get me wrong, there were a few tears but the book achieves exactly what John wanted and he has written it perfectly - I'm not surprised the FOA are terrified of it. I will be putting a review on Amazon and, like Follain's book, forcing it on friends/family urging them to read it.

Keep up the good work with the forum. ps. where is the wonderful Daisy Steiner???

As always, RIP Meredith



Wow, that's fast reading Dolly!
Sometimes you get one like that, that you cannot put down, I think it's going to be like that for me, with this book from Mr Kercher... such a truly lovely gentle gentleman.

Don't be afraid of writing here, much appreciated if you do.


Thanks for the welcome and Zorba, I probably read it a bit too quickly, like I did with Follain's, but I will re-read in a short while and really take it in. I'm not going to quote from the book or anything as I appreciate people want to read it for themselves but the overall thing that strikes me is that the Kerchers just want to know "why?"

There is no animosity or desire for revenge in John's book, there is just bewilderment and even if K&S went back to prison they would get little satisfaction from it, Meredith is gone and that is all that matters to them and my heart breaks for them.

I live near Croydon so I recognise all of the places John mentioned in the book, the Mexican restaurant where Meredith worked and various landmarks that I know so well. And I can't believe the family had no financial support, I would have ran up the road with a cheque to help pay towards flights etc if I had known at the time.

And most of all, while reading the book the one thing I would like is to hear Meredith's voice, just once. Do you think that as part of his interviews for the book John should perhaps release some video of Meredith, she shines in her photos but photos are static and perhaps some video of her speaking would really bring it home to people? I don't know, just a suggestion but I would understand if the family want to keep those things just for themselves.

Finally, I don't post on PMF because there are well-informed, intelligent, articulate people who say the same things as I am thinking but in a much better way than I can but I am here reading nearly every day and willing to contribute to help in the fight for Meredith in any way I can. (I particularly admire everyone's patience on FOAker Tuesday - funny how they all fade away eventually, I hope they all rot....)

With love to you all.

RIP Meredith
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=193099

RS moved out of daddy's house to Verona. To study and have some privacy. Dad will call every hour to make sure he is not doing any drugs, carrying knives around and getting involved with crazy girls ;)



That's surprising, I know for sure they are all worried far more than Knox and co may be, Sollecito is in Italy and there will be no ignoring the law there, he may, he may not get put back into prison, the fact that it is not certain that he is absolutely free of the charges, means they have to worry.

R Sollecito: No, it's okay pap, don't worry, I'll be forever grateful to you, and I promise I will not murder anyone. ELSE>

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Troon wrote:
there needs to be discussion of how the cats ear got injured - that will NOT have happened by accident
cats don't get injured like that - also - the cat blood got onto someone and that blood got all over the
place downstairs - how and when?


As I understand it, the cat's ear had gotten injured some time before the murder and simply wouldn't heal. This is one of the reasons Meredith was tasked with looking after the cat. No doubt, during that time, the cat had picked at it as cats are prone to do and set it off bleeding again. It certainly is a big coincidence that the cat should spread blood around downstairs around the same time someone was murdered upstairs. That for me, isn't the mystery.

What IS the mystery, because we still to this day don't have all the facts about downstairs, is did Meredith go downstairs and feed the cat that evening as she was due to, or not? It's actually a very important hole in our knowledge as it means we are not certain of Meredith's full movements that night and that's quite important in a murder. I'd also quite like to know who put cat blood on the light switch downstairs, because it certainly wasn't the cat.

_________________
"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 zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hi Troon,

You have it right. We are able to discuss ( debate :) here, as against some * other * sites. That's because Michael is honest, tells you WHY he deletes posts..( I don't think he has ever done so) .

This site, with Michael, Ergon, Nell, and really good posters, can feel comfortable, that everything is above aboard. No hidden agendas ( HELLO, .ORG, and TJMK.) and we are all treated with respect.

Trolls are given notice. Warnings. There are no lackeys here, no kow=chowing. No hidden agenda's.

This is an honest place to be.


Hi Los Capos,

I agree with your idea noted in your second paragraph but will resist the automatic urge I get to elaborate on the same as it's something that leads off topic and causes me to feel bad, but, this word came to mind and looking it up to be certain of all of its full meanings, it seems to hit the nail right on the head, and all as I can say, thinking of Meredith, thinking of her parents, two brothers and one sister, there is no need for anyone, no matter who they are, to open their mouths or do anything so-called for the benefit of the Kerchers if the truth is, they have some kind of motivation that relates to wanting to be an alpha female like by using a forum to place oneself above others or else for a business person to start getting involved simply as this could be yet another tidy venture in the end for that individual, because if any of these things are the case, then persons such as those defined here by me (alpha wannabes and business seeking breadheads) are as bad as those people who pretend to be defending Knox and Sollecito but who at most seem to have some kind of trouble with themselves (though not often used by anyone, the correct word is: theirselves), and thus latch onto things that they recognise to them simply as they are of the same state of mind as those who have twisted so much in relation to this case. The word on the street is:

Megalomania (anyone named Meg for short, this is not your full and real name)

meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (mg-l-mn-, -mny)
n.
1. A psychopathological condition characterised by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.



Mum's the word

and translated to American English (no costs attached)

Mom's the word

(Don't thank me for the translation you all!)

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Thanks, Zorba, I'll try this.



You're welcome
Hope it works, spin us a disk, or whatever records are called these days!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
able to raise things on this forum that were dismissed (for what reason) before the split


1/ the big co-incidence #1 which was dealt with here - finally admitted - that something had gone on was the phoned bomb threat to the address the phones of Meredith Kercher were found dumped at

2/ a "prank call" that there was a bomb under the householders toilet ... made the householder upon finding the ringing (Amanda Knox for four seconds) phone sure those phones got to the police - the postal police promptly and unexpectedly to Knox and Solleceto, turning up at Villa della Pergola (murder house) to return them ...

3/ before the split that unbelievable co-incidence was glossed over - it was a co-incidence - it was never explained "the party line" the forum then completely controlled by "skeptical" bystander who has always said her opinions on this case are neutral (how has that worked?)



[your post numbered by me for clarity/overview]

1/ Which method do you think the callers used in order to find out what Elisabetta's personal home telephone number was?
Do you think her full family name was written on the gate or door, or something like that?
If not, I'm curious to know how you think anyone could have found the telephone number simply by using the home address and not knowing any name.
Maybe her name was indeed written out front, I don't know.

Are you aware that the calls were traced back to Rome? (as far as I remember)

2/ Seems to be saying that all in all, you feel that there is a missing link, perhaps of someone else being involved, apart from Knox, Sollecito and Guede, you are led to this conclusion/idea because the coincidence seems to be too great for it to actually be coincidence (???)

3/ On this point 3, I'm not certain any longer what the case was exactly, however, I do recall that there were angles offered from all over the place and that everything could be and was ruled out, for the call was traced back to Rome and had taken place the evening before, at 10 o clock to be precise, therefore that the family decided to notify the police thenext day which they were busy seeting about doing hen the telephone business entered the story, so they went off as planned to the police location but they now transported the phoe, later on the daughter fo und yet another when it rang, rang because Knox was ringing Meredith; it was only next day after the hoax call that the phones were found.

This would imply that if it indeed was no coincidence at all, that the killers planned it all and planned too to dump Meredith's phones in Elisabetta's garden after the murder, the murder (planned for next day) that would take place next day.


I think therefore that this particular line of reasoning was ruled out because it was deemed too far-fetched as to be credible or reasonable.
The reasoning would have involved/implied, among other things, that a whole lot of premeditation had formed the basis of the murder; if people are going to go that far, then they'd have perhaps planned things even more meticulously, undertaken planning the likes of which is not often seen in murder cases, like those conducted by true serial killers wishing for some twisted reason to commit perfect premeditated crimes that cannot be traced, these being the stuff of movies, e.g., pitting one's wits against the super cop, who knows but cannot prove it, or who does not know who but is forever on the trail, the idea there is to be more clever, to outwit the cop with his/her years of experience in the force, the reward is the getting of one's kicks from that by proving that your intellect is superior to that of anyone else, having this confirmed through a series of successful and continuous crime.

On the person you refer to, I can't reply, I don't parle Francais.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dollycat wrote:
zorba wrote:
dollycat wrote:
Hi everyone - I'm a regular reader but this is my first post on .net. Shame about the split but two pmf's = double the effort for Meredith as far as I am concerned.

I downloaded John's book yesterday and had read it by last night. I was apprehensive about reading it as I thought it would be too upsetting but, quite the opposite, it is so lovely to forget all the horror for a short while and have Meredith larger than life on the pages. Don't get me wrong, there were a few tears but the book achieves exactly what John wanted and he has written it perfectly - I'm not surprised the FOA are terrified of it. I will be putting a review on Amazon and, like Follain's book, forcing it on friends/family urging them to read it.

Keep up the good work with the forum. ps. where is the wonderful Daisy Steiner???

As always, RIP Meredith



Wow, that's fast reading Dolly!
Sometimes you get one like that, that you cannot put down, I think it's going to be like that for me, with this book from Mr Kercher... such a truly lovely gentle gentleman.

Don't be afraid of writing here, much appreciated if you do.


Thanks for the welcome and Zorba, I probably read it a bit too quickly, like I did with Follain's, but I will re-read in a short while and really take it in. I'm not going to quote from the book or anything as I appreciate people want to read it for themselves but the overall thing that strikes me is that the Kerchers just want to know "why?"

There is no animosity or desire for revenge in John's book, there is just bewilderment and even if K&S went back to prison they would get little satisfaction from it, Meredith is gone and that is all that matters to them and my heart breaks for them.

I live near Croydon so I recognise all of the places John mentioned in the book, the Mexican restaurant where Meredith worked and various landmarks that I know so well. And I can't believe the family had no financial support, I would have ran up the road with a cheque to help pay towards flights etc if I had known at the time.

And most of all, while reading the book the one thing I would like is to hear Meredith's voice, just once. Do you think that as part of his interviews for the book John should perhaps release some video of Meredith, she shines in her photos but photos are static and perhaps some video of her speaking would really bring it home to people? I don't know, just a suggestion but I would understand if the family want to keep those things just for themselves.

Finally, I don't post on PMF because there are well-informed, intelligent, articulate people who say the same things as I am thinking but in a much better way than I can but I am here reading nearly every day and willing to contribute to help in the fight for Meredith in any way I can. (I particularly admire everyone's patience on FOAker Tuesday - funny how they all fade away eventually, I hope they all rot....)

With love to you all.

RIP Meredith


Hi Dolly, that's nice to know, that you are from th Croydon area, my great grandparents were too.

I was looking it up, how long it'd have taken Meredith and Stephanie to get to work at Gatwick, both of them worked there, and I saw it could take about half an hour by train once you got to the train stations.
I liked hearing about how they often went down to Brighton, I had been imagining that bit you see, as your neck of the woods is on the correct side of town, meaning you do not have to cross London before getting into the beautiful country lanes or as you would have it, onto the motorways (me I always go for country lanes). This means indeed, it was very convenient living there, a that is a really nice way to have a breather, getting down to the seaside.

Hey, this aside, John is not the only poor soul to be attacked by these so-called Knox supporters, I mean the way that lot have been speaking of the family lawyer, who, in all ways seems exactly like Mr Kercher himself, a gentleman and a truly good person, is beyond contemplation!

It's a waste of time really even mentioning it but seeing as how John has felt the need to point oy that they will not make a penny from their daughter's death is something that really upsets me to think of him feeling he needs to defend himself fro m those absolute shitheads.


Finally, I too feel exactly the same way about running down the street to help any of the family.

They are proud people and would feel totally ashamed if anyone did anything charity-wise, but I mean, come on, if they have to go yet again to Italy in future, arranging the costs of their flights would be the least anyone who cares could d, and do for Meredith most of all, because it's her life, ultimately that was taken from her, still, it is also Meredith's mother and father who have been denied the joy of ever seeing their grandchildren from Meredith, it is Stephanie, John Junior and Lyle who will never be aunts and uncles to Meredith's children.


Anyway, anything we do decide to organise for them ought to be undertaken in the strictest of confidentiality, no fanfares nothing, but seeing as they have their lives, their work, their kids to tend to and bills to pay, it cannot be easy at all, they have integrity and dignity and refused any and all offers from the media, unlike some others all of whom we will not even bother mentioning.

The latter decided a long time ago to stew in the dismal abyss of their own brand of putrid wickedness.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

(( OT OT ))

If anyone had any doubts about how important the Internet has become these days:

Pirate party makes a raid on German politics

April 29, 2012 By JUERGEN BAETZ , Associated Press


(AP) -- Pirates are capturing Germany's political system. The party with the outlaw name started as a marginal club of computer nerds and hackers demanding online freedom, but its appeal as an antiestablishment movement has lured many young voters to the ballot boxes, catapulting it into two state parliaments in less than a year.

The all-volunteer Pirates offer little ideology and focus on promoting their flagship policies of near-total transparency and an unrestricted Internet. But polls show them as the country's third-strongest political force, leapfrogging over more established parties.

The tremendous success has doubled the Pirates' membership to 25,000, but it also has handed them a crucial challenge set to dominate its convention starting Saturday: A party founded as a rebellious upstart must reckon with its new political power and its promise of a voice for all its members.

About 1,500 members gathered in the northern Germany city of Neumuenster to discuss the group's growth. New polls predicted it would win seats in two more state legislatures in May, with forecasters expecting it to secure about 9 percent of the vote in both states.

"Many vote for the Pirates as a sign of protest. It is not directed against democracy, but it's based on the unhappiness with the functioning of the established parties," said Alexander Hensel, a political scientist who studies the Pirates at the Goettingen Institute for Democracy Research.

Analysts say that despite the nation's robust economy and low unemployment, many Germans are disenchanted with the established parties, fueled by outrage over seeing the government bailing out banks and businesses to save the economy from collapsing in the wake of the financial crisis.

Thousands in Germany took to the streets last year in rallies during the worldwide Occupy movement, but it has now all but fizzled out - with the Pirates appearing to inherit the votes of the disenchanted.

While the mainstream parties in Europe's biggest economy are struggling to come up with a response to the continent's debt crisis, the Pirates cheerfully admit they have no answers. Nor do they have a stance on whether German troops should continue to fight in Afghanistan.

But many voters welcome their blunt acknowledgment as a sign of honesty in the political arena. Instead of taking a stand on the pressing issues that more mainstream parties are forced to address, the Pirates speak up against copyright laws, demand free public transportation, and say every citizen should be paid a basic income without having to work.

(read full story at link below)



PHYSORG

_________________
"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 dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
dollycat wrote:
zorba wrote:
dollycat wrote:
Hi everyone - I'm a regular reader but this is my first post on .net. Shame about the split but two pmf's = double the effort for Meredith as far as I am concerned.

I downloaded John's book yesterday and had read it by last night. I was apprehensive about reading it as I thought it would be too upsetting but, quite the opposite, it is so lovely to forget all the horror for a short while and have Meredith larger than life on the pages. Don't get me wrong, there were a few tears but the book achieves exactly what John wanted and he has written it perfectly - I'm not surprised the FOA are terrified of it. I will be putting a review on Amazon and, like Follain's book, forcing it on friends/family urging them to read it.

Keep up the good work with the forum. ps. where is the wonderful Daisy Steiner???

As always, RIP Meredith



Wow, that's fast reading Dolly!
Sometimes you get one like that, that you cannot put down, I think it's going to be like that for me, with this book from Mr Kercher... such a truly lovely gentle gentleman.

Don't be afraid of writing here, much appreciated if you do.


Thanks for the welcome and Zorba, I probably read it a bit too quickly, like I did with Follain's, but I will re-read in a short while and really take it in. I'm not going to quote from the book or anything as I appreciate people want to read it for themselves but the overall thing that strikes me is that the Kerchers just want to know "why?"

There is no animosity or desire for revenge in John's book, there is just bewilderment and even if K&S went back to prison they would get little satisfaction from it, Meredith is gone and that is all that matters to them and my heart breaks for them.

I live near Croydon so I recognise all of the places John mentioned in the book, the Mexican restaurant where Meredith worked and various landmarks that I know so well. And I can't believe the family had no financial support, I would have ran up the road with a cheque to help pay towards flights etc if I had known at the time.

And most of all, while reading the book the one thing I would like is to hear Meredith's voice, just once. Do you think that as part of his interviews for the book John should perhaps release some video of Meredith, she shines in her photos but photos are static and perhaps some video of her speaking would really bring it home to people? I don't know, just a suggestion but I would understand if the family want to keep those things just for themselves.

Finally, I don't post on PMF because there are well-informed, intelligent, articulate people who say the same things as I am thinking but in a much better way than I can but I am here reading nearly every day and willing to contribute to help in the fight for Meredith in any way I can. (I particularly admire everyone's patience on FOAker Tuesday - funny how they all fade away eventually, I hope they all rot....)

With love to you all.

RIP Meredith


Hi Dolly, that's nice to know, that you are from th Croydon area, my great grandparents were too.

I was looking it up, how long it'd have taken Meredith and Stephanie to get to work at Gatwick, both of them worked there, and I saw it could take about half an hour by train once you got to the train stations.
I liked hearing about how they often went down to Brighton, I had been imagining that bit you see, as your neck of the woods is on the correct side of town, meaning you do not have to cross London before getting into the beautiful country lanes or as you would have it, onto the motorways (me I always go for country lanes). This means indeed, it was very convenient living there, a that is a really nice way to have a breather, getting down to the seaside.

Hey, this aside, John is not the only poor soul to be attacked by these so-called Knox supporters, I mean the way that lot have been speaking of the family lawyer, who, in all ways seems exactly like Mr Kercher himself, a gentleman and a truly good person, is beyond contemplation!

It's a waste of time really even mentioning it but seeing as how John has felt the need to point oy that they will not make a penny from their daughter's death is something that really upsets me to think of him feeling he needs to defend himself fro m those absolute shitheads.


Finally, I too feel exactly the same way about running down the street to help any of the family.

They are proud people and would feel totally ashamed if anyone did anything charity-wise, but I mean, come on, if they have to go yet again to Italy in future, arranging the costs of their flights would be the least anyone who cares could d, and do for Meredith most of all, because it's her life, ultimately that was taken from her, still, it is also Meredith's mother and father who have been denied the joy of ever seeing their grandchildren from Meredith, it is Stephanie, John Junior and Lyle who will never be aunts and uncles to Meredith's children.


Anyway, anything we do decide to organise for them ought to be undertaken in the strictest of confidentiality, no fanfares nothing, but seeing as they have their lives, their work, their kids to tend to and bills to pay, it cannot be easy at all, they have integrity and dignity and refused any and all offers from the media, unlike some others all of whom we will not even bother mentioning.

The latter decided a long time ago to stew in the dismal abyss of their own brand of putrid wickedness.


Yes Brighton is a lovely day trip and can take about 40-50 mins if the M23 isn't too bad, and East Croydon station is a brilliant link to both London (15 mins to central London) and the South coast. I am actually originally from Scotland but have lived in the Surrey area since I was 17.

If the Kerchers have to return to Italy I would be more than willing to contribute something, maybe its something the board could discuss nearer the time - as you say, keep it on the down low and see what we can do to help - God knows that family has been through enough.

RIP Meredith
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Meredith Kercher's father makes plea to her murderer

29 April 2012
Last updated at 08:25 ET

The father of Meredith Kercher, who was murdered in Perugia, Italy, has appealed to her killer to finally "come clean" about what happened.

John Kercher says Rudy Guede "has nothing to lose" as the only person to be jailed for sexually assaulting and killing the Leeds University student.

US student Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend were cleared of the 2007 murder of Miss Kercher, 21.

Mr Kercher, of London, believes there were others involved in the murder.

However, he accepts there is little scope for the police inquiry to be reopened.

"I don't see how the investigation can be reopened if there is no other evidence, but what I would like to see is Rudy Guede coming clean and saying something," he said.

[...]

Asked whether he had sympathised with Miss Knox's parents, who made repeated high-profile bids to persuade the world of their daughter's innocence, he said: "I can understand they were fighting for their daughter's freedom but it wasn't palatable".


Attachment:
John Kercher-1.jpg


BBC


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=193099

RS moved out of daddy's house to Verona. To study and have some privacy. Dad will call every hour to make sure he is not doing any drugs, carrying knives around and getting involved with crazy girls ;)


Thanks Max. Here is the English-language version of the news (The Telegraph is now reporting it):

Raffaele Sollecito looks to put Amanda Knox saga behind him by returning to university

By Josephine McKenna in Rome

29 Apr 2012
5:08PM BST

Francesco Sollecito said his son did not want to stay in Perugia nor the small town of Giovinazzo near Bari where his family lives.

He is continuing his IT studies at the University of Verona.

"It's a choice that I support completely," Francesco Sollecito told the Italian daily, Corriere della Sera.

"He needed to put everything behind him and begin to live again. But his choice is above all linked to his studies, he needs to complete eight exams to graduate and attendance for several courses is obligatory." Lawyer Luca Mauri [sic], who was part of Mr Sollecito's legal team in Perugia, appealed for privacy.

"I hope he is left in peace," Mr Mauri said. "Raffaele needs tranquillity to re-establish his equilibrium after the court case and it is right to guarantee him the privacy entitled to any citizen, given that he was cleared of the charge of having killed Meredith." Gino Mariotto, a physics professor who teaches Mr Sollecito in Verona described him as "intellectually bright".


THE TELEGRAPH

The last line made me laugh out loud. Intellectually bright? Yeah right. Maybe, he is one of those twisted, intellectually bright, dysfunctional individuals who outsmarted police investigators and the Appeals Court?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Meredith Kercher's Father John Urges Killer To 'Come Clean'

Press Association
Posted: 29/04/2012 06:49

Mr Kercher, 69, from Croydon, south London, believes there "had to be" more than one killer involved - and does not seem to think the evidence points to a "random" culprit.

"They say Meredith was killed in front of her wardrobe in her room and then the body was moved across the floor and covered with a duvet," he said.

"Why would you do that if you're just a random killer?"

Attachment:
Meredith Kercher's Father John Kercher.jpg


Huffington Post


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

1. Welcome, dollycat

2. Hello, Troon, I agree that the plants downstairs are a factor.

3. Hello, guermantes, I have always felt that poor Meredith was moved to obliterate footprints.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Mary



In loving memory of Meredith Kercher

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
[your post numbered by me for clarity/overview]

1/ Which method do you think the callers used in order to find out what Elisabetta's personal home telephone number was?

phone book

Quote:
Are you aware that the calls were traced back to Rome? (as far as I remember)

sollecito got associates to place the prank call
its too much of a co-incidence

my theory is that guede was told to dispose of the phones
sollecito found out he'd disposed of them improperly
sollecito, drunk - out of his mind on drugs was out to raise havoc raise hell "raise a mob"

Quote:

3/ On this point 3, I'm not certain any longer what the case was exactly, however, I do recall that there were angles offered from all over the place and that everything could be and was ruled out, for the call was traced back to Rome and had taken place the evening before, at 10 o clock to be precise, therefore that the family decided to notify the police thenext day which they were busy seeting about doing hen the telephone business entered the story, so they went off as planned to the police location but they now transported the phoe, later on the daughter fo und yet another when it rang, rang because Knox was ringing Meredith; it was only next day after the hoax call that the phones were found.

I just don't believe it was 10pm thats all - I'm not even sure it was from Rome.
I think a lot of facts in this case were covered up to protect Sollecito.

Quote:
This would imply that if it indeed was no coincidence at all, that the killers planned it all and planned too to dump Meredith's phones in Elisabetta's garden after the murder, the murder (planned for next day) that would take place next day.

I think therefore that this particular line of reasoning was ruled out because it was deemed too far-fetched as to be credible or reasonable.

I think the Massei report was flawed and manipulated from the start. It is a shell of a report designed to fail. I think there are great untruths in it. I think it's partially a work of fiction.

I think a lot of evidence has been suppressed in this case to protect Sollecito. Sollecitos sister was fired soon after for trying to influence things in her job as a police officer. Italy is corrupt (to state the least). Papa Sollecito is "associated with the mafia" ... the mafia is huge in industry - recently press states it has become a lot bigger - Berlusconi on the cusp etc. Papa Sollecito "money can make water flow uphill" (don't worry son). I think theres plenty in this case that was suppressed to protect Sollecito - stories made up. "it wasn't him at the fountain hysterical the next morning covered in blood - wearing a Napajiri jacket with a cap" - "no it was a well known drug addict" ..

This whole thing stinks - The Hellman report now is a COMPLETE WORK OF FICTION .. the whole thing. I think a good percentage of the Massei report was.

Quote:
The reasoning would have involved/implied, among other things, that a whole lot of premeditation had formed the basis of the murder; if people are going to go that far, then they'd have perhaps planned things even more meticulously, undertaken planning the likes of which is not often seen in murder cases, like those conducted by true serial killers wishing for some twisted reason to commit perfect premeditated crimes that cannot be traced, these being the stuff of movies, e.g., pitting one's wits against the super cop, who knows but cannot prove it, or who does not know who but is forever on the trail, the idea there is to be more clever, to outwit the cop with his/her years of experience in the force, the reward is the getting of one's kicks from that by proving that your intellect is superior to that of anyone else, having this confirmed through a series of successful and continuous crime.

it wasn't a "perfect crime" it was Sollecito out to impress out to manipulate he phoned his Carabineri sister right away the next morning (while postal police were already there who he arrogantly dismissed) - to "fix things" to get him out of the mess. Behind the scenes right away Papa Sollecito was paying bribes making calls pressuring people right away - the whole case was flawed. We haven't discussed the amount of corruption inherent in a country like Italy.

I think there was premeditation in hours - the knife Knox carried from the apartment of Sollecito. They were out to use knives they were out to intimidate.

Quote:
On the person you refer to, I can't reply, I don't parle Francais.

no idea what you're on about
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dollycat wrote:
zorba wrote:
dollycat wrote:
zorba wrote:
dollycat wrote:
Hi everyone - I'm a regular reader but this is my first post on .net. Shame about the split but two pmf's = double the effort for Meredith as far as I am concerned.

I downloaded John's book yesterday and had read it by last night. I was apprehensive about reading it as I thought it would be too upsetting but, quite the opposite, it is so lovely to forget all the horror for a short while and have Meredith larger than life on the pages. Don't get me wrong, there were a few tears but the book achieves exactly what John wanted and he has written it perfectly - I'm not surprised the FOA are terrified of it. I will be putting a review on Amazon and, like Follain's book, forcing it on friends/family urging them to read it.

Keep up the good work with the forum. ps. where is the wonderful Daisy Steiner???

As always, RIP Meredith



Wow, that's fast reading Dolly!
Sometimes you get one like that, that you cannot put down, I think it's going to be like that for me, with this book from Mr Kercher... such a truly lovely gentle gentleman.

Don't be afraid of writing here, much appreciated if you do.


Thanks for the welcome and Zorba, I probably read it a bit too quickly, like I did with Follain's, but I will re-read in a short while and really take it in. I'm not going to quote from the book or anything as I appreciate people want to read it for themselves but the overall thing that strikes me is that the Kerchers just want to know "why?"

There is no animosity or desire for revenge in John's book, there is just bewilderment and even if K&S went back to prison they would get little satisfaction from it, Meredith is gone and that is all that matters to them and my heart breaks for them.

I live near Croydon so I recognise all of the places John mentioned in the book, the Mexican restaurant where Meredith worked and various landmarks that I know so well. And I can't believe the family had no financial support, I would have ran up the road with a cheque to help pay towards flights etc if I had known at the time.

And most of all, while reading the book the one thing I would like is to hear Meredith's voice, just once. Do you think that as part of his interviews for the book John should perhaps release some video of Meredith, she shines in her photos but photos are static and perhaps some video of her speaking would really bring it home to people? I don't know, just a suggestion but I would understand if the family want to keep those things just for themselves.

Finally, I don't post on PMF because there are well-informed, intelligent, articulate people who say the same things as I am thinking but in a much better way than I can but I am here reading nearly every day and willing to contribute to help in the fight for Meredith in any way I can. (I particularly admire everyone's patience on FOAker Tuesday - funny how they all fade away eventually, I hope they all rot....)

With love to you all.

RIP Meredith


Hi Dolly, that's nice to know, that you are from th Croydon area, my great grandparents were too.

I was looking it up, how long it'd have taken Meredith and Stephanie to get to work at Gatwick, both of them worked there, and I saw it could take about half an hour by train once you got to the train stations.
I liked hearing about how they often went down to Brighton, I had been imagining that bit you see, as your neck of the woods is on the correct side of town, meaning you do not have to cross London before getting into the beautiful country lanes or as you would have it, onto the motorways (me I always go for country lanes). This means indeed, it was very convenient living there, a that is a really nice way to have a breather, getting down to the seaside.

Hey, this aside, John is not the only poor soul to be attacked by these so-called Knox supporters, I mean the way that lot have been speaking of the family lawyer, who, in all ways seems exactly like Mr Kercher himself, a gentleman and a truly good person, is beyond contemplation!

It's a waste of time really even mentioning it but seeing as how John has felt the need to point out that they will not make a penny from their daughter's death is something that really upsets me to think of him feeling he needs to defend himself fro m those absolute shitheads.


Finally, I too feel exactly the same way about running down the street to help any of the family.

They are proud people and would feel totally ashamed if anyone did anything charity-wise, but I mean, come on, if they have to go yet again to Italy in future, arranging the costs of their flights would be the least anyone who cares could d, and do for Meredith most of all, because it's her life, ultimately that was taken from her, still, it is also Meredith's mother and father who have been denied the joy of ever seeing their grandchildren from Meredith, it is Stephanie, John Junior and Lyle who will never be aunts and uncles to Meredith's children.


Anyway, anything we do decide to organise for them ought to be undertaken in the strictest of confidentiality, no fanfares nothing, but seeing as they have their lives, their work, their kids to tend to and bills to pay, it cannot be easy at all, they have integrity and dignity and refused any and all offers from the media, unlike some others all of whom we will not even bother mentioning.

The latter decided a long time ago to stew in the dismal abyss of their own brand of putrid wickedness.


Yes Brighton is a lovely day trip and can take about 40-50 mins if the M23 isn't too bad, and East Croydon station is a brilliant link to both London (15 mins to central London) and the South coast. I am actually originally from Scotland but have lived in the Surrey area since I was 17.

If the Kerchers have to return to Italy I would be more than willing to contribute something, maybe its something the board could discuss nearer the time - as you say, keep it on the down low and see what we can do to help - God knows that family has been through enough.

RIP Meredith


Right, that's not long at all.
I grew up in West London so when we used to go to Brighton we always had to cross London which can take a lot of time. We also went to Brighton a lot but if it is in fact quite that near from Coulsdon I can imagine they went there far more often than I ever did.

As a kid I did not really know where the hell these places were that I got taken to, my dad did'nt want to have a car and seeing as how it wasn't India he couldn't get the entire family onto his scooter and so it was coaches that we went in. Coaches, that is way different to an own car, as they stop when they stop, I remember always being starving hungry, dying to use the WC or dying for something nice, we did get fed back in the old days, but those days were so different to now with the over-abundance of everything, in all ways, at all times of the year. My old gran already always used to be going on about how lucky you kids are as we did'nt get anything but an apple and orange at Christmas, but, compared to now, kids back in those days were not spoilt.

I was always dying for something nice, and because you were a child, always penniless unlike now when kids might have an own bank account or judging by that stupid TV programme Sixteen, an own apartment in the family home along with a chauffeur too, well considering these things, times sure have changed all as I know is that I have a memory of it taking forever to get to the coast, this must be because children experience every moment so much more intensely and see things adults do not (any longer). As we'd rise over some hill and actually see the sea, the feeling one got was amazing, such a thrill.

I suddenly realise Brighton is so popular as there's more chance of the weather being nice there, as its location is down south, lower south than Calais in France.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
zorba wrote:
[your post numbered by me for clarity/overview]

1/ Which method do you think the callers used in order to find out what Elisabetta's personal home telephone number was?

phone book

Quote:
Are you aware that the calls were traced back to Rome? (as far as I remember)

sollecito got associates to place the prank call
its too much of a co-incidence

my theory is that guede was told to dispose of the phones
sollecito found out he'd disposed of them improperly
sollecito, drunk - out of his mind on drugs was out to raise havoc raise hell "raise a mob"

Quote:

3/ On this point 3, I'm not certain any longer what the case was exactly, however, I do recall that there were angles offered from all over the place and that everything could be and was ruled out, for the call was traced back to Rome and had taken place the evening before, at 10 o clock to be precise, therefore that the family decided to notify the police thenext day which they were busy seeting about doing hen the telephone business entered the story, so they went off as planned to the police location but they now transported the phoe, later on the daughter fo und yet another when it rang, rang because Knox was ringing Meredith; it was only next day after the hoax call that the phones were found.

I just don't believe it was 10pm thats all - I'm not even sure it was from Rome.
I think a lot of facts in this case were covered up to protect Sollecito.

Quote:
This would imply that if it indeed was no coincidence at all, that the killers planned it all and planned too to dump Meredith's phones in Elisabetta's garden after the murder, the murder (planned for next day) that would take place next day.

I think therefore that this particular line of reasoning was ruled out because it was deemed too far-fetched as to be credible or reasonable.

I think the Massei report was flawed and manipulated from the start. It is a shell of a report designed to fail. I think there are great untruths in it. I think it's partially a work of fiction.

I think a lot of evidence has been suppressed in this case to protect Sollecito. Sollecitos sister was fired soon after for trying to influence things in her job as a police officer. Italy is corrupt (to state the least). Papa Sollecito is "associated with the mafia" ... the mafia is huge in industry - recently press states it has become a lot bigger - Berlusconi on the cusp etc. Papa Sollecito "money can make water flow uphill" (don't worry son). I think theres plenty in this case that was suppressed to protect Sollecito - stories made up. "it wasn't him at the fountain hysterical the next morning covered in blood - wearing a Napajiri jacket with a cap" - "no it was a well known drug addict" ..

This whole thing stinks - The Hellman report now is a COMPLETE WORK OF FICTION .. the whole thing. I think a good percentage of the Massei report was.

Quote:
The reasoning would have involved/implied, among other things, that a whole lot of premeditation had formed the basis of the murder; if people are going to go that far, then they'd have perhaps planned things even more meticulously, undertaken planning the likes of which is not often seen in murder cases, like those conducted by true serial killers wishing for some twisted reason to commit perfect premeditated crimes that cannot be traced, these being the stuff of movies, e.g., pitting one's wits against the super cop, who knows but cannot prove it, or who does not know who but is forever on the trail, the idea there is to be more clever, to outwit the cop with his/her years of experience in the force, the reward is the getting of one's kicks from that by proving that your intellect is superior to that of anyone else, having this confirmed through a series of successful and continuous crime.

it wasn't a "perfect crime" it was Sollecito out to impress out to manipulate he phoned his Carabineri sister right away the next morning (while postal police were already there who he arrogantly dismissed) - to "fix things" to get him out of the mess. Behind the scenes right away Papa Sollecito was paying bribes making calls pressuring people right away - the whole case was flawed. We haven't discussed the amount of corruption inherent in a country like Italy.

I think there was premeditation in hours - the knife Knox carried from the apartment of Sollecito. They were out to use knives they were out to intimidate.

Quote:
On the person you refer to, I can't reply, I don't parle Francais.

no idea what you're on about



I'm eating now, but, for now, the call the family received was most definitely at 10 o clock in the evening, the call about the bomb in the WC, that's why they had the plan to go to the police the next day to report it formally, then the next day, the phones were found.

That would imply premeditation, like before the murder, have someone call a family to say there's a bomb in your toilet, and then the next day throw the phones, after the murder, into their garden.

I don't think that idea is at all realistic.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks for the Huffington Post link, guermantes. If the FOAK won't come here any more, off I go to fight them THERE, lol. Plus quite a few on The Daily Beast Barbie Nadeau review :)

Here's what I wrote to "katody matrass": "Please, stop posting fake arguments. From pages 18-19 of the Supreme Court ruling, the Giordano report filed on Feb. 24, 2011. (Source: True Justice For Meredith Kercher website)

"And it should also be noted, as the judges of the lower courts have correctly held, that following the murder an activity occurred intended to simulate an attempted theft, which the judges of lower courts and the defence of the same appellant agree was an operation done by others and not by the defendant; there is no feasible reason as to why the simulation should include the undressing of the already dead body of the victim and the cruelty on her body of the bruises and wounds that were clearly inflicted in a prolonged injurious action before the fatal stabbing"

"Factual findings,among which traces of Raffaele Sollecito DNA in the victim's bra, the piece of bra cleanly cut seemingly with a knife, traces of Amanda Knox DNA on the handle of a knife found in thehome of the former, expert results that because of the morphology of the injuries, attribute them to two different cutting weapons used by different individuals, and footprints notattributable to Guede on the floor of the room where Meredith’s body lay, convinced theappeal judges that several people acted together. Guede's contribution is situated in a contextof escalating violence over some length of time, and certainly cannot be regarded asexceptional, improvised, or merely occasional so that he could not have foreseen, as a resultof a violence so definitely concentrated on a sexual act following a number of bruises andinjuries caused by the use of a knife, the possible fatal ending. From these conclusions thereasoning of the lower court is fully safeguarded from assertive criticisms of its legitimacy,because such claims concern the merit, and are thus invalid.From everything above, the obvious unreasonability of the defence claim intended toinvalidate the judicial recognition of the aggravating circumstance of futile motives follows:as if the violent suppression of another person's self-determination and the tortured body of a young living being, Meredith Kercher, do not enjoin us to qualify as merely casual and specious the motive of having sex, to catalyse, faced with the woman's resistance, the brutal and subduing force of a group, a collective behaviour which reveals in its sorry protagonists the orgiastic desire to give free rein to the most [22] perverse criminal impulses, such as to arouse a deep sense of dismay, repugnance and disgust in any person of normal morality."

A sense of normal morality, also, it seems, missing from the supporters of Amanda Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi, all. I spent the better part of this afternoon reading Guede's diary. It was written while he was awating extradition back to Italy. Does anyone know offhand what the time-frame is for this? The diary itself is undated.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Hi, all. I spent the better part of this afternoon reading Guede's diary. It was written while he was awaiting extradition back to Italy. Does anyone know offhand what the time-frame is for this? The diary itself is undated.

He was arrested November 20th and extradited on December 6th. So he wrote it somewhere in that time frame. In his diary, he is talking about all the free time he has in jail so he probably didn't write it right from the start of the arrest but maybe end of November or so.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks, Max. Some odd little things struck me as I read, and I was trying to put them into the context of what he would have known from newspapers and TV about the investigation and the evidence that they had.
I noticed that he referred to "THE bathroom" when he says he heard the doorbell. He was in THE bathroom.
But, he says that he went into HER bathroom when he got towels to stop the bleeding. A Lone Wolf burglar-rapist would not have known to make this distinction. I know the break-in was staged. But, for those who believe that Guede broke in, how would he have known that it was Meredith's bathroom?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It is an odd diary :) The small bathroom was right next to Meredith's room where THE bathroom was at the other side of the cottage. So I guess it makes sense that Rudy knew that THE bathroom was not Meredith's bathroom. I think it was judge Micheli who described that it made no sense for a burglar looking for a toilet to cross the cottage and find the 'hidden' door to the washing area and THE bathroom there when there is a small bathroom right next to the room he supposedly broke into. It makes more sense for a guest that came through the front door to be pointed to that bathroom by someone living there.

If RS and AK had put a bit more thought into the staged burglary they should have messed up Laura's room as well to make a bit more sense of the presence of the 'burglar' at that side of the house or better, they should have flushed that toilet. Not a smart move.

As far as the towels go we only have Rudy's word for it that he got them. There is no trace of him there, but plenty of traces that it was Amanda who was there. So not sure if it was really Rudy or Amanda who got the towels or if they were already in Meredith's room.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Whether he did or didn't actually get the towels is immaterial to me for the point I was making. When I was reading this, it jumped out at me that he referred to it as HER bathroom. I came to the same conclusion that Micheli did, that Guede was directed to Filomena's bathroom as a guest.
If he actually broke into the cottage, I don't believe for a moment that he would have referred to it as HER bathroom.
Mentally, I don't think he would have attributed any ownership to it at all. He would just have said, "I went into the other bathroom." I know it sounds nitpicky, but, it's the small things that always get to me. I think it goes to the fact that he was a guest.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Trying to figure out why a bomb threat call was made to a house associated with the murder before the murder

this must have some connection back to Sollecito IMO ... must have been placed by someone associated with the murder. Phone "prank" it just fits Sollecito

top poster on an extremely useful "injustice in Perugia" thread "Bombs, Phones, and Automobiles" speculates that the call was made to divert police away from the crime scene ..

http://tinyurl.com/cb92pud

excerpts here:

Shortly after Meredith's murder a dark car with old license plates was observed parked in the cottage driveway for one or two hours.

The mechanic that came to tow the broken down car noticed a dark car parked in the cottage's driveway. The mechanic also noticed it had old style license plates which apparently are often used on older cars driven by immigrants.

.....

* The murderer(s) noticed the commotion and the people milling around at the end of the driveway. (One can imagine their anxiety. For all they know the people in the broken down car are coming to the cottage and have stopped outside the driveway because they are blocked by the dark car).

* The murderer(s) already spooked decided not to press their luck any more, sneaked down and drove the dark car with old license plates away.


major speculation there around phoned bomb threat being made after the murder

Kokomani is apparently now saying it was his dark car with old license plates in the driveway.

* Curatola (sic) says he saw people hanging out at the plaza for a time period roughly equal to what the murderer(s) would have if they were watching to see when they could move the dark car with old license plates


I've never been very good with timelines here I've never understood them or written them out (yet) ...

points out of that - car was there for one or two hours?

speculates that Sollecito/Knox when Curatolo recollected them watching the house were waiting for the breakdown truck to go away? This after the argument with Kokomani (?)

Kokomani said that guede was asking him for money to use his car (250 euros)

The car was stopped in the driveway - again I ask did Kokomani enter the house?
was there some argument later - the car was there for two hours - did Kokomani attend the party? Then there was some argument maybe Kokomani just ran out after seeing hazing / assault of Meredith Kercher get out of hand - at which point after she was locked in the room (which Kokomani reported) -- possible

but the car was there for two hours - Kokomanis car was there for two hours -
"foreign license plates" (albanian) - "dark car" - Kokomani (recent article published by the UK Sun which arose from an Italian press phone interview with Kokomani) is confirming that he was parked up in the drive way.

just that - Kokomanis car was there for one or two hours? that opens up all sorts of possibilities. How long was the breakdown truck there for. Did the broken down family see the dark car also?

Italian press called Kokomani when he appeared the "superwitness".

I'm thinking he may be even more "super" - he may have been in the cottage at the time of the initial assault on Meredith Kercher. I'm thinking this now because there must have been some catalyst for the dispute between Sollecito/Knox and Kokomani - there must have been some reason why they were going after him with knives - there must have been some reason Kokomani was taking photographs of them for evidence ....

He upon the argument/fight (Knox/Sollecito and Meredith Kercher) got out of the cottage went ot his car - Sollecito/Knox then locked Meredith Kercher in her room and went after Kokomani.
Kokomani taking photographs.

1-2 hours - the breakdown truck operator saw it parked up - other witnesses possibly? He noticed the plates (according to that). Parked up = Kokomani entered the house. All more reason for Meredith Kercher to go ballistic anyway upon returning - Knox/Sollecito/Guede and a drug dealer sat around getting stoned - missing money etc. Kokomani was a cocaine dealer. He was later jailed for it. Reports on this forum that Knox's phone had calls to a "known cocaine dealer" the day before and the day after the murder.

response to that post
On the other hand if Kokomani's car was there also on October 31st, when the cottage was completely empty for hours in the evening, then maybe something more complex revolved around the cottage, and was never explored.


top poster (original theory):

The main point I am trying to make is that the dark car was in the driveway that night because they were intending to use it to clean up the crime and remove the body. And the only reason they did not do so is that a car broke down directly opposite the driveway which foiled the plan.


wrote:
...
Anyway, from the forensic evidence in Meredith's room, Kokomani's possible role would seem that of an "external supporter" or of someone called to provide help by Rudy after he realized what he had done.

Yes, he may have provided help to Rudy after the crime by renting his car to him for a couple of hours. That might explain why there was no second attempt at removing the body when the broken down car was towed away. The car owner was not willing to risk letting his car be used any longer.


kokomani in house = whole load of new scenarios - injustice in perugia bases on Rudys guilt BTW. I would base that theory more on Knox/Sollecito wanting the car. There is definitely something in that because Kokomani admitted that Guede was asking him for the use of his car

Sun article (Kokomani admits he was parked up) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3855523/Pizza-party-for-Knoxbut-the-fight-goes-on-for-Meredith-family.html

Sky news article outlining Kokomani witness: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3855523/Pizza-party-for-Knoxbut-the-fight-goes-on-for-Meredith-family.html

just more from IJIP thread:

And of course that also begs the question. Where did Rudy get the money from?


February 13 2009 - Kokomani is arrested for possession of 8 grams of cocaine.


8 grams would indicate a dealer I think - probably picked up doing his rounds (in his dark car)

theres a ton of information in that thread - some good in-depth stuff about player location in relation to phone masts - that forum IJIP seems a hell of a lot more credible than JREF (serious analysis)

another interesting point from the person who started that thread discussion:

As an aside, I recall that Kokomani's cockamamy testimony included something about almost hitting a big black trash bag with his car. Is this another parallel to the real story. A big black trash bag sounds like something a murderer would take to the crime scene if he was planning on removing evidence.


... just reminding myself -- that car was required by Guede at least for a reason. In a very sinister manner. They (Sollecito/Knox/Guede) were intending to transport the injured and hysterical Meredith Kercher (at that point locked in the room) away from the crime scene. Makes me realise more the full involvment of Rudy Guede ...

I'm having problems here because (the same with the law course) its just so much information and as I have said with time lines -- you need to sketch this out you need diagrams you need it all laid out in notes - trying to get to new approaches seriously

haven't got any more time to look into that just one more excerpt from that thread:

Gianfranco Lombardi the tow truck driver - “It was about 11pm on the night of November 1, 2007, and I was in the area because I had been called out to fix a broken-down car…When I got to Via Sant Antonio, close to where the house where Meredith Kercher was murdered, I saw a dark-coloured car parked outside and I noticed the gate on the drive was open…I didn’t notice anyone in the car and I didn’t notice anyone coming or going during the eight or 10 minutes it took me to load the broken-down car onto my tow truck.”


Here the tow truck driver is saying he only saw it there 8-10 minutes ... who said it was 1-2 hours - the family who broke down? Did they see the foreign plates? Documents somewhere must show if Kokomanis car had foreign plates. I seem to recall it was a VW.

after reading that whole thread I think the "car being parked up in driveway 1-2 hours" may be a red herring - no indication of where that information came from - even so it was a very good thread to analyse as far as I could. I leave it open Kokomani may have been in the house I've said that before. He stated as a witness he was not parked up now he's saying he was parked up ..

After three years of darkness, in September 2011 Kokomani, reached Durres by a reporter of the newspaper of Umbria, admitted: "that car, the Golf, it was mine. I left before the gate but I was dismissed.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Whether he did or didn't actually get the towels is immaterial to me for the point I was making. When I was reading this, it jumped out at me that he referred to it as HER bathroom. I came to the same conclusion that Micheli did, that Guede was directed to Filomena's bathroom as a guest.
If he actually broke into the cottage, I don't believe for a moment that he would have referred to it as HER bathroom.
Mentally, I don't think he would have attributed any ownership to it at all. He would just have said, "I went into the other bathroom." I know it sounds nitpicky, but, it's the small things that always get to me. I think it goes to the fact that he was a guest.

What do you think of the rest of the diary? Do you see any half truths in there? Overall, I find the toilet excuse a rather weak attempt to make him look 'innocent'. He pretty much gives himself away when he has Meredith talking to him as if he was writing a novel.

Quote:
I tried to help her, she who squeezed my hands. She was strong, “But don’t leave me alone,” she repeated to me. I told her “Don’t worry I won’t abandon you.”

It is impossible that Meredith was talking after the stabbing so if there is some truth in this then it was before the stabbing. IMO this is one of those half truths where the opposite is true. Meredith was already down, it was RG who was holding her down, and it is likely that she told them to leave her alone (without the 'don't'). Easier to remember the lies if you hide some truth in it.

Then there is the horrific part after the stabbings. 'AF' is some kind of weird attempt to point the finger at RS I think, and his writing on the wall an 'innocent' explanation for his bloody fingers on the wall (at that time he probably thought they would identify those streaks).

Quote:
She was moaning, trying to speak. I got up and went to her room and she, I repeat, she was trying to say something, but I made out only a sound “af, af, af.” I tried to write on the wall because she wanted to say something, but there wasn’t time to look for a pen and a sheet of paper. But I was only able to capture those two letters. Her mouth was full of blood and her neck was bleeding. Maybe that’s why she wasn’t able to say what she wanted to say. I tried to stop the blood. I took a towel from her bathroom, but in less than a minute it was all soaked. I took another, but it was no use.

So he describes a moment from before the stabbing where Meredith speaks, and the horrific moments after the stabbings. Conclusion: Rudy was there during the murder as well.

I think he realizes his mistake a few pages later and tries to imply it was all body language how Meredith repeatedly asked him to stay.

Quote:
She told me not to leave her alone. I knew it because she was wailing with her arms stretched out at me.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Thanks, Max. Some odd little things struck me as I read, and I was trying to put them into the context of what he would have known from newspapers and TV about the investigation and the evidence that they had.
I noticed that he referred to "THE bathroom" when he says he heard the doorbell. He was in THE bathroom.
But, he says that he went into HER bathroom when he got towels to stop the bleeding. A Lone Wolf burglar-rapist would not have known to make this distinction. I know the break-in was staged. But, for those who believe that Guede broke in, how would he have known that it was Meredith's bathroom?



Good point there Napia,

about the THE and the HER bathroom.

I must inform us all (including reminding myself) that when a person is either on the run and in danger (as was most obviously Guede and he knew it full well) or when a person is in prison, the first things, on e of them, that others will say, even if a person doesn't know it themselves but would have to be a complete idiot not to realise) is not to write anything, as it will get read.

In prison it's not as if people have the full rights that people who have never done anything wrong have.
For one thing, in connection with the measures enforced to ensure no prisoner escapes, there are regular cell checks, and if you have a diary, what, are you going to keep it on you all the time?
A person writing knows it will get read and then when trying to camouflage what really happened will write in accordance with that knowledge.
Just like Knox did, for sure.
Just like Guede did, certainly.
Just like Sollecito did, definitely.

I do not take a single word any of them wrote in any book or diary seriously.
It is all fake in my opinion, written with the idea of misleading those who read it, with the idiotic theory having been in their minds that, 'Hey, when they read this they'll think this is me, this is what happened, as it's my diary', etc, but that is utter nonsense, and even people locked up for petty crimes (stealing a box of cornflakes and a packet of sausages) know these things, know that writing stuff is all a game that the prison authorities know about, know that people write stuff to pretend, because anyone with any sense would never do it at all. Even those with hardly any educatio at all know these things in prisons.

I'm also certain Guede knew there was every chance that his call(s), even with his pal, would be listened in on, or that his friend might have to or want to help the police, for Guede knew that he could no longer count on a friend if that friend thought he (Guede) had been involved in the murder of a female, Guede knew that, that his friends, ordinary people, would not go along with 'Hey, it's okay chum, you killed someone maybe but still, I'll help you'.

Now this is different to Knox's situation as regards family and friends, as we've seen there are no lengths to which her family will not go and swoop down to, even if they think or know she is guilty.
This is plainly evident from the very many actions they have taken, all of which were indeed unpalatable (unacceptable, in bad taste, lacking decency, etc).

Very well spotted, I think Napia, that about the bathrooms.
For what that implies, it seems to me, is that instead of being a lone break-er-in-er, he (Guede)had been there at first, along with others, for it seems absolutely more than highly unlikely that Meredith had invited him in on his own, when she had gotten off home precisely because she was already so exhausted and wanted to get things done and get some rest and importantly, keep to her main schedule which ws succeeeding in her studies, obviously.

So if Guede was in there as a guest it is because Knox invited him.
Knox either invited him in on her lonesome, thus without Sollecito having been part of that at first, or otherwise they all three entered the premises and there they came across Meredith, as it was Meredith's home after all.

Now what do you do if a housemate brings people in?
You can't (mostly if they haven't misbehaved yet) say directly, I'm not having this, I'm not into this, please go. You cannot because it is a shared abode.

No, what happens is that one is polite, but will make it pretty much clear in an ordinary way that one is tired and will be off to bed soon.
One may partake and join in briefly, drink a few sips of wine or eat even a small morsel of food by way of politeness too, for instance if the fish chef (with blood on his fishy hands, this description courtesy of Knox herself) Sollecito started frying up mushrooms in cream and declaring that it was a dish from his hometown, please have a try of this, Oh yes, lovely! Now I must go to sleep, goodnight everyone.

But to the potty trio, it was not goodnight, they were into having a party that Meredith herself had already had when everyone else had been enjoying theirs too in that town, namely, the day before, in line with Halloween, but this was something, obviously, that Knox and Sollecito had been too washed out and stoned for, they didn't participate. The party was over, for the whole town except Knox and Sollecito and the tag along fool Guede.
The only thing Knox seems to have known about what the rest of the town had been into was this about seeing the make-up still on Meredith's face.

Knox was completely screwed up, in her head, trying to force people to have her brand of fun. The type of dissociative fun that was at that moment her brand, the brand distinguished by its non-relevance to time and place, her non-involvement, the brand of dislocation, the out of tune with everybody eles-ness!!! yeah like standing up and embarrassing everyone singing at the top of your voice without even being drunk in a quiet restaurant.

What in the world would Meredith want to do after having had her party, on time and in line with everyone else?
Was she supposed to just go along with everything Knox wanted?
I envisage Knox saying: Come on let's party it up, let's smoke it up, let's all do the Halloween thing, oh are we late, doesn't matter, let's all dress up now too, let's dress up and go and spook Meredith out when she's asleep. If not saying it exactly, everything she was about was urging the show in this direction.

Yes, and how funny that must have been for Meredith NOT, if it is what happened; being awoken when you already did your Halloween the day before and was do newith it all as was everyone else intheir right mind, woken up by 3 grownup childish idiots, all of whom were not able to see that you were tired and wanted to sleep, I reckon Knox refused to see it, she was out of to uvh with reality tha'ts why she had no sense of timing, and who, off their nuts, thought Meredith would be so amused to be awoken by three pieces of disrespectful, thoughtless people, dressed up in masks, swimming caps and any other junk they found in 2 minutes.

Meredith and the others in town, most of those that planned their Halloween a bit anyhow the day before, had taken the time to make things nice, each one looking for things to make a bit of a show, capes, cloaks, ray guns, and whatever else, but Knox and Sollecito had stayed home alone, did not undertake a single thing. That Knox and Sollecito supposedly had gone into town, I do not believe it.

Knox had missed the boat and so felt as though she'd missed something, what she realised she had missed was true fun, she was in fact becoming depressed just like her boyfriend and depressed people may eek diversions, like booze or drugs that only make things wo rse but at the monet of ingestion, do not feel that way, are not experienced that way, but the come downs just get worse and worse. I have visions of Knox forcing the show by thinking she could still take part, but it was way too late, everyone was getting rest, the town had enjoyed its fun, Halloween was done and dusted, the shop was closed.

However, I think all three of them were off their nuts and Meredith dealt with them, if they were not off their nuts already, they set about doing so, later.
And Meredith's wish, simply to take a step back, retiring to her own room, was not possible because Knox was way out of line. I also have visionsof Knox becoming entirely mischievous in a demonic kind of way. Demonic then meaning here in a most unpleasant way.
That's what I think.

I think Guede was an opportunistic type, and I think Knox goaded Guede on and even goaded, or egged Sollecito on too.
To Sollecito, his American girlfriend was a shot out of the blue, a novelty, and him with his emaciated appearance, his I'm on a downer recent past, his going from chubby cheeks to I'm an almost refugee from a war-torn region look, Knox was an opportunity, he hadn't had a lot of girlfriends, she was not Italian.

I reckon he pretty much was one of those guys who if he thought she said 'I don't like football', he'd be saying, 'Yeah I don't like it too.'
'What? no, sorry you misunderstood I do like football!' 'Oh I see, I see, yes I like it really too you know'.

No mind of his own when dealing with a female, simply saying everything he imagined she wanted to hear, agreeing with her every word.

Knox fought with Meredith.
Sollecito got drawn in and in some insane way, from going in perhaps to talk to an upset Meredith after they'd awoken her and frightened her and got her very irritated, going in to talk to Meredith perhaps, got carried away, in collaboration with Guede, and seeing Meredith in a state of undress as they'd awakened her and I doubt that she slept fully clothed, they were aroused and I think from there with their mischievousness aroused by Knox's influence and the cocktail of substances including booze, they started to molest Meredith, it was a fight because Meredith resisted all she could.
One of them stabbed Meredith, one of them pricked her, not in the hand at some dinner party but in the neck as if to say, be quiet, stay still, I'm warning you but they were way out of line and before even they knew it, one of them had fatally wounded Meredith, and that's when the molestation stopped and they withdrew. There may be an inkling of truth in what Guede said about trying to help Meredith but I bet Knox shouted at him to get out of there as Knox and Sollecito were probably already saying she has to die now, because they knew if they were to answer for this they were screwed, and so they already started trying to get away with it.

If Guede did try to help Meredith it does in no way take away from the fact that he was part and parcel of what went wrong, that he was involved in the murder and that he sexually took advantage of Meredith by abusing her and trying to force her, in collaboration with Sollecito, certainly and most likely with Knox nearby fully aware and fully complicit in these vulgar and wicked acts.

How that went is the difficult part but the clues are still found in the few things that these people actually said, what Knox said is, We just wanted to have some fun. This was said about Patrick Lumumba but Knox simply borrowed that bit from real events when she was thinking on her feet that is why things like that, to my mind, are real. It did'nt apply to Patrick, it was what really happened, what they wre really into, Knox, Sollecito and Guede, this is my viewpoint.

I reckon that once Meredith went off to bed, they themselves became intoxicated and high and maybe they started something that they imagined was fun but was a step too far and not at all funny for Meredith as she was tired and didn't like being surprised with childish pranks in her own room.

And at that point, Meredith, it seems highly possible/feasible, became very pissed off, and that's when the disagreement/fight/murder started, the two idiotic males were simply simple-minded and allowed themselves to be carried along by Knox's warped ego tripping games, where she needed to be the centre of attention but in which they themselves were as low as horny dogs, yes, it must be said, with the drugs and the brainlessness, those men were horny. As low as that, an that opart is what canot be missed out here, as sexual urges cause so much trouble and I doubt that it was her absent, nope, I think the fact that they were all doped up means there's a great chance thaty they were horny, sexually aroused, because substances often enhance those feelings.

And Knox fucked about with that, which she had no right to do.
My belief is that she led Guede to think he could have opportunities with Meredith, knowing that Meredith had a boyfriend, was not like that (unlike Knox herself by all accounts and by the very fact that 2 minutes home and she is involved with yet another male, not just an ordinary boy meets girl thing but moving in directly; is that a usual kind of behaviour for anyone, whether coming out of jail or under ordinary circumstances? Wouldn't most of us say, Wow, very nice but are you quite sure, after all you've been with him a month and now you are already moving in together), and what Knox also SHOULD have known is that she had no right to be playing I'll fix a date for ya chummy, see ya at 8.

They didn't though just see Guede at 8 or whatever time it was.
They simply bumped into him, it wasn't as if the street Sollecito lived in was Times Square or Oxford Street, goddammit, the street was more often than not empty, and Guede lived just a 2 minute walk away, even less, from Sollecito's house!
There are about 2 ways to get down to the University for Foreigners, that is either walk in a straight line down the street and emerge from said street directly at the door of the university, or go around and then hit the road at which location the keys were dumped,
or else go around some other, that does not count here as it is not even indirect it involves encircling the entire town just about, that way would not be a logical route at all.

The direction down to the university is roughly the same direction for getting to the cottage.

The direction from Sollecito's house to the cottage could entail going around and along the road that the keys were dumped on but that route is one that is not the very logical one to use unless you want to have a nice walk along an almost empty country lane, the route most would take is straight down and along houses and shops, etc, where people are.

So, the Knox defenders with their crap about Sollecito never seeing Guede, is rubbish, is nonsense, unless both of them never left the house, they were bound to have seen one another and Knox and Sollecito were bound to have bumped into Guede or seen him around on many more times than a few occasions. Guede obviously would hve seen Guede when they went tothe small shop that sold tobacco and food, etc, that was located half way between them or actually was on Sollecito's doorstep.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
zorba wrote:
[your post numbered by me for clarity/overview]

1/ Which method do you think the callers used in order to find out what Elisabetta's personal home telephone number was?

phone book



Okay, but IF, I say IF, you do not know the name of the individual(s), do you reckon it's possible to look up addresses and then locate a telephone number. Personally speaking, I have never heard of that.

And if they or anyone did get the name by going up to the house, the day or some days before the murder and then set about calling said people to tell them that they had a bomb under their WC, all of this before the actual murder, then I think this is defined as premeditation, and to me that means going to extremes, as you yourself note, it was not premeditated, but this theory would imply premeditation.

My point is if people are going to go to such extremes and plan a cold-blooded murder, then the idea of trying to plan a ''perfect murder'' can become a possibility, rarely yes, this is why a majority of murders are not planned at all but happen for futile reasons, which means, basically, they happen for no real reason, only because some bastard is a bully, etc. Or gets ino a fit of rage and lifetime of frustration is taken out on one person that has nothing to do with the amount of rage being unleashed.
This is the situation for Meredith I feel, Meredith had obviously nothing at all to do with any of Knox's frustrations, Knox's reasons for being unbalanced and uptight and forever in need of feeling as though she belonged, this in her making her do things that ensured that she did not really belong, not among ordinary people, maybe she belonged amongst a group composed mainly of males in her hometown as they boozed and whatever else during which she acted like she was the Queen, their Queen, no competition for Knox, as the only other girl attending those get togethers it appears, was Mad Pax, who was not like Knox, she was yet another tag along artist, like Guede.

Anyhow,
a) you say they may have been able to find the family's phone number by looking up their address in the phone book

b) point a) would mean they had to have a name, that means
c) the name was written out front of the house on the letter box or so/bell
d) point c) would mean thy had to go look for it beforehand

e) my ideas on this, that I came to by thinking the different possibilities through, tell me that if people were to go so far as to plan a murder to take place in their very own homes, that this murder involving all of this planning would have meant, surely, that they'd never have planned it in the first place to all happen in the home, that they'd then have planned it to take place in some secluded location like a forest, if you really wished to kill someone, you could find an opportunity, in a cunning way, to get someone to that location, somehow, probably. It'd be easier than trying to clean up a murder that took place in your own home where the victim also lived.

You could even hide the body and then it'd be even harder for the police to know what the hell had happened, if you even took some car, by theft, for instance, thee might be absolutely no findable trace of your dealings, none that could be connected to the murder or if it is not a c of could not, DNA testing would take place; many cars are stolen and if the police do not have someones DNA then I doubt that every time a car gets stolen the Scientific Forensics get called out to take any DNA they can find.


I do grant you though, that it was an insane coincidence, but I think it was only that, a coincidence.
No matter what Sollecito is, I doubt he could have simply called up people in Rome to say, Hey listen, look, call this number will ya and tell them there's a bomb in their WC.
They would have to be really nutty gullible chimps to do that.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zorba wrote:

On the person you refer to, I can't reply, I don't parle Francais.


ttrroonniicc wrote:
no idea what you're on about


You started talking about the other site and its headmistress, she always makes a point of showing that she speaks a second language, so, I told you in French (maybe something like it anyhow) that I do not speak French, and I don't think you understand French either (I don't, just a few words), or you did not know or realise the phenomenon connected to the wannabe candidate Alpha female in question.

Running a site and having every last word if you so choose to, is quite a good cover when you have some hang-up where you always feel the need, for some hidden/strange/odd reason, to be seen to be right on everything. It's an exercise in the misuse of power.
That's all.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Max wrote:
What do you think of the rest of the diary? Do you see any half truths in there? Overall, I find the toilet excuse a rather weak attempt to make him look 'innocent'. He pretty much gives himself away when he has Meredith talking to him as if he was writing a novel.


Rudy's story is one of those that's so amazing it 'could be true'. It does after all, fit with all the evidence at the crime scene whilst not contradicting any.

Except for one piece, that is, which completely disproves Rudy's version of events. He claims he disturbed the attacker who he found standing over a wounded Meredith. He shouted at the attacker who in response attacked him. Rudy fended him off and the attacker then fled out the front door. This could work. But, there is a serious problem with it in the evidence. That's the bloody knife print on the bed. In Rudy's version, the killer wasn't messing around on the bed, he was standing over the body with knife in hand. He attacked Rudy and immediately fled, he didn't stop to put the knife down on the bed (and it would have still been there when the police arrived if he had). Therefore, the actual evidence itself proves Rudy's narrative to be at least partly, false.

Oh and Max, check your PM's ;)

_________________
"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: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Whether he did or didn't actually get the towels is immaterial to me for the point I was making. When I was reading this, it jumped out at me that he referred to it as HER bathroom. I came to the same conclusion that Micheli did, that Guede was directed to Filomena's bathroom as a guest.
If he actually broke into the cottage, I don't believe for a moment that he would have referred to it as HER bathroom.
Mentally, I don't think he would have attributed any ownership to it at all. He would just have said, "I went into the other bathroom." I know it sounds nitpicky, but, it's the small things that always get to me. I think it goes to the fact that he was a guest.

What do you think of the rest of the diary? Do you see any half truths in there? Overall, I find the toilet excuse a rather weak attempt to make him look 'innocent'. He pretty much gives himself away when he has Meredith talking to him as if he was writing a novel.

Quote:
I tried to help her, she who squeezed my hands. She was strong, “But don’t leave me alone,” she repeated to me. I told her “Don’t worry I won’t abandon you.”

It is impossible that Meredith was talking after the stabbing so if there is some truth in this then it was before the stabbing. IMO this is one of those half truths where the opposite is true. Meredith was already down, it was RG who was holding her down, and it is likely that she told them to leave her alone (without the 'don't'). Easier to remember the lies if you hide some truth in it.

Then there is the horrific part after the stabbings. 'AF' is some kind of weird attempt to point the finger at RS I think, and his writing on the wall an 'innocent' explanation for his bloody fingers on the wall (at that time he probably thought they would identify those streaks).

Quote:
She was moaning, trying to speak. I got up and went to her room and she, I repeat, she was trying to say something, but I made out only a sound “af, af, af.” I tried to write on the wall because she wanted to say something, but there wasn’t time to look for a pen and a sheet of paper. But I was only able to capture those two letters. Her mouth was full of blood and her neck was bleeding. Maybe that’s why she wasn’t able to say what she wanted to say. I tried to stop the blood. I took a towel from her bathroom, but in less than a minute it was all soaked. I took another, but it was no use.

So he describes a moment from before the stabbing where Meredith speaks, and the horrific moments after the stabbings. Conclusion: Rudy was there during the murder as well.

I think he realizes his mistake a few pages later and tries to imply it was all body language how Meredith repeatedly asked him to stay.

Quote:
She told me not to leave her alone. I knew it because she was wailing with her arms stretched out at me.


Max, you asked what I thought of the rest of the diary. Well, I was a bit surprised at his ability to intelligently put his thoughts on paper. Better at it, I think, than his cohorts. But, as far as what he wrote, I don't put much stock in any of it.
He writes of his plans to meet with Meredith. A date of sorts. We know that Meredith borrowed a book to help with an assignment and the book needed to be returned in the morning, At what point would she have planned to use the book if she had a date later that evening?
I re-read his diary in order to determine what he knew and when he knew it. I believe that there are a few half-truths there. He stated that the window was not broken when he left. He was also surprised and confused about Knox sleeping at the cottage that night. He describes the volume of blood in the bathroom and corridor. I believe he saw this.
I think you're right about the moments before and after the murder. He places himself at the scene with his description.
As to writing on the wall, what a load of BS. He needs to write down 'af? I believe you are correct that he is attempting to explain his fingerprints in poor Meredith's blood. Trying to explain away evidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc, the toilet bomb hoax is one of many things that may fall under the label of synchronicity, made much worse that many of the timelines are speculative at best. When, exactly, was the scream heard? The phone call? A lot of events fall in the "some time after 10 pm" category so we, and Massei, can only speculate at best. It's one of those unresolveable mysteries, even though my personal view is that it was connected. No one else got the prank call, only Elisabetta Lana.

As for Massei, we can criticize it for missing some things, (just as we might criticize some aspects of the evidence collection) but it still is remarkable and does establish a strong case for guilt. (Personally, I think he overegged the pudding, and would have liked a blend of Micheli and Massei)

But that is all past. It would be nice if we can get some information about what's happening at the Supreme Court level. Strange, that no rumours have been heard. But I believe we'll hear something soon, maybe by June.
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 Apr 30, 2012 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Well, I was a bit surprised at his ability to intelligently put his thoughts on paper.


That's not surprising. No doubt, most readers having spent years reading the tripe FOAKer propaganda of Rudy being the 'serial burgling, knife wielding, drug dealing, drifter, thug' (which couldn't be further from the truth) would be highly surprised to find a completely different individual emerging from the pages of his prose, certainly a more human, articulate and less self-obsessed individual then our 'honours student lovebirds'.

_________________
"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 Apr 30, 2012 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
ttrroonniicc, the toilet bomb hoax is one of many things that may fall under the label of synchronicity


That's exactly how I see it. I also see it as a bit poignant. As a result of that bomb hoax, Sra Elissabetta called out the Carrabinieri that night. They were over her house that very evening, searching the place for her to ensure there was no bomb. It's a sad thought to think the police were not very far from Meredith that night and were actually at the place the phones were dumped on the night they were dumped, yet Meredith wasn't saved and the person/s that dumped the phones weren't caught/seen doing 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 zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I do hope that someone does make it known/clear to the general populace of Verona that they do have what is a person, potentially/perhaps/probably, who is a someone that raped a woman and killed her, got away with it (for now) and meantime is among the good citizens, mingling, smiling, perhaps with their daughters!

Think I'm going to start writing to people in Verona, just so they know.

I'm having to control myself here, stop myself from writing the words I actually want to say; they are not pretty!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Also Sollecito's lawyer is bullshitting by playing with words, after all, his client has not been found entirely not guilty, seeing as the case is not yet done with.

So for that reason, there is no reason anyone should leave him alone.

I say F T A!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Please everyone look for student blogs in Verona and say your piece there, nobody wants to have a sex offender and murderer in their midst and not even know it.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Well, I was a bit surprised at his ability to intelligently put his thoughts on paper.


That's not surprising. No doubt, most readers having spent years reading the tripe FOAKer propaganda of Rudy being the 'serial burgling, knife wielding, drug dealing, drifter, thug' (which couldn't be further from the truth) would be highly surprised to find a completely different individual emerging from the pages of his prose, certainly a more human, articulate and less self-obsessed individual then our 'honours student lovebirds'.


Michael, I certainly did not mean to imply that Guede was un-intelligent. And it certainly isn't a matter of class bias on my part. I should have expanded on this. I know quite a few people who are considered highly intelligent, but can't write in complete sentences. And when it comes to expressing feelings, forget about it.
Even though I believe most of what he writes about the crime is lies, as he writes to his teacher, and to his friends about their previous relationships, he is very much in touch with himself and his feelings are very much believable.
There is a 'maturity of expression'' in his writing that I did not expect to find. Certainly it is lacking in the writings of Knox and Sollecito.
I am not biased in this case, Michael. But, you're right. I see it everywhere in this case. On all levels. I happen to love Hamburger Helper. And, personally, I don't think it's a character flaw.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yet, even John Kercher has used the word drifter in relation To Guede, and if I could, I would, warn him about using that word, as it is one invented specifically in order to belittle everything about Guede beyond all reason, for if he were/is guilty, then his guilt is no worse than that of the other two. They used words like that which immediately slot into stereotypes, drifter, black, burglar, thief, drugs = no good.

Yet drugs applied to Sollecito too and there's no evidence at all of Guede ever being a drug dealer, none at all, and, if he is a drifter or was a drifter then that applies equally to Sollecito and Knox too, because Guede had a place, so why is he then a drifter, while the others are not, in that sense he was no different, he was no drifter. The word drifter is intended to belittle a person, that is all.

Cop: What did he look like then, any idea?
Witness: Yeah sure, well, black, cap on back to front, dick hanging out, between 4 feet 1 and 7 feet 2, big lips
Cop: Oh well, I get it, I think I have a stensil here, no need to get a sketch artist in!!!!

He became a drifter as part of the stereotyping put into force by the Marriot firm, he became the drifter, the criminal, based on nothing, because he had never been to court, Sollecito had been arrested for possession of drugs so why is he better than the black man Guede who had never ever been arrested for drugs?
Oh racial discrimination, well my oh my that's a new one isn't it NOT.
If Guede had been white these shits would have been at a loss as how to stereotype him for there was no evidence with which to prove Guede was any of those things they said he was, and in the case of a white person it would never have (white)washed over the truth. This is purely a case of racial discrimination.

He, Sollecito, was better than the black man Guede because the prejudices attached to stereotyping and racial discrimination were made use of in order to make Guede look bad and the other two to look like little angels.
Fuck them in Seattle with their bullshit and lying.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Yet, even John Kercher has used the word drifter in relation To Guede, and if I could, I would, warn him about using that word, as it is one invented specifically in order to belittle everything about Guede beyond all reason, for if he were/is guilty, then his guilt is no worse than that of the other two. They used words like that which immediately slot into stereotypes, drifter, black, burglar, thief, drugs = no good.

Yet drugs applied to Sollecito too and there's no evidence at all of Guede ever being a drug dealer, none at all, and, if he is a drifter or was a drifter then that applies equally to Sollecito and Knox too, because Guede had a place, so why is he then a drifter, while the others are not, in that sense he was no different, he was no drifter. The word drifter is intended to belittle a person, that is all.

Cop: What did he look like then, any idea?
Witness: Yeah sure, well, black, cap on back to front, dick hanging out, between 4 feet 1 and 7 feet 2, big lips
Cop: Oh well, I get it, I think I have a stensil here, no need to get a sketch artist in!!!!

He became a drifter as part of the stereotyping put into force by the Marriot firm, he became the drifter, the criminal, based on nothing, because he had never been to court, Sollecito had been arrested for possession of drugs so why is he better than the black man Guede who had never ever been arrested for drugs?
Oh racial discrimination, well my oh my that's a new one isn't it NOT.
If Guede had been white these shits would have been at a loss as how to stereotype him for there was no evidence with which to prove Guede was any of those things they said he was, and in the case of a white person it would never have (white)washed over the truth. This is purely a case of racial discrimination.

He, Sollecito, was better than the black man Guede because the prejudices attached to stereotyping and racial discrimination were made use of in order to make Guede look bad and the other two to look like little angels.
Fuck them in Seattle with their bullshit and lying.


Good morning. Zorba. This stereotyping is one of the things that caused me to re-read Guede's diary. I only became aware of this case two years ago, so I missed all of the initial media sensation. I lack that initial 'context' as it were.
Guede himself stated in his diary that, when he confronted the man in the cottage, the man made the statement about 'black man found, black man guilty'.
Does Guede play the 'race card' here because he has read newspapers and is reading this early on that Knox is 'blaming a black man'? Or, was he goaded into more participation in a crime in progress by being asked, "Who do you think the cops will believe, you, a black guy, or the two of us?"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
ttrroonniicc, the toilet bomb hoax is one of many things that may fall under the label of synchronicity


That's exactly how I see it. I also see it as a bit poignant. As a result of that bomb hoax, Sra Elissabetta called out the Carrabinieri that night. They were over her house that very evening, searching the place for her to ensure there was no bomb. It's a sad thought to think the police were not very far from Meredith that night and were actually at the place the phones were dumped on the night they were dumped, yet Meredith wasn't saved and the person/s that dumped the phones weren't caught/seen doing so.


michael, is it possible that the person who dumped the phones, could see the police searching at Sra Elissabetta's and threw the phones away in a panic, so as not to get caught with them?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
ttrroonniicc, the toilet bomb hoax is one of many things that may fall under the label of synchronicity


That's exactly how I see it. I also see it as a bit poignant. As a result of that bomb hoax, Sra Elissabetta called out the Carrabinieri that night. They were over her house that very evening, searching the place for her to ensure there was no bomb. It's a sad thought to think the police were not very far from Meredith that night and were actually at the place the phones were dumped on the night they were dumped, yet Meredith wasn't saved and the person/s that dumped the phones weren't caught/seen doing so.


michael, is it possible that the person who dumped the phones, could see the police searching at Sra Elissabetta's and threw the phones away in a panic, so as not to get caught with them?


Good point, napia5! We know the phones were still at via perogola around 10:13 pm on November 1 so therefore was disposed of after. The fleeing Rudy Guede, would have, seeing the police cars, panicked and thrown the phones down the valley but it really was Ms Lana's garden, being overgrown and butting out into the valley.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Sadly, "Meredith" is only available in Italy http://www.amazon.it/Meredith-daughters ... 617&sr=1-6 as a Kindle version in English. Hopefully it'll be translated into Italian soon and a copy read by certain judges at Cassazione ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

John Kercher during an interview about his book:

Attachment:
John Kercher and his book Meredith.jpg


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
ttrroonniicc, the toilet bomb hoax is one of many things that may fall under the label of synchronicity


That's exactly how I see it. I also see it as a bit poignant. As a result of that bomb hoax, Sra Elissabetta called out the Carrabinieri that night. They were over her house that very evening, searching the place for her to ensure there was no bomb. It's a sad thought to think the police were not very far from Meredith that night and were actually at the place the phones were dumped on the night they were dumped, yet Meredith wasn't saved and the person/s that dumped the phones weren't caught/seen doing so.


michael, is it possible that the person who dumped the phones, could see the police searching at Sra Elissabetta's and threw the phones away in a panic, so as not to get caught with them?



It's possible, but I very much doubt it. It would of meant that they'd have thrown the phones virtually 'at' the police. If you're going to throw something away in a panic because you see the police, it isn't the normal thing to throw it actually in their direction.

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


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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
Yet, even John Kercher has used the word drifter in relation To Guede, and if I could, I would, warn him about using that word, as it is one invented specifically in order to belittle everything about Guede beyond all reason, for if he were/is guilty, then his guilt is no worse than that of the other two. They used words like that which immediately slot into stereotypes, drifter, black, burglar, thief, drugs = no good.

Yet drugs applied to Sollecito too and there's no evidence at all of Guede ever being a drug dealer, none at all, and, if he is a drifter or was a drifter then that applies equally to Sollecito and Knox too, because Guede had a place, so why is he then a drifter, while the others are not, in that sense he was no different, he was no drifter. The word drifter is intended to belittle a person, that is all.

Cop: What did he look like then, any idea?
Witness: Yeah sure, well, black, cap on back to front, dick hanging out, between 4 feet 1 and 7 feet 2, big lips
Cop: Oh well, I get it, I think I have a stensil here, no need to get a sketch artist in!!!!

He became a drifter as part of the stereotyping put into force by the Marriot firm, he became the drifter, the criminal, based on nothing, because he had never been to court, Sollecito had been arrested for possession of drugs so why is he better than the black man Guede who had never ever been arrested for drugs?
Oh racial discrimination, well my oh my that's a new one isn't it NOT.
If Guede had been white these shits would have been at a loss as how to stereotype him for there was no evidence with which to prove Guede was any of those things they said he was, and in the case of a white person it would never have (white)washed over the truth. This is purely a case of racial discrimination.

He, Sollecito, was better than the black man Guede because the prejudices attached to stereotyping and racial discrimination were made use of in order to make Guede look bad and the other two to look like little angels.
Fuck them in Seattle with their bullshit and lying.


Good morning. Zorba. This stereotyping is one of the things that caused me to re-read Guede's diary. I only became aware of this case two years ago, so I missed all of the initial media sensation. I lack that initial 'context' as it were.
Guede himself stated in his diary that, when he confronted the man in the cottage, the man made the statement about 'black man found, black man guilty'.
Does Guede play the 'race card' here because he has read newspapers and is reading this early on that Knox is 'blaming a black man'? Or, was he goaded into more participation in a crime in progress by being asked, "Who do you think the cops will believe, you, a black guy, or the two of us?"



I believe they told him that very night that if either of them were accused... they would blame him. Who would the cops believe? The black 'drifter' or the two innocent-looking 'lovebirds'?
I believe he is still in a sort of 'shock' at what they have been able to do in regards to getting away with 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: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Good point, napia5! We know the phones were still at via perogola around 10:13 pm on November 1 so therefore was disposed of after. The fleeing Rudy Guede, would have, seeing the police cars, panicked and thrown the phones down the valley but it really was Ms Lana's garden, being overgrown and butting out into the valley.


What makes you conclude that it was Rudy Guede that disposed of the phones? Massei didn't conclude so. And I agree with him, for a range of reasons. Firstly, Guede was interested only in getting the hell out of there, not doing things to cover his tracks...pun intended in order to make the point. Secondly, Rudy wouldn't have bothered going to the trouble of turning one of them off and thirdly, having grown up in Perugia, Rudy would have known the area like the back of his hand and so known that it was a private garden there, rather then the ravine. Fourth, Knox's behaviour in how she called those phones the next morning and failed to call them again after those two cynically fast initial calls demonstrates that she knew well, first hand, how those phones had been taken out of action. She wouldn't/couldn't have been so certain of that had she have seen or told Guede to take the phones, trusting it to a third party, rather then taken them herself. Finally, there were no micro traces of blood on those phones, yet we know Rudy had very bloody hands. Whoever took those phones had clean or freshly washed hands and that wasn't Rudy.

_________________
"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 dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Right, that's not long at all.
I grew up in West London so when we used to go to Brighton we always had to cross London which can take a lot of time. We also went to Brighton a lot but if it is in fact quite that near from Coulsdon I can imagine they went there far more often than I ever did.

As a kid I did not really know where the hell these places were that I got taken to, my dad did'nt want to have a car and seeing as how it wasn't India he couldn't get the entire family onto his scooter and so it was coaches that we went in. Coaches, that is way different to an own car, as they stop when they stop, I remember always being starving hungry, dying to use the WC or dying for something nice, we did get fed back in the old days, but those days were so different to now with the over-abundance of everything, in all ways, at all times of the year. My old gran already always used to be going on about how lucky you kids are as we did'nt get anything but an apple and orange at Christmas, but, compared to now, kids back in those days were not spoilt.

I was always dying for something nice, and because you were a child, always penniless unlike now when kids might have an own bank account or judging by that stupid TV programme Sixteen, an own apartment in the family home along with a chauffeur too, well considering these things, times sure have changed all as I know is that I have a memory of it taking forever to get to the coast, this must be because children experience every moment so much more intensely and see things adults do not (any longer). As we'd rise over some hill and actually see the sea, the feeling one got was amazing, such a thrill.

I suddenly realise Brighton is so popular as there's more chance of the weather being nice there, as its location is down south, lower south than Calais in France.[/quote]

That made me laugh Zorba, I am always telling my daughter how ungrateful she is! And very sensible for your dad not to have a car, no point in London.

It has been lovely to open newspapers over the last week to 10 days and see Meredith's picture there - there was a lovely one which nearly took up a whole page in the Metro this morning - go John!!

RIP Meredith
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 Apr 30, 2012 8:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Just a further note on the bomb hoax and the disposal of the phones. The synchronicity of the bomb hoax was actually a disaster for the murderers. It was specifically because of the bomb hoax on the night of the murder that Sra. Ellisabetta and her family were so hot on getting in contact with the police the next morning when finding the phones and then taking them into the police station. They thought the phones in their garden may have been connected to the bomb threat event the previous night. Had it not been for the bomb hoax, they may not have treated the phones with such urgency and so the police wouldn't have gotten them so quickly, meaning the Postal Police wouldn't have arrived at the cottage when they did. In fact, it may even be suggested, they may not even have found the phones for days or even longer, had it not been for the bomb hoax. My considered guess is, that they were looking around their garden that morning BECAUSE of the bomb threat the previous night and wouldn't have been and so not found the phones, were it not for that. After all, November isn't really the month for gardening.

_________________
"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 Apr 30, 2012 8:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

(( OT OT ))

SNOPA to employers seeking passwords: Access denied

Technology/Internet


A Bill has been introduced in Washington to stop employers and schools from demanding access to people’s social network accounts. On Friday, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) presented SNOPA, which stands for the Social Networking Online Protection Act. Under SNOPA, employers can’t ask current workers or new job applicants for access to their social networking accounts. If employers ignored the ruling they would pay $10,000 as civil penalty. The ban on such information demands would also apply to schools.

They would be forbidden to ask for social networking log-in information, to support their decisions on enrollment or discipline. The SNOPA ruling would extend to all school levels, from colleges and universities down to K-12 schools.

The move to introduce the Bill follows reports that employers are asking applicants for information so they can access applicants’ Facebook accounts as part of the interview process. Ostensibly the hirers justify this as wanting to see if the person is a team fit and capable of showing the right kind of behavior within the job’s professional setting. Demands are also placed on present employees. A case in point involved a teacher’s aide in Michigan who was fired after she refused to hand over her Facebook password to supervisors. Their demand had followed a complaint by a parent on the aide’s Friend list who found a photo objectionable.

Those backing the legislation say it’s a disturbing trend. Engel said there were “countless examples” of employers requiring an applicant to divulge user name and password as part of the hiring process. “A person’s so-called ‘digital footprint’ is largely unprotected,” he said in a statement.

Such infringements, say SNOPA backers, also infringe on other protective shields. Viewing a social networking site may reveal applicant information that is not allowed to be up for consideration at the time of the interview, such as religion or sexual orientation.

Facebook would welcome such a bill. Facebook has called attention to a "distressing increase" in password-demand cases in the United States over the past few years. While there is no federal law yet to remedy the issue, a number of voices on the state level have expressed dissent over coerced access. Maryland is in the front lines seeking to ban the practice.

As an example of concern, the Maryland Department of Corrections was requiring access to applicants’ Facebook pages to view profiles, as part of screening those seeking work in jails, and looking for possible illegal activity and gang affiliations. One such instance involved a former corrections officer wanting to be recertified for his job following a leave of absence. He complied, as an interviewer roamed his private messages, pictures, and posts.

(follow link below for full story)



PHYSORG

_________________
"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: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Good point, napia5! We know the phones were still at via perogola around 10:13 pm on November 1 so therefore was disposed of after. The fleeing Rudy Guede, would have, seeing the police cars, panicked and thrown the phones down the valley but it really was Ms Lana's garden, being overgrown and butting out into the valley.


What makes you conclude that it was Rudy Guede that disposed of the phones? Massei didn't conclude so. And I agree with him, for a range of reasons. Firstly, Guede was interested only in getting the hell out of there, not doing things to cover his tracks...pun intended in order to make the point. Secondly, Rudy wouldn't have bothered going to the trouble of turning one of them off and thirdly, having grown up in Perugia, Rudy would have known the area like the back of his hand and so known that it was a private garden there, rather then the ravine. Fourth, Knox's behaviour in how she called those phones the next morning and failed to call them again after those two cynically fast initial calls demonstrates that she knew well, first hand, how those phones had been taken out of action. She wouldn't/couldn't have been so certain of that had she have seen or told Guede to take the phones, trusting it to a third party, rather then taken them herself. Finally, there were no micro traces of blood on those phones, yet we know Rudy had very bloody hands. Whoever took those phones had clean or freshly washed hands and that wasn't Rudy.


No fingerprints on the phones either..

Massei didn't conclude who might have thrown it, that was my own idea. But Rudy did take off, Amanda and Raf hung around. So if not them, then who?
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 Apr 30, 2012 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Good point, napia5! We know the phones were still at via perogola around 10:13 pm on November 1 so therefore was disposed of after. The fleeing Rudy Guede, would have, seeing the police cars, panicked and thrown the phones down the valley but it really was Ms Lana's garden, being overgrown and butting out into the valley.


What makes you conclude that it was Rudy Guede that disposed of the phones? Massei didn't conclude so. And I agree with him, for a range of reasons. Firstly, Guede was interested only in getting the hell out of there, not doing things to cover his tracks...pun intended in order to make the point. Secondly, Rudy wouldn't have bothered going to the trouble of turning one of them off and thirdly, having grown up in Perugia, Rudy would have known the area like the back of his hand and so known that it was a private garden there, rather then the ravine. Fourth, Knox's behaviour in how she called those phones the next morning and failed to call them again after those two cynically fast initial calls demonstrates that she knew well, first hand, how those phones had been taken out of action. She wouldn't/couldn't have been so certain of that had she have seen or told Guede to take the phones, trusting it to a third party, rather then taken them herself. Finally, there were no micro traces of blood on those phones, yet we know Rudy had very bloody hands. Whoever took those phones had clean or freshly washed hands and that wasn't Rudy.


No fingerprints on the phones either..

Massei didn't conclude who might have thrown it, that was my own idea. But Rudy did take off, Amanda and Raf hung around. So if not them, then who?


The fingerprints were too smudged as a result of them being handled by several people (when they were found and handed into the police presumably). Smudging fingerprints is a completely different matter to removing all traces of blood. Handling a phone can ruin latent fingerprints, it won't remove the blood though, dried blood at that, especially blood in the little nooks and crevices.

Massei concluded it was Knox who took the phones and that it was probably her that dumped them. He devoted a whole section in his Report as to why she would have taken them. Knox and Sollecito were convicted of the phone theft in their trial. Guede was acquitted of the phone theft in his trial.

Knox and Sollecito took off too, not long after Rudy.

_________________
"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 ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
I believe they told him that very night that if either of them were accused... they would blame him. Who would the cops believe? The black 'drifter' or the two innocent-looking 'lovebirds'?
I believe he is still in a sort of 'shock' at what they have been able to do in regards to getting away with it.

he's also in fear having been beaten up twice - once just before Sollecitos appeal - whaddyaknow
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
michael, is it possible that the person who dumped the phones, could see the police searching at Sra Elissabetta's and threw the phones away in a panic, so as not to get caught with them?

closest to possibility I've seen for that unbelievable co-incidence
... slung as police approached at end of that quiet road
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 12:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dollycat wrote:
My old gran already always used to be going on about how lucky you kids are as we did'nt get anything but an apple and orange at Christmas, but, compared to now, kids back in those days were not spoilt.

dollycat -

Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
michael, is it possible that the person who dumped the phones, could see the police searching at Sra Elissabetta's and threw the phones away in a panic, so as not to get caught with them?

closest to possibility I've seen for that unbelievable co-incidence
... slung as police approached at end of that quiet road


In terms of time and location, Guede would have been my choice. I went over Kermit's powerpoint presentation about the location of all of their houses, and the different paths Guede could have taken. I have difficulty believing the scenario where Knox would have travelled that way to dispose of the phones. There was a cleanup to take care of. Of course, as I am viewing the presentation, other questions arise. For instance, Sollecito had a car. Where in the world did he park it? I have always felt that the two of them disposed of shoes, clothes, and possibly cleaning supplies. Was his car in a convenient location? If they used a car, they could have easily flipped th phones out the window.
All speculation, of course. It doesn't explain the coincidence of the bomb hoax and police presence, as I don't know if they would have seen the police in a moving car quickly enough to respond.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Massei only establishes that Meredith's phone was in or around Villa Pergola at 10:13pm and not there by 00:00: 23 a.m. He still finds Knox AND Sollecito guilty of the felony charge of stealing the credit cards, 300 euros and phones, though the evidence for that is inferred, at best. Though I do like his possibity that the earlier phone call to her bank Abbey may have been made inadvertently during the actual assault, and we had quite a debate over at dot org about the very possibility of the Sonny Ericcson making such an automatic call because of the sensitivity of that particular model making automatic calls unless the keyboard's locked.

It is possible that Knox stole the money earlier, my humble guess. The phones and credit card may have been disposed of by Rudy, and again, there was quite a debate at TJMK about that. Did Raffaele run down that country road, or, did he or Rudy exit through the city gate near both their places of residence? If it was Raffaele, that makes the toilet bomb hoax even that more sinister. Also, HOW and when could he have been observed WITH Knox by Curatolo before and after 9:30 and 11:00 pm?

There is no evidence that specifically points to Knox/Sollecito or Guede haring down that road. So, I'll vote for the man who almost immediately fled the scene, and not, the pair who had to stay behind and clean up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

We also know that Knox showed up at the store the next morning, checking out the cleaning section. And why did she make up silly stories about running around with a mop that morning? It doesn't seem to me that they stayed behind very long and did much of a cleanup. The cleanup IMO was the next morning.

However, I do believe that they returned to the cottage. Why else were they seen waiting in the basketball court? But I can't imagine them being comfortable enough so soon after the murder to stay for a long period of time. They wouldn't know what Rudy was up to. Or even if Meredith received any calls or visits. It was only about 11pm. For a student that is not so late. So from the evidence, they washed up a bit in the small bathroom. Probably their hands, feet, and knives, maybe threw a rock through the window and left.

Then the question is had they enough time to be in the area to toss the phones before one of them rang, or was it Rudy who had more time to wash up, then realizing he still had the phones in his jacket (for example) and went out to toss them. Both are theoretically possible I think, but my vote goes to AK and RS. To me it doesn't make much sense to go all the way out there to toss the phones. There are much easier solutions to get rid of the phones. Besides why not throw the cards and whatever else they took there as well if it was a well thought out plan to toss them there? The washing of hands, feet, maybe throwing rock does not have to take long. Especially not when they were in a hurry.

So if we take about 11:30pm as the time they returned to the cottage, and about 15 minutes for washing up then the timing gets rather narrow to the midnight phone call in the area where the phones were found. So narrow that I think it was the phone call that reminded them of the phones. I think the midnight phone call shows that they did take the quiet outside road back to RS's apartment and in their haste and panic quickly tossed them in a garden (what they thought was a ravine).
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/0 ... -34257758/

Mignini and Comodi under investigation for 'overspending' on the reconstruction video. I wonder who is behind this. Is there an appeal coming up? Or was mr Kercher getting too much attention?
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
Yet, even John Kercher has used the word drifter in relation To Guede, and if I could, I would, warn him about using that word, as it is one invented specifically in order to belittle everything about Guede beyond all reason, for if he were/is guilty, then his guilt is no worse than that of the other two. They used words like that which immediately slot into stereotypes, drifter, black, burglar, thief, drugs = no good.

Yet drugs applied to Sollecito too and there's no evidence at all of Guede ever being a drug dealer, none at all, and, if he is a drifter or was a drifter then that applies equally to Sollecito and Knox too, because Guede had a place, so why is he then a drifter, while the others are not, in that sense he was no different, he was no drifter. The word drifter is intended to belittle a person, that is all.

Cop: What did he look like then, any idea?
Witness: Yeah sure, well, black, cap on back to front, dick hanging out, between 4 feet 1 and 7 feet 2, big lips
Cop: Oh well, I get it, I think I have a stensil here, no need to get a sketch artist in!!!!

He became a drifter as part of the stereotyping put into force by the Marriot firm, he became the drifter, the criminal, based on nothing, because he had never been to court, Sollecito had been arrested for possession of drugs so why is he better than the black man Guede who had never ever been arrested for drugs?
Oh racial discrimination, well my oh my that's a new one isn't it NOT.
If Guede had been white these shits would have been at a loss as how to stereotype him for there was no evidence with which to prove Guede was any of those things they said he was, and in the case of a white person it would never have (white)washed over the truth. This is purely a case of racial discrimination.

He, Sollecito, was better than the black man Guede because the prejudices attached to stereotyping and racial discrimination were made use of in order to make Guede look bad and the other two to look like little angels.
Fuck them in Seattle with their bullshit and lying.


Good morning. Zorba. This stereotyping is one of the things that caused me to re-read Guede's diary. I only became aware of this case two years ago, so I missed all of the initial media sensation. I lack that initial 'context' as it were.
Guede himself stated in his diary that, when he confronted the man in the cottage, the man made the statement about 'black man found, black man guilty'.
Does Guede play the 'race card' here because he has read newspapers and is reading this early on that Knox is 'blaming a black man'? Or, was he goaded into more participation in a crime in progress by being asked, "Who do you think the cops will believe, you, a black guy, or the two of us?"



Hi Napia, you'll never believe i (me) but I did already write a whole thing out and my computer got stuck, god knows what that is but it happens a lot with this version of Windows.
So what I think I'll do is invent a better thing than Microsoft, and name it Doors.

Anyhow, and excuse me everyone when I type did'nt and stuff, and don't see it (don't is another one) I do know how to spell, just saying, however, typing, well, it's more like a one fingered hammer frenzy, especially when I'm worked up)
What I said was that the bit about Guede latching onto what Knox had been doing by blaming Lumumba, was obviously a shock to Guede, one that he would have been in two minds about, one was disgust at Knox's racial discrimination and the other gratefulness that at least through what Knox had been up to he was getting away with it for the time being, but, he knew full well, as did the other two, that the only reason they did not all grass one and other up was not for reasons of loyalty but instead to cover their own backs, there's no way they could have said a word against each other, at most, as did Sollecito and Knox, were they able to play about with pretending: I wonder maybe he did it, maybe he crept out. To try to make it look like they knew nothing and were trying to work i out. The truth is, they knew full well.

Those tricks they used are such classics. The getting police off your back by making up a story that resembles the truth is one that goes on all the time, and the only difference from the truth is that the scenario shifts places and names, but the framework is borrowed from real events, just like Knox saying that they wanted to have fun, that sounded convincing because it was true, only it was not about Lumumba it was about Guede.
So your point is great, I had not even seen it like that in all this time (5 years), but Guede picked up on what Knox was doing and he used the way people behave as racists to benefit himself. He played the race card.
Knox didn't play the race card, she used classic prejudice knowing that it was still a part of many people's mindsets, she was just a plain old racist and she was desperate to get the police off her back so she couldn't think up much, but laming Patrick gave her some time in which to try to work out what the hell to tell the police.

All of this, yet neither Sollecito nor Knox wanted Guede to get caught even if they had indeed made things look like everything was a burglary, they wanted it to implicate someone, a someone that would not get caught, so they staged the break-in to appear to have been the reason initially for the guilty people to go there and that from the burglary the events led into murder and rape.

They may have left signs and traces on purpose for the benefit of the staging, still, those things cannot lead to the conclusion that they wished Guede to be caught, that would be insane, if I were on the run and had committed crimes with others, then I would not want them to get caught as the first thing they'd do, I'd fear, would be to fill the cops in about me too.

This is why not one of them was willing to truly implicate any of the others.
Guede may come to regret that, and may decide to speak yet that cannot be counted on, and as Mr John Kercher offered, the idea of Guede having nothing to lose, well seeing as how it is now 2012 and the crimes were committed in 2007, that means Guede already has 5 years behind him, the depths of his depravity the acts he was involved in means it is too much for him to face up to, he, like Knox and Sollecito, is a coward. Therefore, I surmise that he will continue now and endure his sentence without speaking. And then he can always pretend that he was just set up by them.

The only reason that Guede would hold his tongue now - after everything Knox's family has said about him, after all that Sollecito's family said too, I mean them saying that means that Knox and Sollecito might just as well have said it themselves - is due to him being unable to reveal the facts without finally showing that he was, unlike what his lawyer Biscotti said, very much fully involved and guilty on his own merit, just as the other two are. And he cannot face p to it being revealed how he molested Meredith.
If he could get past that then I think he would speak. He is ashamed of it, or if he is not ashamed of it, he knows it will be damaging to him if he admits it. They can say what they like, is what he may be thinking: they can say what they like but I will never admit it, or, I have never admitted it.

I mean, Guede knows about everything that happened there and why. He must hate how Knox and Sollecito's families have painted him BLACK, that situation would mean that he WOULD start talking, so the only reason I can com up with for why he has not opened the box, is because of his own involvement which he knows is shocking and decided thus to keep the lid on it all, even though he obviously would like to get back at the pair of them and at their families for blaming everything on him.


Knox: I have nothing against black people some of my best friends.... are

Reminds me of that told movie where the white woman on her estate down south was trying to pretend she cared to someone (another white person) who did care about black people, then the person she was speaking to asked her: Yes, but what is her name then?
And the woman didn't even know the name of the slave who had been waiting on her hand and foot for years.

Truth is, or reality is, that seeing as how both families have allowed everything to be blamed on Guede and have kept using those stereotypes, then this must mean that they are all true racists or they would not have done it, for how could you ever pretend to be real friends with any non-white person if you do stuff like that?
You cannot, and any black person who would take up with you, would have to be a blind fool to do so.
Yet I doubt that those people, either in Bari or Seattle are about to start adopting black babies and joining a Gospel choir at the local predominately black church.
Apartheid was built on this mentality.

Personally, I do not even like thinking in terms of black and white, no person is white and no person is black, I feel this stuff is a term that can only come from limitation, a way of thinking that grew from the hatred of people that did work to create walls between different people. That's why I do not like it. I like to look at people, and see them as they are an see into their eyes, the blood that runs in our veins is the same colour.
I had better stop about this one or next thing we know Mr Knox might feel he needs redemption and will be volunteering for the Black & White Minstrel Show to show that he is not a racist.

Last but not least, another thing I detest hearing from that lot is hoe their poor babies have to live again.

Isn't that unfortunate, such words, such concepts, in view of what the whole case is about, namely Meredith having her life robbed, taken, extinguished, to hear Mr Sollecito saying that about his poor old little son, makes me feel sick! Get his life back? Yes charming, rub it in, go on, it's like a person - that caused a festering wound that will not heal - tearing the scab off to make sure it never will!

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
We also know that Knox showed up at the store the next morning, checking out the cleaning section. And why did she make up silly stories about running around with a mop that morning? It doesn't seem to me that they stayed behind very long and did much of a cleanup. The cleanup IMO was the next morning.

However, I do believe that they returned to the cottage. Why else were they seen waiting in the basketball court? But I can't imagine them being comfortable enough so soon after the murder to stay for a long period of time. They wouldn't know what Rudy was up to. Or even if Meredith received any calls or visits. It was only about 11pm. For a student that is not so late. So from the evidence, they washed up a bit in the small bathroom. Probably their hands, feet, and knives, maybe threw a rock through the window and left.

Then the question is had they enough time to be in the area to toss the phones before one of them rang, or was it Rudy who had more time to wash up, then realizing he still had the phones in his jacket (for example) and went out to toss them. Both are theoretically possible I think, but my vote goes to AK and RS. To me it doesn't make much sense to go all the way out there to toss the phones. There are much easier solutions to get rid of the phones. Besides why not throw the cards and whatever else they took there as well if it was a well thought out plan to toss them there? The washing of hands, feet, maybe throwing rock does not have to take long. Especially not when they were in a hurry.

So if we take about 11:30pm as the time they returned to the cottage, and about 15 minutes for washing up then the timing gets rather narrow to the midnight phone call in the area where the phones were found. So narrow that I think it was the phone call that reminded them of the phones. I think the midnight phone call shows that they did take the quiet outside road back to RS's apartment and in their haste and panic quickly tossed them in a garden (what they thought was a ravine).


Yes and the reason they (Knox & Sollecito) took that secluded or quiet route was so they wouldn't be seen, as there are almost no houses there and nobody would be walking along there at night in the dark.
Neither of the two knew the area well and as Michael said, Guede would have known the area and if he had wanted to dispose of phones he'd have thrown them where he knew they couldn't be found.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
He still finds Knox AND Sollecito guilty of the felony charge of stealing the credit cards, 300 euros and phones


They were acquitted of stealing the money and credit cards, as was Rudy. It was the phones they were convicted of stealing. This is because Massei felt there were no indications or clues to suggest whether it was the pair or Guede that took the money and credit cards. He felt those indications however, did exist in regard to the phones.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/05/01/news/video_meredith_conti-34257758/

Mignini and Comodi under investigation for 'overspending' on the reconstruction video. I wonder who is behind this. Is there an appeal coming up? Or was mr Kercher getting too much attention?


I'm not sure how it can be they personally under investigation, rather then their office. After all, all the funds have to be approved by their seniors. They aren't senior prosecutors.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Max wrote:
We also know that Knox showed up at the store the next morning, checking out the cleaning section. And why did she make up silly stories about running around with a mop that morning? It doesn't seem to me that they stayed behind very long and did much of a cleanup. The cleanup IMO was the next morning.


I fully agree with this. Otherwise, why all the faffing about at the cottage the next morning and from such an early time?

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


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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
max wrote:
http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/05/01/news/video_meredith_conti-34257758/

Mignini and Comodi under investigation for 'overspending' on the reconstruction video. I wonder who is behind this. Is there an appeal coming up? Or was mr Kercher getting too much attention?


I'm not sure how it can be they personally under investigation, rather then their office. After all, all the funds have to be approved by their seniors. They aren't senior prosecutors.

I have to go by Google Translate so it is not all that clear to me either, but I see something mentioned about a Power of Attorney. 182 Thousand euros is a lot of money of course if that was just for the video (I recall it was also for developing some kind of database). I wonder how much this investigation will cost though :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Michael wrote:
max wrote:
http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/05/01/news/video_meredith_conti-34257758/

Mignini and Comodi under investigation for 'overspending' on the reconstruction video. I wonder who is behind this. Is there an appeal coming up? Or was mr Kercher getting too much attention?


I'm not sure how it can be they personally under investigation, rather then their office. After all, all the funds have to be approved by their seniors. They aren't senior prosecutors.

I have to go by Google Translate so it is not all that clear to me either, but I see something mentioned about a Power of Attorney. 182 Thousand euros is a lot of money of course if that was just for the video (I recall it was also for developing some kind of database). I wonder how much this investigation will cost though :roll:


I think the investigation is not because there is some evidence of wrongdoing, but because there was a major article in the Italian press not so long ago (I forget precisely which now, somebody linked it here) criticising the cost of the investigation/trial and what it saw as extravagant spending on things like the video, only for the whole thing to then result in an acquittal in the appeal. It looks to me like this investigation is being made simply to soothe the press. At most, it'll be to see if there should be any revision of spending protocols in criminal investigations. I'm sure also, that certain individuals have applied pressure behind the scenes to make this investigation happen.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I've just been reading through Guede's High Court Appeal Report and found this rather interesting part:

Quote:
The presence of Guede in the upstairs flat of the house at 7 via della Pergola is established; it
was actually admitted by Guede during his first interrogation in Germany, where he went
after leaving Perugia on Nov. 3, 2007, and where he was captured in the act of returning to
Italy following an arrest warrant put out by the GIP (Preliminary Investigation Judge) GIP on
Nov. 20, 2007, as he had told his friend GB. Via the Internet, B had succeeded in getting into contact with him on Nov. 19, 2007, using the Skype program, as a volunteer for the P.G. (Judicial Police), and had learned some information from him about the allegations against
him that were appearing in the newspapers and on the television news. During that
conversation, Guede stated his intention of returning to Italy, declared that he had nothing to
do with the crime, and told his friend what had happened in Kercher's flat, repeating the story
shortly afterwards to the German authorities. One significant [5] sentence pronounced by
Guede to B: «I was scared that they would say I was the only guilty person».


P. 5-6

"I was scared that they would say I was the only guilty person". That's interesting. I wasn't aware Rudy had said this.

RUDY GUEDE'S FAILED FINAL APPEAL, ITALIAN HIGH COURT

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
I've just been reading through Guede's High Court Appeal Report and found this rather interesting part:

Quote:
The presence of Guede in the upstairs flat of the house at 7 via della Pergola is established; it
was actually admitted by Guede during his first interrogation in Germany, where he went
after leaving Perugia on Nov. 3, 2007, and where he was captured in the act of returning to
Italy following an arrest warrant put out by the GIP (Preliminary Investigation Judge) GIP on
Nov. 20, 2007, as he had told his friend GB. Via the Internet, B had succeeded in getting into contact with him on Nov. 19, 2007, using the Skype program, as a volunteer for the P.G. (Judicial Police), and had learned some information from him about the allegations against
him that were appearing in the newspapers and on the television news. During that
conversation, Guede stated his intention of returning to Italy, declared that he had nothing to
do with the crime, and told his friend what had happened in Kercher's flat, repeating the story
shortly afterwards to the German authorities. One significant [5] sentence pronounced by
Guede to B: «I was scared that they would say I was the only guilty person».


P. 5-6

"I was scared that they would say I was the only guilty person". That's interesting. I wasn't aware Rudy had said this.

RUDY GUEDE'S FAILED FINAL APPEAL, ITALIAN HIGH COURT


Thanks for this nugget, Michael. I have been spending time lately going back to the beginning. ('Meredith' has not been delivered from the UK yet, so I'm occupying myself with other readings). Each time I re-review something, I find some skipped-over (by me) little fact or quote that adds to my belief in the guilt of the three.
I have been accused on other boards of 'confirmation bias', I am looking at things that will only point to guilt.
This is not the case. I am reading facts, and each time I do, there's more to find. And they all point one way.
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 01, 2012 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I believe they told him that very night that if either of them were accused... they would blame him. Who would the cops believe? The black 'drifter' or the two innocent-looking 'lovebirds'?
I believe he is still in a sort of 'shock' at what they have been able to do in regards to getting away with it.

he's also in fear having been beaten up twice - once just before Sollecitos appeal - whaddyaknow



Yeah, but guys that go to prison for sexually assaulting and killing young women sometimes get that treatment anyway. IMO it might have been a scuffle/beating... but not a REAL beating where he was badly injured.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

On when they cleaned up and whether or not a murderer feels shock the wy anyone does that cares about somone that died at their hands

I cannot see them cleaning up in the morning, not after and during the hours ordinary people get up and do things, meaning thus, in the those hours they would have been afraid that anyone could arrive home.

I've been confronted with death from a young age, I watched my grandfather die in front of me. That was the first dead body I'd seen, I didn't need to go to the funeral parlour, as he had a heart attack while playing with my brother and I, he was placed on my very own bed for a day or perhaps two. That was where I went with my dad to take a last look.
My dad wanted me to look, but well, I asked why, because I knew he had died and I'd had to watch it, from joking with us from his armchair us kids on either side of him he suddenly turned every colour of the rainbow. We were at the height of fun with him. He'tease us, covering our eyes and then pretending that there were all sorts of lovely things we were missing on TV, he'd say, oh look at the lovely lions you're missing. It was so funny.

My grandmother came in and slapped his head - half knowing and the rest of her shocked already - to see if he was okay, come on, stop messing around, she said, as she gave him a slap, not hard, just like one would when someone has been knocked out and is brought around with smelling salts.
Then she got uptight when she realised he wasn't messing around and started blaming us, when I was growing up it was always, You bloody kids.

I never will use such words to any children, mine or anyone else's.

After this event, we were totally in shock, we who witnessed it, my sister wasn't as she wasn't present, my dad arrived home from work a minute after his dad, our granddad had passed, and he tried desperately to revive him.
There were things I didn't like either in my childhood but I battled against my own hurts and learned things instead of going and killing someone to unleash my frustrations on the innocent.

It was the first and only time I ever saw my father cry, restrained tears.
Restrained because of his responsibility as a man so as not to upset the children.
Seeing him cry of course was upsetting.

So I went upstairs to see my granddad, and knowing nothing really of death, asked with child-like innocence, can't he come back to live, and then many whys, why this, why that. And even after my dad had assured me that this is the way things go, I suddenly noticed granddad's beard (I think I may have gone to view him twice then, one last time before he was taken out of the house) growth, remarking excitedly look, but his beard has grown.

My father explained that this too is normal but that he was, sadly, truly dead.

The next couple of weeks we, as small children were in shock, because we lived our granddad so much an it was really traumatic seeing the one person you adored for his sense of fun and his always being kind to us, die that way, he'd enjoyed just 9 months of pension.

So we played on, unable to have it register that it was real, one minute we knew it was,the next minute we didn't, we were placed by the next-door neighbours who were lovely with us, but my sister attacked us out inthe back garden over the fence because we were playing and she told us we shouldn't play because granddad had just died, but even though we'd seen it, we said, You're lying, he didn't, then we cried. It was all too much.

Later on in life my cousin died through drug use, heroin, when he was 27, I was 21.
I went to see him too but did not have the bond I had with my granddad, and nor did I love him the way I did my grandfather, and I was now 21, he died 2 days before I returned from India, where I watched bodies being burned on open funeral pyres along the Ganges River in the holy city of Varanasi.
As we stood there, the people cried, laughed, played music, danced and that bit shocked me coming from Europe where the logical counterpart of life, is death, but where it is always hidden as though it is something to be ashamed of almost, everything in black and well, in India, everything was in white, with the body wrapped in white sheeting, flowers and the fragrant scents of incense wafting everywhere, bells ringing, chanting of Holy Words.
So you are very close to it all and it is very realistic, there's no hiding, you can see the shape of the human being.

Then it is placed on a fire, the fire lit by the oldest son if there is one.

It's all very honest and I found out that this helps people to get through it far better, not because of the physical actions alone but because of the type of thinking, the concepts of life and death and the supposed or believed purpose(s) to life for each individual and for all of us equally.

The equal bit related directly to what we are here for, as individuals, on the Wheel of Life, where when a person dies, it is that person on his/her Wheel of Life, working out his or her karma. And as reincarnation is the concept then what one did in thought and action defined and determines what things a person still needs to get through as to learning on earth in Earthly Incarnations before reaching true enlightenment.

None of what Hindus believe in their range of concepts may be what it is, but it sure does help deal with life and death in a way that is accepting, accepting that the thing that goes with salt is pepper and the thing that goes with life is death.
The degrees and lengths to which Western society has people going who simply cannot even conceive of thinking that they are meant to die one day, my god, no, everyone is stretching their faces trying to exist forever as Eternal Youth, my oh my, when I was a child, without anyone telling me to, I found the elderly to be beautiful, just like the way I loved my granddad’s big ears, etc.
People are being trained to un-know/unlearn natural things and to become some type of monsters who have no idea of love anymore.

In a way, Meredith became a victim of the insanity in this world, in this case, that adherent to not knowing how love really is or how it works and why.

Me I'd just started hitch-hiking and taking buses and arrived in Asia but I can’t say I was greatly interested in religion, no not at all, in fact, I actively disliked the stuff, however, seeing these things in a different culture I couldn't help but learn things and have my ideas altered.

There we were then, all of this singing, dancing, laughing, crying and someone next to me, and an Indian that I knew from his shop up the street, where he sold fine silks and everything, was busy sorting out some European freak with some morphine. I was disgusted, but to him, it was just another way to make money.

However the dancing, and laughing was the thing that at first formed an affront to my Western sense of decency. It was then that another European said, Listen, here you see, they believe in reincarnation and that though they are sad, the way they see it is that the person who has died would not like to think that his/her death has made everyone only sad, because they believe death to be a release, where the spirit does not die but is reincarnated and that after death the spirit is with the Great Mother in the sky. As this is the case, then this is seen as something to be very happy about.
So they laugh, cry, dance and sing.

At least that's what I saw but I do not know how far this goes if there is a tragedy, still, maybe I do know and maybe such is the strength of conviction afforded by these concepts that everyone grows up therewith that they can overcome the greatest grief, because the grieving we all feel is mostly felt at the physical level, it's the presence that is no more, the physicality, but if one truly sees existence as more than only physical, and that ultimate intelligence and being is bedded in the spirit, the invisible spirit, like atoms are too , invisible then this idea leaves far more open to a sense of wonder and openness to learning about the Universe we all live in.

After 6 months my dad died, I had seen he was going to die only at the time I saw it, which was when I had my first and last pint of beer with him in a pub, just me and him, down the pub as a British thing for a father and son to do, I had not realised exactly what I was seeing, or I did and I didn't want to see it. I saw his aura, saw it moving, his form changed and I saw, in a vision as we sat sipping beer, his being change from the young man of 46 to the old man of 80.
My mind and my entire being was so open after 2 trips overland to India and Nepal in which I aspired to becoming a renunciate, a Saddhu, without possessions, etc, bound for a spiritual life, that I simply WAS seeing, the very thing I had been trying to do, consciously so, I wanted to be a SEER, and then I truly was seeing, had been seeing (not looking, seeing with the 7th Chakra or Tilak = seat of consciousness) but not in the way, with this, that I had imagined or of course wanted to be.

So I did not think anything, a sentence just popped into my brain, it said, He's going to die.

With this I didn't feel like drinking, didn't feel like sharing the peanuts, could hardly concentrate on continuing our conversation on World Politics and the motives of Russia and America in what they did as I now felt nauseous and tried to banish this from my field of experience at that moment.

I'd been enjoying how my father listened to me and had said he'd get that book I told him about, by Prince Norodom Sihanouk which explained, from his view, what had been going on in Vietnam and Cambodia when without declaring war, America had been unloading B52s containing bombs filled with glass and Agent Orange into Cambodia, across the border, as American secret services had decided that attacks and so on were being launched from within Cambodia.

Anyway, I doubt my dad got to read about that.

My dad was a communist politician (never got many votes of course) and he spent all his time trying to improve things for working people but in that he failed to make my mother happy, as she was into being a housewife, having a family and growing up as one of 15 kids had already known during the war as a child what it was to have not.

My dad as an only child did intend good but he expected my mother to support him. In this he was actually very dictatorial. I understand all of the reasons why people like these did and felt what they did.

When he did die 2 weeks later I was no shocked at the news of his death as much as the thought that returned to my head the one I'd tried desperately to banish, this: He is going to die. I'd told myself I was nuts, stop thinking such nonsense. But it was my inner voice telling me and I'd ignored it.

As I still did not know the difference between voices in the head and the inner voice of guidance.

I went to see him, the pain I'd felt about my granddad, wasn't here, I had all of that Ganges India stuff in my head, and so I was knowingly thinking, it's his path, he is with the higher greater being the power that we do not grasp unless we become one with it.

Therefore his death was less hard to take for me, I did'nt, I may have been nlre upset for myself than I was for him; having experienced death in the way I had at such a tender age, I 'd built a barrier too, as no one person can continue to feel/eperience such grief repeatedly and survive it. I'd made a blockage in my being in order to not allow myself to feel as much as I already had.

Yet, if you actually do not care at all about someone, and you then murder them, how do you feel?
Will you be like I was, shocked and unable to grasp or accept it, have nightmares, wake up thinking your loved one is still there because you so want them to be, and then have it dawn on you time and again that he or she really is not coming back.
No you will not because it was not your loved one, on the contrary not even a friend and you had an argument that from your point of view you were right about and the other wrong.

I do not see that the murderer is going to feel the way I did about my granddad.

They may wake up having it dawn on them, every single day, that they really are responsible for that, and at those moments, of getting awake, it must be hard when you have all of that going on in your head and you cannot banish it as it was real and will always be real, every day, so you'll be trying to find diversionary measures and things to take your mind off it.

Even though you do try, it is always there, and you may start taking hard drugs or boozing it up, if you don’t maybe you were always just an unfeeling C and do not care, and the way I feel it is with Knox, in her mind she deals with this according to her theory that it was her that was mistreated, to her it is her grievance, it's this aggressive (chosen) conceptualization of the events in her own head that she fastidiously attaches to (desperately) it is what caused all of those horrible facial features Knox had and still has, where her guilt is spread all over her face, every fraction of an inch, no matter what she says, every millimetre of her being says that her words do not match what is going on inside her.

Her idea, her own-chosen belief that it was her that was wronged, probably is the very factor within her mind that allows her to get through her days, if she could say it directly to Sollecito and I expect she did when she got the chance alone, she'd probably say, how unfortunate it was, but that's what you get if you do that (whatever that was of course) to me (SEE PAL = aggressive, how could one after all wipe that level of aggression out of one's self, so much aggression that a murder was committed, no, of course not, it was there on display in her weird behaviour, her out of sync actions, all of it points to her not dealing with it, not allowing anything in, her aggression as to ''I am right, I was right'' made it possible for her to walk into a murder trial dressed in the most inappropriate, insensitive T-shirt imaginable with the word love scrawled across it in huge blood-red letters, what style she had then eh), so I think to Knox it was her defending herself, as her experience was that someone was against her as a person.
Knox never learned to deal with criticism and did not feel as though she belonged or was worthy, this is why she fought to be centre of attention to compensate for this malfunction.

This had absolutely nothing at all to do with Meredith and any stable individual that knows their own self well enough would not immediately go to extremes if someone outs some criticism of them in a reasonable way (it's the person that cannot deal with criticism and refuses to accept any of it for what it is that lashes out to shut the other up), but Knox's personal standing in the world where it appears to me she was far from stable, meant that any criticism of her was a truly personal attack as it is apparent and crystal clear that the life skills one would expect from well-thinking people were not learned in that family, this is precisely apparent through all of their behaviour after Meredith's murder. That's why Knox never learned those necessary skills.

To Knox it was all a battle of egos, as her ego was not healthy but overrunning.

When there is a question of overspill, it means there is a deeper problem/reason for this situation, the inflated ego is a compensatory measure where there's a question of inadequacy elsewhere, the measures are devised often automatically of course as a reaction in line with the things a person has in their mind and they serve to either not have to see this or refuse to deal with it, like admit you have problems and then set about getting help, people become abnormally defensive, like out of line and out of perspective and proportion to anything that is actually going down.

That is Knox in my view.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Tue May 01, 2012 3:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks for sharing, Zorba. Hugs to the young self inside you that carried the grief and guilt of losing your grandpa.
What you discuss here is very profound, and very true. Dealing with loss and grief is an individual thing.
However, when viewed from the outside, there is always a context to it. Whether it be because of religious or cultural beliefs, or just because of your past experiences, you will be inclined to behave in certain ways, to feel certain things, and it won't always be where the other guy is coming from.
My daughter, for example, was in her teens when she lost a 14 year old cousin on her father's side. The young man was experimenting for the first time with 'huffing'. It was a tragedy of the most horrific kind.
There was a memorial, which my daughter attended with her father. She came home, grieving and infuriated. She shared with me that the memorial was attended by classmates, some of whom were hysterical, crying over the loss of their best friend. Some of them made extreme spectacles of themselves. My daughter insisted that some of the mourners had actually been quite dismissive of him in life, and others barely knew him.
My daughter swore that she would never attend another, and, to this day, hasn't. But, knowing that this is our cultural norm, she would make sure to contact family members with condolences, and, at a later time, explain that it was a fault of hers for not attending.
I think that's the point, here. While people grieved and experienced shock over Meredith's murder, Knox's behavior during this period has no acceptable, explanable reference. No religious backing, no cultural explanation. Nothing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Thanks for sharing, Zorba. Hugs to the young self inside you that carried the grief and guilt of losing your grandpa.
What you discuss here is very profound, and very true. Dealing with loss and grief is an individual thing.
However, when viewed from the outside, there is always a context to it. Whether it be because of religious or cultural beliefs, or just because of your past experiences, you will be inclined to behave in certain ways, to feel certain things, and it won't always be where the other guy is coming from.
My daughter, for example, was in her teens when she lost a 14 year old cousin on her father's side. The young man was experimenting for the first time with 'huffing'. It was a tragedy of the most horrific kind.
There was a memorial, which my daughter attended with her father. She came home, grieving and infuriated. She shared with me that the memorial was attended by classmates, some of whom were hysterical, crying over the loss of their best friend. Some of them made extreme spectacles of themselves. My daughter insisted that some of the mourners had actually been quite dismissive of him in life, and others barely knew him.
My daughter swore that she would never attend another, and, to this day, hasn't. But, knowing that this is our cultural norm, she would make sure to contact family members with condolences, and, at a later time, explain that it was a fault of hers for not attending.
I think that's the point, here. While people grieved and experienced shock over Meredith's murder, Knox's behavior during this period has no acceptable, explainable reference. No religious backing, no cultural explanation. Nothing.



Thank you too Napia for listening.

I had to look huffing up. Mmm, that's bad.

That about your daughter, I get that, when my cousin died, like as with others I'd known who had died, I wanted to be there, show respect, be kind, but with my cousin, his parents - my aunt and uncle, older brother one of them, of my mother - were a couple I became aware of, so they were not only aunt an uncle, I saw them as I grew older for what they were and they were very unpleasant. I knew m cousin was truly wrecked yet I did get why he felt so hard inside and needed the drugs, his parents always went out, gave the kids a pile of sweeties/candy and left them too it, thy should never have been left alone, and they were not given love, or proper food really.
Being at the funeral was hard, as I started despising these two. What my aunt did, one afternoon I happened to be there at her door, it was just around the corner, so saw this stuff) was laugh and joke around with those pals of his who even I knew were part of his bad trip, his colleague heroin addicts. He had blood poisoning, he was in intensive care, the nurses had been instructed to keep his so-called pals out, but they got in, an as he lay there hanging onto life by a thread, they gave him heroin. An he died.

The way that stupid woman was stood there only a few days after his death joking around with these shits upset me. What upset me more though, was that she decided she would try to make a few bob off of selling his very few possessions, he liked nice things but was always selling them, and this was why a year or two or three prior to his death I had to break away from him as he tapped all my money, kept offering me stuff, always under its value but I didn't have endless money either. One night I dreamt of a huge syringe in multicolour and it was so vivid, that's when I got scared and kept well out of his way. Yes, auntie tried to sell me his boots for 3 pounds, an insane person.
My uncle, I really came to dislike him, all my uncles you see, has the Elvis hair and so on, and there were so many I could never remember all their names but when they dropped by it was great to be given money by all of them, I got rich when they dropped by, i was 2 months pocket-money all in one go. Yes, uncle Frank what h did, was butcher his son's pet rabbit on a Sunday afternoon, and try to feed it to him, mocking him, laughing as the kid could not even cry anymore, dear old uncle, who my mum had left me with for an hour or two, kept asking, do you like rabbit. I could have done with something to eat and as I'd never eaten that I said I don't know, maybe. And each time I said something like that my poor older cousin Stephen broke down crying, I noticed each time my uncle asked if I was hungry or if I liked rabbit my cousin cried, I could not work it out as I was only about 3 or something.

Many years later, in fact, around the time my cousin, the older one Michael, died, I suddenly had this event which I'd never understood, come back to m, at that point I did understand what had taken place and was truly disgusted at my uncle. Next time he dropped by and was all matey with me, I ignored him.

Based on this type of thing and all of my life experience I reckon I can say that I do have insight into things because I have not lived a sheltered life, I can sense stuff at a very deep level, as my own intentions even when I lost track, were always good, I can say I know how people can be, this is why I feel I can sense this dysfunction that has taken place in Knox's life.

About the inner voice, instead of ignoring it I've tried to nurture it, as it's the connection to the transcendental part, where you are like a dog in being able to pick up on stuff no matter what words are being said your guy feeling says woo, this is dangerous, this is not okay, stuff like that, it's kind of the higher part of a person, where the mind doesn't get in the way but in fact gets overruled. The mind is part of it, as to learning and processing things but then there's the result and I think it's that finely tuned sensibility that we all should have but do not because of being conditioned to be superficial.

That about your daughter keeping away, I really get that, get it because of how I came to see my very own uncle and aunt, where they were all so sorry when their son died but where they had been horrible parents.

The son abused by his dad, my cousin, the animal lover, went on to move far away, to Cornwall where he runs a farm.
He had a lot of personal problems but having remembered that Sunday afternoon I greatly understood why that perhaps was.

As we said kids may get spoiled; slaughtering their pets is not the way to teach them what is hard (like they all went through the war so thought that their kids didn't know what it was like to have hard times; uncle would thus teach his son a lesson, mockingly).

I often wondered if the hard streak in my mother's branch of the family tree had to do with there having been such a lot of kids. My mother is almost schizoid in the mix between incredible helpfulness and kindness to the aggressive part of her as a woman in a man's world, a woman from London with all of those older brothers and where her tongue could cut through iron.

My book not yet arrived, going to see if I can remember where I ordered it and when I can expect it.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse


Last edited by zorba on Tue May 01, 2012 4:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I think that's the point, here. While people grieved and experienced shock over Meredith's murder, Knox's behavior during this period has no acceptable, explanable reference. No religious backing, no cultural explanation. Nothing.



Exactly, the only explanation for their behaviour is guilt.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I think that's the point, here. While people grieved and experienced shock over Meredith's murder, Knox's behavior during this period has no acceptable, explanable reference. No religious backing, no cultural explanation. Nothing.



Exactly, the only explanation for their behaviour is guilt.


Well, at least we know the explanation for their behaviour can't be innocence, zorba and Napia5. Yet that is what the groupies can't seem to get their heads around. Because all the signs are that they are also, borderline psychotic. The level of denial is truly staggering.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And thanks for sharing your life experiences too, zorba and Napia5. It's not a coincidence that so many of us who share this cause for Meredith Kercher have similar experiences and reasons that may have brought us here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I think that's the point, here. While people grieved and experienced shock over Meredith's murder, Knox's behavior during this period has no acceptable, explanable reference. No religious backing, no cultural explanation. Nothing.



Exactly, the only explanation for their behaviour is guilt.


Well, at least we know the explanation for their behaviour can't be innocence, zorba and Napia5. Yet that is what the groupies can't seem to get their heads around. Because all the signs are that they are also, borderline psychotic. The level of denial is truly staggering.



Ha ha, that's very polite of you to put it that way around, it means the same only it sounds way kinder than what I said.

It cannot be innocence.

I agree.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
And thanks for sharing your life experiences too, zorba and Napia5. It's not a coincidence that so many of us who share this cause for Meredith Kercher have similar experiences and reasons that may have brought us here.



Thank you Ergon, I agree, my including real things is to show that bone of us are perfect, that we do have real life experiences which include painful things, sad stuff, everything, happiness joy, but the reason we say what we do is because we do then share human things and do now too when something is not right, it isn't like we were all cotton wooled through life.
That's why also, I can touch on things, situations, circumstances that relate to what I pick up on in this case where the realistic ways things take place in life, took place in the killer's lives, they cannot find a way back though, they cannot or will not admit it was a heap of shit that caused Meredith's murder, that it was based ion nothing, nothing except tempers, temperaments, etc. It is not some unheard of thing that went on, from out of space, it was the usual, ego tripping, feeling unloved, feeling as though you do not belong, and the dangers that entails with people who are suffering with suchlike.

It's terrible to hope for it but I really do hope for breakdown, breakdowns will do these people good.

Okay Knox is a female and people may think well even if she did murder someone and is walking around in the community she will not do it again, maybe not, but, what about Sollecito, is the idea the same, he male and with blood on his hands, just how twisted is he?
I feel Knox's brand may even be unleashed upon her own family some time, and my what will they then do when she freaks out, I expect this getting way from the family is part of that, so there will be little opportunity for her inner angers to spill out onto them, can the same be said later on down the line in relation to other people?

All as I know is that matters as serious as these can't just disappear, the anger that caused Knox to lose her head, how can that position have changed, how can she have healed.
Where is the medicine, where is the coaching, where is the counselling? Nowhere, as they 'demanded' that she was innocent.
Maybe she'll suffocate her own baby.

I know I would not leave mine around her.

Started writing to the students organisations in Verona yesterday, to warn them that they have a person who is still involved in a trial involving murder and rape, sure, it's a duty to do so.
What if someone else gets murdered.
And even if not, I think this man is getting off way too easily, new life in a new place my backside.

Let him take the stand, let him come up with one thing that is convincing, he never did and he was a coward in court standing up only to make spontaneous statements which are not equal to the things submitted on the stand.
The spontaneous statements are actually pretty meaningless/worthless.

They played a game, and if he had taken the stand, their lies would have been blasted right out of the cloudy water.

_________________
Ignorantia juris non excusa ~
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
And thanks for sharing your life experiences too, zorba and Napia5. It's not a coincidence that so many of us who share this cause for Meredith Kercher have similar experiences and reasons that may have brought us here.

Nope, no coincidence here. It's simple for me. I'm here because the truth is here. In the evidence, in the Kerchers, and in the posters who share here.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 10 of 12 [ 2981 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

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

  

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


28,914,492 Views