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


Last visit was: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:33 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:33 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 6:55 pm   Post subject: ANOTHER ANGRY 20 YR OLD PSYCHOTIC   

Look at her photo, brrr.

I posted recently on both PMF's about the similarities between Amanda Knox and Toronto's very own 20 yr old psychotic person of the female variety, Michelle Liard.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/117 ... elle-liard

She has just been acquitted of first degree murder, though her boyfriend, Rafal Lasota (coincidence or what?) was convicted of the brutal knife killing of little Aleksandra Firgin-Hewie.

Michelle wrote a story fantasizing about killing a young blonde girl with a knife.
She covered up for her boy friend during the actual murder. Prevented relatives from entering the room, saying he was 'moving furniture'.
Helped move the body, washed his bloody clothes.
The judge directed the jury that it could not be a conspiracy to murder, and that Lasota could well have been the sole killer.
Hmm.
Looking into her eyes, I see a killer. Likewise, with Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

"Meredith" just arrived. I'll return when I'm finished.
Kiddies are going to have to deal with 'take-out' tonight. God bless 'em.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Mine is on a slow boat from Blighty, so I'm glad I got Kindle.
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 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
"Meredith" just arrived. I'll return when I'm finished.
Kiddies are going to have to deal with 'take-out' tonight. God bless 'em.


Glad you got your book, I checked my order out, it only says, Being Dealt With, words like these anyhow.
Would be nice if it arrives soon.
Hey, is take-out, as in, out of the freezer, etc, into the microwave or is that the same as take-away food?

_________________
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 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Mine is on a slow boat from Blighty, so I'm glad I got Kindle.



I didn't even know what a kindle was, had been thinking it was an online download, saw then that it is an actual device and not too cheap, also saw that it's possible to download without a kindle but this option also only via credit cards.

At my location, there is a system available (nationally) that is way better than credit cards, and it works with online banking, it is, I reckon, far more secure than credit cards too.

The booksellers in England understood my frustration, that I expressed, in relation to having only one option, that of credit cards, they offered me some other way with banking, didn't know exactly what she meant, but by that time I'd ordered here, what with shipping costs seems the prices are similar.

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


Last edited by zorba on Wed May 02, 2012 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zprba wrote:
I didn't even know what a kindle was, had ben thinking it was an online download, saw then that it is an actual device and not too cheap, also saw that it's possible to download without a kindle but this option also only via credit cards.


Well, it can be either or. You can buy a portable kindle reader and you can then buy the Kindle e-book and download it onto that. Or as well as or alternatively, you can download the free kindle software for PC and use that to read downloaded kindle e-books. It works just the same, only it means you can only use it to read your e-book on your PC or laptop. You can download it here: http://www.filehippo.com/download_kindle_for_pc/

_________________
"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: Wed May 02, 2012 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Amanda Knox prosecutors investigated for Meredith Kercher "murder video"
Same news about the video. This article says the prosecutors could pay the money back. I doubt that. Maybe they could get a fine? It also says 'The British National Audit Office is investigating the prosecutors'. Sloppy.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 12:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Err...the British National Audit Office has no jurisdiction in Italy. What have the people at CBS been smoking?

There'll be no punishment for Mignini and Comodi unless they have broken rules. Is there an allegation that they have actually broken any rules and if so, what rules are they alleged to have broken?

It seems more likely to me, that the investigation is little more then a fishing expedition to see 'if' any rules have been broken, rather then a response to any specific evidence that they have been.

_________________
"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: Wed May 02, 2012 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Zprba wrote:
I didn't even know what a kindle was, had ben thinking it was an online download, saw then that it is an actual device and not too cheap, also saw that it's possible to download without a kindle but this option also only via credit cards.


Well, it can be either or. You can buy a portable kindle reader and you can then buy the Kindle e-book and download it onto that. Or as well as or alternatively, you can download the free kindle software for PC and use that to read downloaded kindle e-books. It works just the same, only it means you can only use it to read your e-book on your PC or laptop. You can download it here: http://www.filehippo.com/download_kindle_for_pc/



Thank you Michael.

An online download would suit me, I prefer reading from a screen.
Meantime, or for the time being, I'll make do with a book and I want the book as I want to support John and family.
Must have been awfully gut wrenching for Mr Kercher to write.
God bless Mr Kercher and his family.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted

_________________
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 May 02, 2012 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Err...the British National Audit Office has no jurisdiction in Italy. What have the people at CBS been smoking?

There'll be no punishment for Mignini and Comodi unless they have broken rules. Is there an allegation that they have actually broken any rules and if so, what rules are they alleged to have broken?

It seems more likely to me, that the investigation is little more then a fishing expedition to see 'if' any rules have been broken, rather then a response to any specific evidence that they have been.



I wonder what kind of nonsense this is now.
Hardly a crime overspending when trying to make your case and prove the guilt of killers.

_________________
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: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 1:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Amanda Knox prosecutors investigated for Meredith Kercher "murder video"
Same news about the video. This article says the prosecutors could pay the money back. I doubt that. Maybe they could get a fine? It also says 'The British National Audit Office is investigating the prosecutors'. Sloppy.


And this is what journalists call 'fact checking'.
The original Nick Squires article (Telegraph May 01) called it the National Audit Office, then CBS added "British".

Old story anyway. The Berlusconi papers were going on about it last year, so I guess they'll investigate. If you haven't seen the video yet, do. Worth every penny.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 10:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
And this is what journalists call 'fact checking'.
The original Nick Squires article (Telegraph May 01) called it the National Audit Office, then CBS added "British".


It's because CBS were in such a rush to leap on the story, so eager were they to throw mud at the Italians, just as they always have been in regard to this case. Who cares about fact checking when the agenda is so much more important?!

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 11:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Everyone,

For those of you who may occassionally find yourselves confused about what accounts of the murder were given by Rudy Guede and when, I have posted up an overview in the 'Rudy Hermann Guede' thread in the 'In their Own Words' reference section. It is the section from his High Court Motivations Report that catalogues them in chronological order. However, it should be noted that the overview does NOT include the account he entered in his 'German Prison Diary', a translation of which can be found in the same thread. Here is the direct link: RUDY'S VERSIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE COTTAGE

_________________
"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: Wed May 02, 2012 12:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Shock or not - continued

Sollecito may have seen a dead body in his life, that of his mother.
Knox may never have seen one.
It's quite something to actually come to terms with a dead person.
A child's experience, like mine was, is influenced by a lack of real knowledge and understanding of those things. Even if you think you know what it is, the reality when it is there right in front of you, makes things happen inside, the main one for young an old, no matter what, is the confrontation with personal mortality.

This especially in Western culture where everything in life, just about, is designed to deviate from the reality of the fact that we are not, as physical being, immortal.

The severity of this, the degree to which it now permeates Western society is great/high, and the way it can do this in Western society, cannot be replicated, not always, in other types of societies, not to the same level of brainwashing that takes place in our Western societies, the ultimate in this, is the non-acceptance of age or ageing, and the identification with self-worth in appearance, this leads to people redesigning their bodies, continually having parts changed, shaped, lifted, tucked, sucked and when one embarks on such a course then there can be no end to it.

Maybe it is okay, who am I to say, only what concerns me is that it is a thing, a condition in Western society showing that people cannot deal with life and death in a natural way.

Instead of seeing ageing as a natural and beautiful thing too - aside from illness then, which I would say, in the case of illness having operations for those illnesses is a good thing when needed - it is seen as a thing that should not exist and if you are not young then you do not really belong, you have less value.
Everything thus today, revolves around youth, as if youth is the only thing that counts that is worthy, truthfully and realistically speaking there are so many ways to define ugliness and beauty.

There then you have Knox, let's suppose they are guilty to help us see how they would have/could have been, stood there with a dying Meredith on the floor.

If one has not made a habit of killing people, it is a new experience, as I outlined yesterday, the elements and influential factors like feeling something for the person hurt, or loving them, in Meredith's case obviously never were part of her killer's feelings or reactions, they would though have had to deal with what their own hands had destroyed. Seeing as how they were not habitual and repeat murderers, they could not face looking at Meredith, and that explains why they covered her up.

Sollecito being WITH Knox, was certainly more under her influence, even against his own habits and feelings, it means he would have been as much as a dummy in that part, doing what she said, being with her, to try to please her.

Guede on the other hand, though he took a knife from a drawer in a premises he entered to get shelter for the night in a big city, took it with the idea of being able to protect himself, he was in no way used to knives like Sollecito was, who must have been what can be termed a knife expert. He knew the different models, the brands, the prices, their uses, everything, it was his thing: knives.

Even though Guede became part of the abuse against Meredith, what I'm getting is that even though he did, when it turned into the type of savagery that it did, it happened so fast that it shocked Guede, and he not being under Knox's control to the degree Sollecito was, his Italian-ness, caused him, pushed him, to help Meredith before realising it was hopeless.

I cannot imagine Guede being so nasty that he'd truly want to harm a female that way, but I do see him as someone after sex.

Sollecito egged on by Knox's voice and her temper, lost touch with any of what was his better character.
The anger, the rage needed to make one go from being a male who liked women and one who would have no reason to be angry at Meredith, could not have gotten into Sollecito's mind the way it would need to, even if Knox ordered him to stab Meredith, I cannot see him doing that, I can see him taking her side, but everything points to it being Knox who was the one so angry that she wanted to hurt Meredith so much, and Knox's problem was a female thing, a jealousy causing rage that men do not have in that combination or composed that way, as they are not competing with women, some men may hurt, harm, kill women but not for reasons of rage caused by jealousy and battles about being the Queen Bee; forever competing.

It was a competition in Knox's head and Knox was like this because she had self-esteem issues and did not feel worthy, that's why other women stronger (in balance and stable) than she was, affected her and angered her and so she engaged in battle with them, by always trying to draw attention to herself to compensate for the things she herself lacked. This then allows a person to feel better/bigger, it is something that needs constant refuelling.

To other women it was not like that, it was all in Knox's head, they tried to be nice but it did not work, as she did not let anyone in.

This is why I think it was Knox that stabbed Meredith Kercher to death as the culmination of these battles going on in Knox's head.

Criticism was to Knox unacceptable, it was because she had never learned from anyone that sometimes it is normal in this world for others to disagree with something you say or do, and if this dislike is worded and brought to you in a certain (constructive) way, that you should/could consider it, and see for yourself what it means to you if anything, and you may decide it is not true, you may because you know that what was said is not the way it is (it's not you and you know who you are and why), but you should not immediately get angry at someone that has a different point of view to your one, after all they may simply wish to help you and still be friends and listen to you too if you say that there is something you don't like about them, you might decide it's true and try to change it, and remain friends, become even better friends.

The reason I think Knox got angry, was that she was unwilling to accept criticism, mainly because the criticism was true, and she did not like seeing that about herself, so blamed Meredith and others.

All of what Knox's supporters have done is inspired by this dysfunctional thinking of Knox and the supporters have been exactly like her, mainly grossly unreasonable and angry and unaccepting of anything but their own viewpoints, which is not as much view as indoctrination bordering on dogma, where they dictate and force others through abuse, to shut up.

This anger seemed to remain etched into her features, long after Meredith's death, long, long after, even now, it's almost as though I can see her thoughts, the ones that create her attitude, the one that allows her to get through her days; as long as she sees it that way, she can never feel regret, never feel bad about herself, she needs it to be that way.

It was not the way she wanted it to be but then Meredith should not have .....

That's what Knox said:
1/ it was not the way she had wanted it to be
2/ if it had been up to her Meredith would not have died

So was she saying it was up to Sollecito?
Guede?
Others?

Or up to Meredith?
Was it, in Knox's head, Meredith's fault for making Knox have to fight her?

So that this means that to Knox, if she spoke to Meredith, she might then say: Well, I told you, and you shouldn't have done that then to me.

In Knox's mind, Meredith did something, and that something, in Knox's head at least (and nowhere else), was the cause, the reason Meredith brought it upon herself.

You should have done this then, you shouldn't have done that then, I can't help it, it's your own fault, see what you get, don't mess with me!

I'm sorry but that is the only way, in realistic terms, that I can see it as it is, and as it was, this is the look I see written all over Knox it explains too the words she said and failed to say.

When did either Knox or Sollecito react in a way anyone else would who actually gave a shit, when did they lose their rag and react and say oh my god , no, no it cannot be, Meredith, no.

Nope, they never did, as they were not in any state of shock ever, not in the usual ways, they were not shocked when Meredith was found feet away from them, thy were not because they already knew all about it. If they hadn't and had given a shit, they'd have sprung up and have been uncontrollable freaked out.
Their reactions were conjured up and in no way resembled anyone that cared.
They should have been freaked out, even Sollecito, should have been concerned, shocked, no, they wasn't were they, they went off to have sexy time, they needed after all to have their lives, to live, they needed to get THEIR lives back.

Yes and who didn't???
What a distasteful thing to say; in light of what happened one ought to shut one's cake hole, it goes, after all, without saying that we who are alive must live, only when you've been involved in a murder one way or the other, the horror of what happened should tell you to shut up saying certain things.

Here they couldn't as they are still off their heads and couldn't get it right if they tried.
DUH......................

Oh, my granny just died, erhum, I must get my life back....
Granddad just got robbed and stabbed to death,.. mmm, yes, now let me get my life back.
Very classy, you are most sensitve to the feelings of others. NOT!

Anyhow, what goes around comes around, and what you give out you get back multiplied, if I am angry very angry then whose fault is that? I'd say those that murdered Meredith.
If they had a right to be angry, and murdered, then I who have murdered nobody have the right to be angry 1 million times more than they ever will be. They think they've pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, they've shattered an elderly gentleman, ruined HIS life, he isn't getting it back any time soon is he, they've torn a family to pieces an they need to be put into prison.
Even when and if they are it won't make it right, it will not get back what is lost, it will not save they themselves from their inner demons.

Who are they kidding, they're going to suffer, and it will be all their OWN fault.
Unlike them, nobody wanted to be wicked towards them and nobody is or has been, it's just seeing two murderers get off with murder and then profit from it too, is just too much to fathom or accept, ever.

Nope, they withdrew in the cottage at the moment the door was being barged in, much like with feather-pressure, a kick, and a shoulder barge and it was open, and they, Knox and Sollecito, want us to believe one minute that it was normal for Meredith to lock her door so no reason for concern, and the very next minute, Knox was writing to half the world - 23 emails -explaining how she was so worried, and at the very same moment, Sollecito had been explaining how he'd tried to get Meredith's door open, Good god if the pair of them had taken the stand together any right-minded juror, judge, lay judge would have known that what they had said was all a crock of shit as nothing fitted, what they said was impossible, it was either one thing or the other but with those two nothing was compatible, not one story from Knox fitted one story fro m Sollecito. Remember they had a number of versions, but none that tallied with one another's versions. A mother would have known in no time at all, and sent both children off to bed for telling lies, however, this was murder.

So the door was opened with a shoulder barge, the door not being made fro m reinforced steel plating, but a non-solid type of modern door, the wood tore and the door opened easily, and there lay Meredith in a pool of blood.

The door never opened when Sollecito supposedly tried because he never did try, if he had he would have opened it, and that would mean he would h ave found Meredith, but he did not need to find Meredith, as he knew already that she was in there, dead, in exactly the same way as he and Knox had left her, this is all supposing they are guilty, and I suppose/think that they are... definitely.



Book has been dispatched - hooray

_________________
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 May 02, 2012 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Hi Everyone,

For those of you who may occassionally find yourselves confused about what accounts of the murder were given by Rudy Guede and when, I have posted up an overview in the 'Rudy Hermann Guede' thread in the 'In their Own Words' reference section. It is the section from his High Court Motivations Report that catalogues them in chronological order. However, it should be noted that the overview does NOT include the account he entered in his 'German Prison Diary', a translation of which can be found in the same thread. Here is the direct link: RUDY'S VERSIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE COTTAGE


Michael, not only was this an excellent idea, it was an excellent idea that you did this NOW. I've stated earlier that I believe the new PR position appears to be "compassion for the Kerchers, but push Guede as Lone Wolf."
Anyone stopping by to read or check facts now will have easy access to Guede's statements, and more readily understand what was actually being said during this early part of the investigation.

I have finished John Kercher's wonderful book. (more on that later), but I did note one thing. John Kercher was not happy about Guede receiving only 16 years for the murder of his beautiful daughter. On page 243, he states:
" Even so, his sentence was reduced to twenty-four years, and because a fast-track trial allows a third of that sentence to be cut, he was finally sentenced to sixteen years in jail. This was almost half the sentence he had originally been handed, a fact that seemed unfair to me and my family."
No wonder the FOAKERS are out in force, and no wonder they are afraid of John Kercher's book. The myths and spin will fall away.
In recent months, the spin has been presented that, in the Kerchers' almost rabid desire to go after Knox, they appear to almost forget about Guede and his part in the murder. This is totally false. More later.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
In recent months, the spin has been presented that, in the Kerchers' almost rabid desire to go after Knox, they appear to almost forget about Guede and his part in the murder. This is totally false. More later.


It is absolutely unreal the amount and nature of the utter nonsense the FOAKers have written about the Kerchers and is quite frankly...utterly callous. This is why I regard most of them, with a very few exceptions, as vile. Pathetic examples of human beings, if ever there were.

The fact is neither the Kerchers, nor anybody else, needs to 'go after' Guede as he's been convicted and is serving his sentence in jail. That cannot be said for the other vicious little killers.

_________________
"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: Wed May 02, 2012 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Zorba, as always, you get little things swirling around in the back of my mind.
IF we believe that an argument began about Meredith's money, according to Guede, Meredith found her money missing.
If we believe that money was a factor, and Meredith found it missing, IF it started with this, Meredith knew Knox and Sollecito BOTH were at the cottage as she left. Knox would not have had to goad Sollecito into anything. He would already have been in the soup with Meredith. She would have remembered the two of them as she left that day. They were the last ones there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Prosecutors probed over £150,000 video meant to prove Knox's guilt
Officials accused of wasting public funds on cartoonish re-enactment of Kercher murder

MICHAEL DAY


Quote:
Now, in a further embarrassment to Ms Comodi and Mr Mignini, both of whom staked their reputation on the case, the Umbria audit court prosecutor Agostino Chiappiniello has said he suspects the two of inappropriately spending €182,000 (£148,000) on a crude and cartoonish 20-minute video, which purports to show events leading up to and including the brutal slaying. It was shown during the original 2009 trial, which saw Ms Knox jailed for 26 years and Mr Sollecito for 25 years.


INDEPENDENT

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The Cook is off again on her Smog: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2012/ ... ehind-him/

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

And that idiot 'Denver' has another purile conspiraloon Ground Report rant: http://www.groundreport.com/World/AMAND ... ay/2945788

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
In recent months, the spin has been presented that, in the Kerchers' almost rabid desire to go after Knox, they appear to almost forget about Guede and his part in the murder. This is totally false. More later.


It is absolutely unreal the amount and nature of the utter nonsense the FOAKers have written about the Kerchers and is quite frankly...utterly callous. This is why I regard most of them, with a very few exceptions, as vile. Pathetic examples of human beings, if ever there were.

The fact is neither the Kerchers, nor anybody else, needs to 'go after' Guede as he's been convicted and is serving his sentence in jail. That cannot be said for the other vicious little killers.


Yeah, and they don't like getting called on it. In the latest Huffington Post thread I wrote about the video, that it was nice, and it disproved the groupies argument about how small the room was it wouldn't allow three attackers in. I said it showed how the swarming attack on Meredith Kercher was reflected in the swarming attack on John Kercher in that thread, and how they might reflect on what that said about them. That comment was flagged and deleted. "Katody Matrass" or "Jack Butler 5555" can't 'debate', snivelling FOAK'rs that they are.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Quote:
Yeah, and they don't like getting called on it. In the latest Huffington Post thread I wrote about the video, that it was nice, and it disproved the groupies argument about how small the room was it wouldn't allow three attackers in. I said it showed how the swarming attack on Meredith Kercher was reflected in the swarming attack on John Kercher in that thread, and how they might reflect on what that said about them. That comment was flagged and deleted. "Katody Matrass" or "Jack Butler 5555" can't 'debate', snivelling FOAK'rs that they are.


You could also mention that during the trial, when the court visited the cottage, nine court officials entered Meredith's room and were all in there together quite comfortably (with furniture still present). So much for that stupid argument.

I would also show them, that the flagging of posts goes both ways.

_________________
"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: Wed May 02, 2012 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

There have been many posts about scenarios of how the fight started. Many are IMO possible. However, I think I am one of the few who somewhat agree with Massei that Rudy was the instigator. I do believe it was Amanda's idea for the 'joke' with the knives (and masks?) but I just don't see how Rudy would find that funny if he hadn't a reason of his own. It is Amanda who explains that 'he wanted her and went to her room'. I believe there was some truth in that.

Then a witness heard a loud argument from the direction of the cottage between a woman and a man in Italian. Amanda's Italian was not so good at that time. Meredith's Italian was good. I think that Meredith was mad at Rudy because he came to her room and she wanted none of that. So I believe that he was the one who started fighting that night (one of the reasons why he is not going to tell the truth). And that is why Rudy joined the other 2. Not because he had the hots for AK who had her boyfriend right beside her, or because he was into that prank stuff. He felt rejected and was already fighting with Meredith so when Amanda came up with the 'funny prank' that was just fine with him.

If they did put on masks then I can imagine that for example RS still thought it was just for fun and harmless. It was the day after Halloween after all. But it was never funny. Maybe Meredith defended herself and hit Amanda in the nose, and RS lost it. Maybe RG's frustration of being rejected took over and he couldn't care less that Meredith was in pain and he never stopped pulling her clothes and assaulted her. Zorba can describe all the things that were wrong with AK much better than I can so no need to repeat those. Although just maybe there wasn't even all that much anger or jealousy. Maybe in AK's little world it was just 'fun'..until the end.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 4:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
There have been many posts about scenarios of how the fight started. Many are IMO possible. However, I think I am one of the few who somewhat agree with Massei that Rudy was the instigator. I do believe it was Amanda's idea for the 'joke' with the knives (and masks?) but I just don't see how Rudy would find that funny if he hadn't a reason of his own. It is Amanda who explains that 'he wanted her and went to her room'. I believe there was some truth in that.

Then a witness heard a loud argument from the direction of the cottage between a woman and a man in Italian. Amanda's Italian was not so good at that time. Meredith's Italian was good. I think that Meredith was mad at Rudy because he came to her room and she wanted none of that. So I believe that he was the one who started fighting that night (one of the reasons why he is not going to tell the truth). And that is why Rudy joined the other 2. Not because he had the hots for AK who had her boyfriend right beside her, or because he was into that prank stuff. He felt rejected and was already fighting with Meredith so when Amanda came up with the 'funny prank' that was just fine with him.

If they did put on masks then I can imagine that for example RS still thought it was just for fun and harmless. It was the day after Halloween after all. But it was never funny. Maybe Meredith defended herself and hit Amanda in the nose, and RS lost it. Maybe RG's frustration of being rejected took over and he couldn't care less that Meredith was in pain and he never stopped pulling her clothes and assaulted her. Zorba can describe all the things that were wrong with AK much better than I can so no need to repeat those. Although just maybe there wasn't even all that much anger or jealousy. Maybe in AK's little world it was just 'fun'..until the end.


Max, I think your first two sentences are really important. We all keep reading "no motive", "no reason" from the FOAKER sites. But, this is not true. We here have posted many possible scenarios, many possible motives. The fact that we do not know, for sure which is most accurate, does not detract from the fact that there ARE scenarios, there ARE motives given.
The fact that the prosecution did not know which motive was most accurate does not mean that there was 'no possible motive'. Not picking one of them does not mean there wasn't one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, and they don't like getting called on it. In the latest Huffington Post thread I wrote about the video, that it was nice, and it disproved the groupies argument about how small the room was it wouldn't allow three attackers in. I said it showed how the swarming attack on Meredith Kercher was reflected in the swarming attack on John Kercher in that thread, and how they might reflect on what that said about them. That comment was flagged and deleted. "Katody Matrass" or "Jack Butler 5555" can't 'debate', snivelling FOAK'rs that they are.


You could also mention that during the trial, when the court visited the cottage, nine court officials entered Meredith's room and were all in there together quite comfortably (with furniture still present). So much for that stupid argument.

I would also show them, that the flagging of posts goes both ways.


Not reducing myself to their level. They prove every time, that they can't debate, either there, or here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks for sharing the second part of your recollections, zorba. Yes, I think western society doesn't prepare one for death, but, I tell you no one prepares children for death.

My brother died of cancer when I was 11. Somehow I knew, so went for a walk a few moments before. When I returned home, he'd passed on. Seeing his body was the saddest thing I'd ever experienced, but, I suppressed it. Yet that began my journey to understanding of spirits and what happens after death, and, being a healer.

The other thing though, killing another human being leaves indelible scars on your soul. Those who killed Meredith Kercher will carry that around with them forever, it shows in their faces, and, it affects their families as well. The other comment on Huffington Post that never made it? That I thought it would be one of Amanda Knox's sisters who would finally, one day, 'come clean'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
There have been many posts about scenarios of how the fight started. Many are IMO possible. However, I think I am one of the few who somewhat agree with Massei that Rudy was the instigator. I do believe it was Amanda's idea for the 'joke' with the knives (and masks?) but I just don't see how Rudy would find that funny if he hadn't a reason of his own. It is Amanda who explains that 'he wanted her and went to her room'. I believe there was some truth in that.

Then a witness heard a loud argument from the direction of the cottage between a woman and a man in Italian. Amanda's Italian was not so good at that time. Meredith's Italian was good. I think that Meredith was mad at Rudy because he came to her room and she wanted none of that. So I believe that he was the one who started fighting that night (one of the reasons why he is not going to tell the truth). And that is why Rudy joined the other 2. Not because he had the hots for AK who had her boyfriend right beside her, or because he was into that prank stuff. He felt rejected and was already fighting with Meredith so when Amanda came up with the 'funny prank' that was just fine with him.

If they did put on masks then I can imagine that for example RS still thought it was just for fun and harmless. It was the day after Halloween after all. But it was never funny. Maybe Meredith defended herself and hit Amanda in the nose, and RS lost it. Maybe RG's frustration of being rejected took over and he couldn't care less that Meredith was in pain and he never stopped pulling her clothes and assaulted her. Zorba can describe all the things that were wrong with AK much better than I can so no need to repeat those. Although just maybe there wasn't even all that much anger or jealousy. Maybe in AK's little world it was just 'fun'..until the end.


Well you never know, it might be that way, somehow, perhaps that Guede went in there, and a;ready upset Meredith fast, with him taking things way too far fast, and groping, something like that but Meredith freaking at that, drawing Knox and Sollecito in turn into it, because Meredith would have been saying what the fuck he is here because of you but Knox, in her mischievousness, might, instead of helping Meredith and sorting Guede out with Sollecito, took it up against Meredith, as Meredith would have said, for God's sake what kind of people are you bringing in here.

However, the only way I can imagine Guede thinking he could barge in there and start molesting Meredith, would be because of Knox goading him on, telling him, perhaps, that Meredith liked him or something like that, telling him even, to go in there and talk to her, or whatever, like, go on, try, and then laughing and all of that nonsense in a conspirational kind of way.

How else though in that type of scenario would Guede ever have been able to think he could get away with such a thing? I suspect Knox of having operated/fuctiomed as a prick tease only to deflect that onto Meredith. So there yo u have an aroused Guede that Knox rtells, go say hello to Meredith, wink wink and other crap (childish nonsense).

_________________
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 May 02, 2012 6:34 pm   Post subject: Re: ANOTHER ANGRY 20 YR OLD PSYCHOTIC   

Ergon wrote:
Look at her photo, brrr.

I posted recently on both PMF's about the similarities between Amanda Knox and Toronto's very own 20 yr old psychotic person of the female variety, Michelle Liard.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/117 ... elle-liard

She has just been acquitted of first degree murder, though her boyfriend, Rafal Lasota (coincidence or what?) was convicted of the brutal knife killing of little Aleksandra Firgin-Hewie.

Michelle wrote a story fantasizing about killing a young blonde girl with a knife.
She covered up for her boy friend during the actual murder. Prevented relatives from entering the room, saying he was 'moving furniture'.
Helped move the body, washed his bloody clothes.
The judge directed the jury that it could not be a conspiracy to murder, and that Lasota could well have been the sole killer.
Hmm.
Looking into her eyes, I see a killer. Likewise, with Knox.


Ergon, thought you might find this interesting. I booted up Liard's picture last night. I called three of my grandkids over, covered the caption and asked them, "If you found out that this lady was going to be your teacher, what would you think about her?"
The seven year old said, "She looks happy".
The five year old immediately echoed, "Yeah, happy."
The eleven year old looked and said, "No way. She looks mad enough to hit somebody."
I asked why and got the answer: "Her eyes and her mouth. She looks mean."
This from the most compassionate, empathetic, soft-hearted one of my group.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:42 pm   Post subject: GEMATRIA   

Speaking of Amanda Knox, there's a gematria for her: http://www.gematrix.org/?word=Amanda+Knox comes out as 'satanic gematria'.
Rudy Guede http://www.gematrix.org/?word=Rudy+Guede is 'masonic symbols'
Raffaele Sollecito http://www.gematrix.org/?word=Raffaele+Solecitto 'The Illuminati' and 'Fire and Brimstone'
Hmm?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Zorba, as always, you get little things swirling around in the back of my mind.
IF we believe that an argument began about Meredith's money, according to Guede, Meredith found her money missing.
If we believe that money was a factor, and Meredith found it missing, IF it started with this, Meredith knew Knox and Sollecito BOTH were at the cottage as she left. Knox would not have had to goad Sollecito into anything. He would already have been in the soup with Meredith. She would have remembered the two of them as she left that day. They were the last ones there.



Hi Napia, glad to be keeping us thinking of these angles, if I do.

I too think Sollecito hardly needed any pushing, there's so much not right about him.

Though I do think Knox influence him and led him on with the sexual element, I see them as doing everything like a conspiracy, really a conspiracy, in everything, like how after the murder,they could be as wicked as to pin a note o the door seeking a new housemate, I reckon that was them, but if you think of it, after having committed murder it is hardly a surprise that the awful behaviour continued, even though what they did sure did take some nerve, but it is hardly as if after already murdering someone you'd suddenly display normal behaviour. So that stuff all fits in with a pattern, all in line with the first act, the murder, it fits in with that. I see them as laughing about it all together.

_________________
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 May 02, 2012 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Thanks for sharing the second part of your recollections, zorba. Yes, I think western society doesn't prepare one for death, but, I tell you no one prepares children for death.

My brother died of cancer when I was 11. Somehow I knew, so went for a walk a few moments before. When I returned home, he'd passed on. Seeing his body was the saddest thing I'd ever experienced, but, I suppressed it. Yet that began my journey to understanding of spirits and what happens after death, and, being a healer.

The other thing though, killing another human being leaves indelible scars on your soul. Those who killed Meredith Kercher will carry that around with them forever, it shows in their faces, and, it affects their families as well. The other comment on Huffington Post that never made it? That I thought it would be one of Amanda Knox's sisters who would finally, one day, 'come clean'.


Yes I agree with that, I never hurt so bad in my entire life as from trying to get over my grandfather, it took abslutely ages.


I should start by saying how sorry I am to hear that Ergon, how terrible for you, that must have been so tough, maybe even harder than losing a parent.

Also agree with and understand your thinking about their souls, mostly it's a bit too hard to explain it all as to how I know it definitely is that way, I am certain of it.

This is why I've tried in some posts to demonstrate how I (and those like me = here)
know and that it is not a matter of talking out of one's hat, not all.

I also do not wish for people to suffer. Firstly as a human being my longing is for Meredith's family to be comforted an get the answers they need.

My words may sometimes be hard, this does not mean I hate at all; it is not my problem that an individual destroys the opportunity to succeed in this life, it is not my problem or fault that such people burden their souls for countless future lives; it's their Akashic Record they cannot escape.

I would tell them where they need to go, help them, sadly, help can only be brought to them, by themselves, and they are not doing it.
Those close to them that might have been able to push them in the right direction walk the same path; when you go to the lengths they all have in order to collude with killers then you might as well have committed the murder yourself, they are no use to her or him. Just as Sollecito's parents help him to cement his feet in doom too. I mean that family did one of the most wicked things in this case, the release of the police video to a TV station, it was the same thing as the desecration of a grave, it was so cheap what they did.
It was an act of hatred.
That's the way I see it.

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

I think my book will be here tomorrow, looking forward to that.

_________________
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 May 02, 2012 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
I think my book will be here tomorrow, looking forward to that.


Zorba, you will love the book. I am having a difficult time trying to sum up my feelings about it as I read.
The best I can do is to tell you that I was appalled at the absolute intrusion into the lives of these wonderful people.
I'm not even sure 'intrusion' is the word I'm looking for, but it keeps popping into my head.
In the beginning, John Kercher shares some wonderful memories. As I read them, I could feel his loss, his grief, and some of his enjoyment in being able to share these memories. When I got to November 1, I knew what was coming, but, even knowing it, at this point in the book, I didn't want to go there. I didn't want to leave the images and memories he created. Knox and the others were intruders here. I'm still puzzling over how best to explain it.
Somebody help me out here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:


Yes I agree with that, I never hurt so bad in my entire life as from trying to get over my grandfather, it took abslutely ages.


I should start by saying how sorry I am to hear that Ergon, how terrible for you, that must have been so tough, maybe even harder than losing a parent.

Also agree with and understand your thinking about their souls, mostly it's a bit too hard to explain it all as to how I know it definitely is that way, I am certain of it.

This is why I've tried in some posts to demonstrate how I (and those like me = here)
know and that it is not a matter of talking out of one's hat, not all.

I also do not wish for people to suffer. Firstly as a human being my longing is for Meredith's family to be comforted an get the answers they need.

My words may sometimes be hard, this does not mean I hate at all; it is not my problem that an individual destroys the opportunity to succeed in this life, it is not my problem or fault that such people burden their souls for countless future lives; it's their Akashic Record they cannot escape.

I would tell them where they need to go, help them, sadly, help can only be brought to them, by themselves, and they are not doing it.
Those close to them that might have been able to push them in the right direction walk the same path; when you go to the lengths they all have in order to collude with killers then you might as well have committed the murder yourself, they are no use to her or him. Just as Sollecito's parents help him to cement his feet in doom too. I mean that family did one of the most wicked things in this case, the release of the police video to a TV station, it was the same thing as the desecration of a grave, it was so cheap what they did.
It was an act of hatred.
That's the way I see it.


Thank you, my friend. The hardest part of grief is not, expressing it, but, repressing it. I am glad for you that you were able to go to India to learn what you did.

I am sorry for those who never get to learn, but, as you say, it is recorded. Like you, I don't hate anyone.

But what they did was evil, and the worst, the most evil, was the release of that video. Responsibility for that goes to Julia Bongiorno, whose office had it. Evil.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2012 8:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
I think my book will be here tomorrow, looking forward to that.


Zorba, you will love the book. I am having a difficult time trying to sum up my feelings about it as I read.
The best I can do is to tell you that I was appalled at the absolute intrusion into the lives of these wonderful people.
I'm not even sure 'intrusion' is the word I'm looking for, but it keeps popping into my head.
In the beginning, John Kercher shares some wonderful memories. As I read them, I could feel his loss, his grief, and some of his enjoyment in being able to share these memories. When I got to November 1, I knew what was coming, but, even knowing it, at this point in the book, I didn't want to go there. I didn't want to leave the images and memories he created. Knox and the others were intruders here. I'm still puzzling over how best to explain it.
Somebody help me out here.


Thanks Napia, yes I'm sure I will, thinking now, about how you feel, suddenly realise the closeness, of reading the thins, the person, one of them, closest to Meredith, I mean, it is a relief too, after hearing so much nonsense, from so many people with some ulterior motive behind what they said, I find John's words very easy to follow, but he does put things very well into perspective.

Actually I'm glad you reminded me, aboyt how that is, to read through the dates, so I can deal with it, as it is always very upetting, even the few thins John wrote made me so upset for him and his family.
I'm glad he's been strong enough to write it.
They took advantage of the good-natured Kercher family, unlike the Knox and Mellas familie and their supporters, the Kercher's are not some kind of fiendish media hogs.

_________________
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 May 02, 2012 8:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
zorba wrote:


Yes I agree with that, I never hurt so bad in my entire life as from trying to get over my grandfather, it took abslutely ages.


I should start by saying how sorry I am to hear that Ergon, how terrible for you, that must have been so tough, maybe even harder than losing a parent.

Also agree with and understand your thinking about their souls, mostly it's a bit too hard to explain it all as to how I know it definitely is that way, I am certain of it.

This is why I've tried in some posts to demonstrate how I (and those like me = here)
know and that it is not a matter of talking out of one's hat, not all.

I also do not wish for people to suffer. Firstly as a human being my longing is for Meredith's family to be comforted an get the answers they need.

My words may sometimes be hard, this does not mean I hate at all; it is not my problem that an individual destroys the opportunity to succeed in this life, it is not my problem or fault that such people burden their souls for countless future lives; it's their Akashic Record they cannot escape.

I would tell them where they need to go, help them, sadly, help can only be brought to them, by themselves, and they are not doing it.
Those close to them that might have been able to push them in the right direction walk the same path; when you go to the lengths they all have in order to collude with killers then you might as well have committed the murder yourself, they are no use to her or him. Just as Sollecito's parents help him to cement his feet in doom too. I mean that family did one of the most wicked things in this case, the release of the police video to a TV station, it was the same thing as the desecration of a grave, it was so cheap what they did.
It was an act of hatred.
That's the way I see it.


Thank you, my friend. The hardest part of grief is not, expressing it, but, repressing it. I am glad for you that you were able to go to India to learn what you did.

I am sorry for those who never get to learn, but, as you say, it is recorded. Like you, I don't hate anyone.

But what they did was evil, and the worst, the most evil, was the release of that video. Responsibility for that goes to Julia Bongiorno, whose office had it. Evil.



Thanks Ergon. Indeed India helped me so much, it was everything I needed, had been looking for and more.
The grief suffered as a result of murder though, is not in the same realm as for instance my grief even in childhood, I mean if my granddad had been murdered, I don't think I would have ever been able to come to terms with it, this is where the Kercher's are.
They can hardly get past it and think, well, it's just life, as it was in their case, not just life, it was all of what it never should be.

As long as they do not get the real answers, they will remain with the awful torment, frustration and I'd say anger, not hatred but anger in relation to it all.
Wish Guede would turn the tables.
If he is any of what the Perugian family he lived with said he was, then it must be possible for him to get over himself and be brave and help.
Yes it was evil and it continues to be evil what they do, I did not know Bongiorno was responsible for releasing the video to the media (TV), yes, in fact, I think you're right, don't think it is a matter of procedure to give such a thing to family.
Doubt very much that she did it without the Sollecito family 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: Thu May 03, 2012 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
max wrote:
There have been many posts about scenarios of how the fight started. Many are IMO possible. However, I think I am one of the few who somewhat agree with Massei that Rudy was the instigator. I do believe it was Amanda's idea for the 'joke' with the knives (and masks?) but I just don't see how Rudy would find that funny if he hadn't a reason of his own. It is Amanda who explains that 'he wanted her and went to her room'. I believe there was some truth in that.

Then a witness heard a loud argument from the direction of the cottage between a woman and a man in Italian. Amanda's Italian was not so good at that time. Meredith's Italian was good. I think that Meredith was mad at Rudy because he came to her room and she wanted none of that. So I believe that he was the one who started fighting that night (one of the reasons why he is not going to tell the truth). And that is why Rudy joined the other 2. Not because he had the hots for AK who had her boyfriend right beside her, or because he was into that prank stuff. He felt rejected and was already fighting with Meredith so when Amanda came up with the 'funny prank' that was just fine with him.

If they did put on masks then I can imagine that for example RS still thought it was just for fun and harmless. It was the day after Halloween after all. But it was never funny. Maybe Meredith defended herself and hit Amanda in the nose, and RS lost it. Maybe RG's frustration of being rejected took over and he couldn't care less that Meredith was in pain and he never stopped pulling her clothes and assaulted her. Zorba can describe all the things that were wrong with AK much better than I can so no need to repeat those. Although just maybe there wasn't even all that much anger or jealousy. Maybe in AK's little world it was just 'fun'..until the end.


Well you never know, it might be that way, somehow, perhaps that Guede went in there, and a;ready upset Meredith fast, with him taking things way too far fast, and groping, something like that but Meredith freaking at that, drawing Knox and Sollecito in turn into it, because Meredith would have been saying what the fuck he is here because of you but Knox, in her mischievousness, might, instead of helping Meredith and sorting Guede out with Sollecito, took it up against Meredith, as Meredith would have said, for God's sake what kind of people are you bringing in here.

However, the only way I can imagine Guede thinking he could barge in there and start molesting Meredith, would be because of Knox goading him on, telling him, perhaps, that Meredith liked him or something like that, telling him even, to go in there and talk to her, or whatever, like, go on, try, and then laughing and all of that nonsense in a conspirational kind of way.

How else though in that type of scenario would Guede ever have been able to think he could get away with such a thing? I suspect Knox of having operated/fuctiomed as a prick tease only to deflect that onto Meredith. So there yo u have an aroused Guede that Knox rtells, go say hello to Meredith, wink wink and other crap (childish nonsense).

I don't know if Guede would have started groping or molesting by himself. I think just coming into her room and maybe refusing to leave would be more then enough to upset Meredith and a loud argument to start. For the rest I agree and it was also mentioned in Nadeau's book that Guede's lawyer told the story of how it was AK who was telling the boys what to do.

In any scenario there is always the part that 'normal' people will never understand. I mean there are knives for crying out loud. Everyone knows then that somebody can get seriously hurt. Ok, so we can make up stuff about the room being dark so maybe one didn't exactly realize what the other was doing, or drugs that they might have taken and how fast things went....but there is no excuse. It was pretty obvious Meredith got hurt. Her bruises, her cuts, she was on the floor, head wound, strangling, hair pulled out. She must have been screaming and it must have been more then obvious she was in serious pain and of course resisting. However, nobody stopped and it went from bad to worse. Unbelievable but it happened :(
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 1:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Timing is important and I believe Bongiorno is a master in it. Maybe she knows that the SC has started to study the documents for the appeal. Now we see her at some conference about 'floppy DNA science' (of course with the Kercher case as the big example), a parallel is drawn with other Italian DNA cases to put more weight to it, and now there is the video thing. The message? Lets not waste anymore money on this floppy DNA case SC!

JMO.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/100 ... rugia.html

Small article that says the complaint about a 'misuse of public funds' was filed by a group of private citizens. Anonymous, and they have nothing to do with either party involved in the trials. Yeah right :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

can't sleep - will try to answer a few questions posted on TJMK

1. Why did you not mention the 16 second 12.07 phonecall to Meredith’s English phone on the 2nd November in your e-mail? When explaining why you made this call, please also explain why it was to the English phone rather than Meredith’s Italian phone which you knew Meredith used for local calls?

As Sollecito was making his panicked phone call to his police officer sister (when the postal police were already there) and also to the standard police without mentioning in that call that the postal police were there - Knox was phoning her mother. The contents of that phone call have never been explained - locked room blood in the bathroom - possible break in I think her mother stated Knox as having said. Then she called back. It was very early in the morning in Seattle. The reason I think that Knox in the trial denied any recollection of that call is because Knox may have admitted to her mother in the call that she had done something wrong. She may have panicked and come clean somewhat - admitted that she had got herself into a situation. The only reason I can think of for AKs total denial of that call. In trial, her mother Edda Mellas couldn't account for, was thrown by that denial. Such specific memory lapses around creative accounts of that evening cannot be explained by the use of cannabis (or camomile tea).

2. Why did you not mention this call when you phoned Filomena immediately afterwards?

can't figure out why that is significant really

8. Can you and will you explain how you knew that Meredith’s throat had been cut when you were not, according to the witnesses’s testimony, a witness to the scene in Meredith’s bedroom after the door had been kicked in and, with the exception of probably a postal police officer or the ambulance crew, no one had looked underneath the duvet covering the body when you were there?

a biggie. didn't knox also state that the body was found at or before the wardrobe (the initial position of Meredith Kerchers body after she was killed). I believe that Knox never returned to the room and Sollecito staged the body (which fits with the bra-strap evidence). Incidentally the bra strap - you cannot believe that it wasn't picked up and you cannot believe that something that had been kicked around within dust in the room. Had been filmed at one stage without being picked up - had been filmed in two different positions? I just think that that specific evidence was just something else surrounding Sollecito specifically - inserted - result of pressure / a bribe. The evidence surrounding Sollecito set up to fail on appeal.

9. What made you think that the body was in the cupboard (wardrobe) when it was in fact to the side of the wardrobe?

yes. also - SOLLECITO STATED TO KATE MANSEY OF THE DAILY MIRROR FIRSTLY THAT HE WAS "AT A PARTY THAT NIGHT (not present) HE ALSO STATED UPON POINTING TO A CARTOON SKETCH OF TWO CHARACTERS "DISCOVERING THE BODY OF MEREDITH KERCHER" "yes that is myself and that is my girlfriend amanda knox" ... that is not memory lapse or omission - that is inserted information. They never entered the room they never went in. For some ridiculous reason AK and Sollecito wanted to be part of the discovery of the murder to appear heroic in some way (as in Knoxs' crazy multiple email right after) ... to be involved. It was INTERESTING I think. It was reportage, it was exciting. It made them interesting. They had no idea at that stage that they were being watched closely as suspects. The Kate Mansey interview with Sollecito stone cold sober in the daytime standing in his Napajiri jacket is damning "at a party" (non existant) "I directly (with Knox) discovered the body" (fame).

10. Were you being flippant, stupid, or what, when you said that? Do you think it just a remarkable coincidence that the remark bears close comparison to the crime scene investigators conclusions, based on the blood at the scene, that Meredith had been shoved, on all fours, and head first, at the door of the wardrobe? She was then turned over on the floor and moved again. How did you know that there was any position prior to her final place of rest?

Knoxs' recollection of the position Meredith Kercher was initially in. It's disgusting to think of the slimy Sollecito manipulating Meredith Kerchers body to make the whole thing look like a sex attack. The recent url posting I made from Injustice in Perugia shows that. I think that Zorba should send his mailshot to Verona university; multiple addresses, to let decent people know exactly what kind of a bastard they are dealing with. They took her phones away - they let her die alone in a room. Curt Knox (and I struck an early post stating that) - they took her phones away - they let her die alone in a room. Knox was the primary killer - the 32cm kitchen knife she was waving in the face of Kokomani - the knife she carried from the apartment in the "large green bag" (again witnessed by Kokomani) .. Kokomani should have been accredited as a witness his mobile phone was pinged in the area his car sighted parked up. He knew Guede he identified Guede there. Why the hell did they use the tramp Curatolo as the main witness and dismiss Kokomani? Again - the case was set up to fail.

... need to shuffle back to the bathroom on the bathmat. Why not just carry it back?

that was knox's ridiculous attempt to account for bloody footprints in the corridor - DNA traces "the bathmat shuffle"
its just crazy they should never have put her on the stand. But they pulled it off because people still think "such a good looking girl" "could never have committed such a heinous crime"

24. But why, in the same testimony, did you then change your mind as to where you had undressed for your shower? Not in your bedroom - saying so was a mistake you said - but you did not say where. Some people might think, uncharitably, that your change of mind was necessary to incorporate the double bathmat shuffle.

Whole story of having a shower was I think formulated to account for any mixed DNA traces / footprints. Like I keep saying I need to get this information into a central database .... basing limited argument here on my recollections (without search) - can't hurt to highlight again and again for newcomers even the GLARING INCONSISTANCIES between the stories of Sollecito and Knox.

25. Were there any things that you disliked about Meredith? Be honest because we know from her English friends and other sources that there were things that she disliked about you.

Things were not going well - two people - witnessed a blazing row between Meredith Kercher and Knox in the flat downstairs. Knox not performing her duties in the cleaning rota - the flatmate from hell. The end result will be soon I believe that that pretty cottage will be knocked down. From what I read it was a garden sort of cottage an old man had been maintaining garden around there - it'll be obliterated. Beautiful place - roof tiles - secluded - views. I think Knox was jealous initially that Meredith Kercher got the room with the view. The whole place was beautiful - winter and you can imagine summer. Haunted - nobody wants to rent it. Will disappear into the brush there like it never existed.

26. Why are pages missing from your diary for October?

more "hypographia" - can you believe that knox actually wrote to Sollecito a complete outline of the crime, the night of the murder? (the marie pace letter) ... how on earth is she home free? Marriot. Politics. and the rich connected Sollecito.

27. Once again, and this time so that it makes some sense, please explain why you permitted the police, on your say so, to believe that poor Patrick Lumumba was involved in Meredith’s murder. Clearly, had you been at the cottage you would have known that he was not, and had you not been there you could not have known that he was.

flailing - she had an idea that someone would have sighted guede, a black person at the cottage - needed time - needed the pressure off - wanted to appear the victim - made pretence of freaking out when she got to Lumumbas number on the phone as the police were going through it with her. Stated she was afraid of Lumumba. Later when shown around the cottage she was trying to appear traumatized trying to appear that she had been threatened in some way. Evil the way she used Lumumba - some grudge there - Lumumba had consigned her to giving flyers outside the club - she was unreliable - it wasn't going well. Lumumba stated that she had walked away coldly at one point - they were not getting on - Knox was angry at Lumumba. A vortex of spite and hate. Welcome to Amanda Knox, Perugia.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu May 03, 2012 6:00 am, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Cheese, with holes in it. A pictorial representation of Knox/Sollecito defence.

Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 4:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Shock or not - continued

Sollecito may have seen a dead body in his life, that of his mother.
Knox may never have seen one.
....

The door never opened when Sollecito supposedly tried because he never did try, if he had he would have opened it, and that would mean he would h ave found Meredith, but he did not need to find Meredith, as he knew already that she was in there, dead, in exactly the same way as he and Knox had left her, this is all supposing they are guilty, and I suppose/think that they are... definitely.

Sollecito slammed the door the night before (out of sight out of mind). Sollecito had moved/staged the body didn't want to go in there again. Didn't see the sense in disturbing the crime scene. He was reasonably certain there was no evidence of himself within the room. Knox wasn't. Her lamp was in the room. The lamp they had used to scan the crime scene in the darkened room the night before. Knox was panicking about it. Sollecito in his diary related her trying to make "impossible climb" to see into the room. She wanted to see what evidence. Sollecito didn't want the door down.

14. What was the problem about using the mop, rags, sponges etc already at Raffaele’s apartment, to clear up a water spill? Why was the mop from the girl’s cottage so essential and if it was, why not collect it immediately since it was just a short distance away?

I read a bit of John Kerchers book in Tesco. He states specifically that Knox/Sollecito were discovered by the postal police standing over the bucket/mop. The scenario incredible (as shown in above question). To explain why that was so. The story they got formulated initially then it gradually fragmented, fell apart. Apart, they could not corroborate it. A reason only Knox was put on the stand. The prosecution would have ripped them apart.

17. If you had needed one again why not have it at his apartment, with hot water in a heated apartment, before you set off, or on your return, rather than have a cold shower, on a cold day, in a cold flat?

Was it really cold. Without having towels in the bathroom (to explain the bathmat shuffle (to explain Knox's bloodied footprints in the corridor). Genius).

Knox was back at the cottage alone, after a while because she'd argued with Sollecito.

20. Why did Raffaele say that, on entering the flat with you, Filomena’s door was open and he saw the damage and mess inside, but you said, in your e-mail, that Filomena’s door was closed when you returned at 10.30 am? Did you subsequently look inside on that occasion, or not? It’s just that if you did, then why did you not mention the break in to Filomena prior to you and Raffaele returning to the cottage?

Was going to ask that ... ghosts.

21. You are a creative writer ...

damn right

14. What was the problem about using the mop, rags, sponges etc already at Raffaele’s apartment, to clear up a water spill?

water spill the night before.

Why was the mop from the girl’s cottage so essential and if it was, why not collect it immediately since it was just a short distance away?

loopy

12. Did you sleep through the music played for half an hour on Raffaele’s computer from 5.32 am?

Why were you walking around Perugia on your own early that morning - why were you at the shop? You'd argued with Sollecito hadn't you? You were putting off going back to the chilling house.

13. Were you telling the truth when you told the court that you and Raffaele ate dinner some time between 9.15 and 11 pm? Can you not narrow it down a bit more? The water leak occurred, you said, whilst washing up dishes after dinner. Why then did Raffaele’s father say that Raffaele told him at 8.42 pm about the water leak whilst washing up dishes?

water evaporates - It's all ridiculous. But you weren't there later were you - Raffy stated right through the trial that you had left him that night.

9. Do you think it just a remarkable coincidence that the remark bears close comparison to the crime scene investigators conclusions, based on the blood at the scene, that Meredith had been shoved, on all fours, and head first, at the door of the wardrobe? She was then turned over on the floor and moved again. How did you know that there was any position prior to her final place of rest?

Evil - head forced down ... forced down with knives. Head banged deliberately against the wall. Taunted with the knives.

8. Can you and will you explain how you knew that Meredith’s throat had been cut when you were not, according to the witnesses’s testimony, a witness to the scene in Meredith’s bedroom after the door had been kicked in and, with the exception of probably a postal police officer or the ambulance crew, no one had looked underneath the duvet covering the body when you were there?

snapped Knox to Meredith Kerchers english friends "what do you think - she fucking bled to death" two things in that statement 1. more implication she is a poor victim 2. that she was involved in some way (kudos, glamour) (and you weren't). Point scoring - her level of operation vs them.

6. Why did you tell the postal police that Meredith often locked her bedroom door, even when it came to taking a shower, when this was simply not true, as Filomena testified?

It was just shallow the excuses right away - and really they were trying to divert / put off the inevitable (discovery). Then they wanted to be a part of it (glamour, fame, "interesting").

11. Why do you think Raffaele told the police – contrary to your own alibi that you had spent the whole time with Raffaele at his apartment – that you had gone out at 9 pm and did not return until 1 am?

Bongiorno (Sollecito lawyer) was leaving Sollecitos option open. The cases of Knox / Sollecito she held separate until the very end. Knox was a wild card on the stand could have said anything. The option of throwing Knox under the bus.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/1004845/Omicidio-Meredith-denuncia-anonima-contro-video-procura-Perugia.html

Small article that says the complaint about a 'misuse of public funds' was filed by a group of private citizens. Anonymous, and they have nothing to do with either party involved in the trials. Yeah right :roll:


Thanks Max. Now we're starting to get to the truth of it. I think we need to find out who these 'private citizens' are and who/what they're connected to.

One of my suspicions has been born out by this - that this investigation is not being made on the basis of any existing evidence that any rules were broken. As we now see, it is happening purely on the basis of a public complaint. One can be almost certain that no wrongdoing will be found by the investigation, but still the complaint will have served its purpose which was to create bad headlines against the prosecutors. Even worse, it appears intended to apply pressure on the prosecution office to drop the case against the two little darlings or at least, not pursue it so vigorously. I very much hope the prosecution office doesn't cave in to this kind of bullying.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

If anyone should be investigated for wasting public funds, then it should be the crooked judge who in the appeal trial flushed a perfectly valid eight month police investigation and eleven month trial with a unanimous verdict down the drain.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 9:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Moving this from the chat box into the Main Discussion Thread, as the thoughts of the FOAKers at JREF have no place on the front page of PMF.....posted by Troon:

ttrroonniicc « Thu May 03, 2012 2:07 am » zorba: "This case really causes many people to lose perspective! I saw on that other site where a poster was writing to student associations at Raffaelle's supposed new university in Verona - to warn them about him? Truly nuts. This is where the Internet amateurs playing their detective and lawyer games have truly departed from reality and into a zone that is not only highly arrogant but also dangerous and destructive." (JREF)

ttrroonniicc « Thu May 03, 2012 2:07 am » http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 44&page=72

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 9:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Here's a GOOGLE translation of the article linked by Max:

Meredith murder: anonymous complaint against Perugia prosecutor video

(Adnkronos) - The video from 180 thousand euros to the prosecution of Perugia did make during the first trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher, and 'the center of a complaint that "a group of private citizens "who are not signing their name, filed for an alleged misuse of public money. The regional prosecutor told Adnkronos Augustine Chiappiniello that specified how these citizens, "have nothing to do with the parties involved in the process."

And 'So based on that stated that the prosecutor described as "articulate and detailed" Regional Public Prosecutor at the tribunal, the Court of Accounts of Umbria has opened an investigation. As reported by the daily La Repubblica, the center of the investigation of the Judiciary accounting umbra there 'the decision of prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Convenient to commission the creation of the movie to support the charge against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

By the two magistrates of Perugia no comments at the news. They were two of them decide to make the video in 3D in which reconstructed the dynamics of the murder of Meredith Kercher, according to the reconstruction of the charge, the companies' private Nventa Id The video ever filed by prosecutors to avoid disclosure, was screened once in the classroom during the first trial. The Nventa had however already 'in the past indicated that 180 thousand euros were included in a database that the company' created specifically to input all the data of the prosecution.


So, the money wasn't just for the video, but was for a database to contain the WHOLE prosecution case! And according to this, the investigation is simply a 'preliminary' investigation.

_________________
"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: Thu May 03, 2012 10:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Moving this from the chat box into the Main Discussion Thread, as the thoughts of the FOAKers at JREF have no place on the front page of PMF.....posted by Troon:

ttrroonniicc « Thu May 03, 2012 2:07 am » zorba: "This case really causes many people to lose perspective! I saw on that other site where a poster was writing to student associations at Raffaelle's supposed new university in Verona - to warn them about him? Truly nuts. This is where the Internet amateurs playing their detective and lawyer games have truly departed from reality and into a zone that is not only highly arrogant but also dangerous and destructive." (JREF)

ttrroonniicc « Thu May 03, 2012 2:07 am » http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 44&page=72



That reminds me, I really must write to some addresses in Verona, me, no, I didn't write to THE university but goddammit if that ain't a great idea.

Why should a person have the luxury of anonymity in a place where people do not know him, know that he is still involved in a murder trial, and sure, if he did'nt do it, it might be nice, for instance, for girls to know how the charges involved sexual violence and that this male refused to take the stand and told many different stories, therefore, in their midst walks a potential murderer an rapist.

Yet aside from this, it's my business what I do, and I will not be intimidated by any Knox chum(p).

Papa Sollecito: He needs to live his life
Me: Yes, and so does Meredith, as she cannot, do you think your son could be so courteous as to tell the truth, whatever it is, one day, please, thanks. Your poor son, ah, he told all those contradictory stories that didn't fit in with Knox's ones.

I may have to buy a trumpet to go to Verona in person and stand on rooftops, there's no hiding stuff under bushels, surely, for what doth he hath to hideth sire, straining at gnats and swallowing camels whole.

_________________
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 May 03, 2012 10:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
zorba wrote:
max wrote:
There have been many posts about scenarios of how the fight started. Many are IMO possible. However, I think I am one of the few who somewhat agree with Massei that Rudy was the instigator. I do believe it was Amanda's idea for the 'joke' with the knives (and masks?) but I just don't see how Rudy would find that funny if he hadn't a reason of his own. It is Amanda who explains that 'he wanted her and went to her room'. I believe there was some truth in that.

Then a witness heard a loud argument from the direction of the cottage between a woman and a man in Italian. Amanda's Italian was not so good at that time. Meredith's Italian was good. I think that Meredith was mad at Rudy because he came to her room and she wanted none of that. So I believe that he was the one who started fighting that night (one of the reasons why he is not going to tell the truth). And that is why Rudy joined the other 2. Not because he had the hots for AK who had her boyfriend right beside her, or because he was into that prank stuff. He felt rejected and was already fighting with Meredith so when Amanda came up with the 'funny prank' that was just fine with him.

If they did put on masks then I can imagine that for example RS still thought it was just for fun and harmless. It was the day after Halloween after all. But it was never funny. Maybe Meredith defended herself and hit Amanda in the nose, and RS lost it. Maybe RG's frustration of being rejected took over and he couldn't care less that Meredith was in pain and he never stopped pulling her clothes and assaulted her. Zorba can describe all the things that were wrong with AK much better than I can so no need to repeat those. Although just maybe there wasn't even all that much anger or jealousy. Maybe in AK's little world it was just 'fun'..until the end.


Well you never know, it might be that way, somehow, perhaps that Guede went in there, and a;ready upset Meredith fast, with him taking things way too far fast, and groping, something like that but Meredith freaking at that, drawing Knox and Sollecito in turn into it, because Meredith would have been saying what the fuck he is here because of you but Knox, in her mischievousness, might, instead of helping Meredith and sorting Guede out with Sollecito, took it up against Meredith, as Meredith would have said, for God's sake what kind of people are you bringing in here.

However, the only way I can imagine Guede thinking he could barge in there and start molesting Meredith, would be because of Knox goading him on, telling him, perhaps, that Meredith liked him or something like that, telling him even, to go in there and talk to her, or whatever, like, go on, try, and then laughing and all of that nonsense in a conspirational kind of way.

How else though in that type of scenario would Guede ever have been able to think he could get away with such a thing? I suspect Knox of having operated/fuctioned as a prick tease only to deflect that onto Meredith. So there you have an aroused Guede that Knox tells, go say hello to Meredith, wink wink and other crap (childish nonsense).

I don't know if Guede would have started groping or molesting by himself. I think just coming into her room and maybe refusing to leave would be more then enough to upset Meredith and a loud argument to start. For the rest I agree and it was also mentioned in Nadeau's book that Guede's lawyer told the story of how it was AK who was telling the boys what to do.

In any scenario there is always the part that 'normal' people will never understand. I mean there are knives for crying out loud. Everyone knows then that somebody can get seriously hurt. Ok, so we can make up stuff about the room being dark so maybe one didn't exactly realize what the other was doing, or drugs that they might have taken and how fast things went....but there is no excuse. It was pretty obvious Meredith got hurt. Her bruises, her cuts, she was on the floor, head wound, strangling, hair pulled out. She must have been screaming and it must have been more then obvious she was in serious pain and of course resisting. However, nobody stopped and it went from bad to worse. Unbelievable but it happened :(



Hi Max,

Me too, don't know if the scene necessarily involved Guede groping immediately, I can imagine him overstaying his welcome, I mean, the welcome he never had.

Unlike Knox, I very much doubt that Meredith pranced aro nd the house in underwear, like after going away to her room, I dout, especially with knowin that there were men present in the houise, that she would have even go ne to her own barthroon outside her room unless she was covered up.
If Guede knock, knock knocked at her door and just walked in, I mean, I can imagine Meredith being polite for a moment but not for long, before asking him to go.

Without the cooperation, the collusion of Knox, I cannot see Guede with Knox and Sollecito present elsewhere in the house, just doing all of those things thinking her could do it and get away with it.
I had this nightmare one night, I saw them in that house and I saw a very upset Meredith, in tears, tears of exasperation at having what seemed to her to be a kind of mentally disturbed children running riot in the house expecting her to join in the fun, only it was not funny at all, Knox didn't look at her in the eyes, and was driving the show, encouraging the males to really misbehave, as though it was all funny and what I held over from this feeling was that it was all about Meredith being expected to take part in this fun, in this Knox brand of fun, that was entirely disrespectful to Meredith, ignored her right to privacy and her idea of safety, and caused Meredith great danger, as Knox behaved like a mischievous 5-year-old left alone, like a dog that couldn't be left alone or it'd mean coming back to find the house turned upside down, furniture destroyed.

The feeling I got in the nightmare was that Meredith walked right into this madness and the more she tried to demand or ask for normality the more Knox ignored her and did what she wanted, that meant Meredith had no voice at that moment in her own home, and that it was 3 against 1.

_________________
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 May 03, 2012 10:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Book arrived.

_________________
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 May 03, 2012 11:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Cheese, with holes in it. A pictorial representation of Knox/Sollecito defence.




Help!! That's my favourite cheese, how could you Troon, you'll put me off it!

_________________
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: Thu May 03, 2012 11:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

By coincidence:

Madeleine McCann Is Not Likely Alive
May 03, 2012 03:35 AM EDT

by Chelsea Hoffman

GATHER

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 11:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Amanda Knox Prosecutors Under Attack
May 03, 2012 06:30 AM EDT

by Chelsea Hoffman

GATHER

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 3:23 pm   Post subject: WILL RUDY GUEDE EVER SPEAK UP?   

Many of us in the PMF/TJMK community have been moved by John Kercher's heartfelt plea to Rudy Guede to tell the truth about what happened to his daughter. I know some feel that Guede has been frightened off by his two beatings in jail, or, he might still be bought off by promises of money to buy his silence.

Consider this:

- He has nothing to lose, legally speaking, since his sentence is fixed.
- If he tells the truth this will be the first step for his rehabilitation and eventual reintegration in society. He will, I believe, win back the support circle that existed for him in Perugia before, and I know, has been quietly meeting with him in prison.
- He is no longer afraid.
- I've said this for more than a year now. Rudy Guede has the best potential for a spiritual transformation, for hope and redemption. He is stricken by his conscience, he did try to save Meredith (though he did participate in the attack) and will be going through a very interesting time next year.

All of this is based on my own readings of Guede. If you have a problem with astrology, or spiritualism, call it a psychological perspective :)

But consider what I wrote on June 26, 2011, the day before Rudy Guede appeared in the appeals trial:

"Rudy Guede may actually turn out to be a sympathetic individual. His is the one chart I see that leads to redemption and indescribable potential. He is, quite frankly, the most believable of the three, even though he did lie, and he was rightly found guilty.

Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher was greatly loved, had the intellectual capability to go far, and would have, if she hadn't been murdered, been a bright blazing star. RIP Meredith.

I hate to make predictions. Human beings will always have the capacity to alter the future (though truth be told, not as much as they like to think) My prophecies have to do with the future of this planet and humanity's ability to survive and regenerate itself.

But tomorrow, on June 27, Rudy Guede will face Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in their appeals trial, and for the first time, be forced to answer questions directly. I believe this will be the day he begins to redeem himself.

On June 30th, the DNA experts will present their findings. This will be one day before the solar eclipse in Cancer. I predict bombshells in court.
"

It was this that led me to knowing beforehand, the results of the appeal trial. And it is this that leads me to predict:

Rudy Guede will speak up, by 2013 at the latest
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
I think my book will be here tomorrow, looking forward to that.


Zorba, you will love the book. I am having a difficult time trying to sum up my feelings about it as I read.
The best I can do is to tell you that I was appalled at the absolute intrusion into the lives of these wonderful people.
I'm not even sure 'intrusion' is the word I'm looking for, but it keeps popping into my head.
In the beginning, John Kercher shares some wonderful memories. As I read them, I could feel his loss, his grief, and some of his enjoyment in being able to share these memories. When I got to November 1, I knew what was coming, but, even knowing it, at this point in the book, I didn't want to go there. I didn't want to leave the images and memories he created. Knox and the others were intruders here. I'm still puzzling over how best to explain it.
Somebody help me out here.


We all identify for various reasons, Napia5, but yes, the identification creates images that are hard for us to let go of.
As parents, saying it could have happened to our child.
My sympathies would always have been with the Kerchers, as for any parent of a murdered child.
Their essential dignity and courage makes them even more memorable.

If I had any inkling that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent I would have defended them as passionately.
But the evidence against them is so overwhelming that one would have to be, er, 'not intelligent', or easily manipulable by media tropes to believe in their innocence.

What was done to Meredith, and to her family, was a violation. In order to get away with what they had done, they had to violate her again, by displaying that video on TV. By attacking her family, then, when they realized how demented that made them look, by attacking their lawyer, then, attacking the people on PMF and TJMK who exposed their lies. Whatever differences we may have amongst ourselves, that does not take away the fact that we honour Meredith's memory by fighting for justice for her and her family.

And yes, it is a beautiful book, and if it evokes strong feelings in us, then that is the power of writing, and the memory of a wonderful young woman.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
I think my book will be here tomorrow, looking forward to that.


Zorba, you will love the book. I am having a difficult time trying to sum up my feelings about it as I read.
The best I can do is to tell you that I was appalled at the absolute intrusion into the lives of these wonderful people.
I'm not even sure 'intrusion' is the word I'm looking for, but it keeps popping into my head.
In the beginning, John Kercher shares some wonderful memories. As I read them, I could feel his loss, his grief, and some of his enjoyment in being able to share these memories. When I got to November 1, I knew what was coming, but, even knowing it, at this point in the book, I didn't want to go there. I didn't want to leave the images and memories he created. Knox and the others were intruders here. I'm still puzzling over how best to explain it.
Somebody help me out here.


We all identify for various reasons, Napia5, but yes, the identification creates images that are hard for us to let go of.
As parents, saying it could have happened to our child.
My sympathies would always have been with the Kerchers, as for any parent of a murdered child.
Their essential dignity and courage makes them even more memorable.

If I had any inkling that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent I would have defended them as passionately.
But the evidence against them is so overwhelming that one would have to be, er, 'not intelligent', or easily manipulable by media tropes to believe in their innocence.

What was done to Meredith, and to her family, was a violation. In order to get away with what they had done, they had to violate her again, by displaying that video on TV. By attacking her family, then, when they realized how demented that made them look, by attacking their lawyer, then, attacking the people on PMF and TJMK who exposed their lies. Whatever differences we may have amongst ourselves, that does not take away the fact that we honour Meredith's memory by fighting for justice for her and her family.

And yes, it is a beautiful book, and if it evokes strong feelings in us, then that is the power of writing, and the memory of a wonderful young woman.



Well put.

_________________
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 May 03, 2012 8:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
I think my book will be here tomorrow, looking forward to that.


Zorba, you will love the book. I am having a difficult time trying to sum up my feelings about it as I read.
The best I can do is to tell you that I was appalled at the absolute intrusion into the lives of these wonderful people.
I'm not even sure 'intrusion' is the word I'm looking for, but it keeps popping into my head.
In the beginning, John Kercher shares some wonderful memories. As I read them, I could feel his loss, his grief, and some of his enjoyment in being able to share these memories. When I got to November 1, I knew what was coming, but, even knowing it, at this point in the book, I didn't want to go there. I didn't want to leave the images and memories he created. Knox and the others were intruders here. I'm still puzzling over how best to explain it.
Somebody help me out here.


We all identify for various reasons, Napia5, but yes, the identification creates images that are hard for us to let go of.
As parents, saying it could have happened to our child.
My sympathies would always have been with the Kerchers, as for any parent of a murdered child.
Their essential dignity and courage makes them even more memorable.

If I had any inkling that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent I would have defended them as passionately.
But the evidence against them is so overwhelming that one would have to be, er, 'not intelligent', or easily manipulable by media tropes to believe in their innocence.

What was done to Meredith, and to her family, was a violation. In order to get away with what they had done, they had to violate her again, by displaying that video on TV. By attacking her family, then, when they realized how demented that made them look, by attacking their lawyer, then, attacking the people on PMF and TJMK who exposed their lies. Whatever differences we may have amongst ourselves, that does not take away the fact that we honour Meredith's memory by fighting for justice for her and her family.

And yes, it is a beautiful book, and if it evokes strong feelings in us, then that is the power of writing, and the memory of a wonderful young woman.



Well put.


Violation. Absolutely.

I've seen comments by some of these soul-sucking bastards that try to paint a picture of John Kercher as a slightly slick, slightly dishonest tabloid writer, trying to make a buck from his tragedy. Comments about the fact that he didn't attend the verdict of the appeal trail, wanting to make it look as if he didn't care enough. Ignoring completely his health problems twisting truth into something different, something obscene.

I've read the shrill, phony harpies on Gather,with their pretend compassion, their 'Godliness' and I think, "No God I know will welcome you with open arms for what you are doing."

This book is by a bereaved, loving father. He loved his daughter, he was involved and sharing in her life. Meredith was a beautiful person, inside and out. It's obvious. His loss is unimaginable to me, and the VIOLATION that he and his family have suffered since is unforgivable.

I know I'm on a rant, and, frankly, for once, I don't care. I'd like to tell the FOAKERS, one and all, "Go, climb back under your rocks, you slimy bastards." And take your lovebirds with you .
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I am very busy with a few things so have little time to concentrate on anything, my book though, is right here, and even when I look at it on my right-had side, it's like a comfort, a piece of treasure, for all of what it means, really, to me it is like something sacred, this dear grieving man, we know exactly what it cost him to get his head around doing it. Meredith's photo on the front, though I've seen that one so many times, seen the same kindness in her that's in her mother and mother, yet it is as if this photo is different because it's personal, chosen by John and his family, obviously he asked them what they thought.

_________________
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: Fri May 04, 2012 1:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
I think my book will be here tomorrow, looking forward to that.


Zorba, you will love the book. I am having a difficult time trying to sum up my feelings about it as I read.
The best I can do is to tell you that I was appalled at the absolute intrusion into the lives of these wonderful people.
I'm not even sure 'intrusion' is the word I'm looking for, but it keeps popping into my head.
In the beginning, John Kercher shares some wonderful memories. As I read them, I could feel his loss, his grief, and some of his enjoyment in being able to share these memories. When I got to November 1, I knew what was coming, but, even knowing it, at this point in the book, I didn't want to go there. I didn't want to leave the images and memories he created. Knox and the others were intruders here. I'm still puzzling over how best to explain it.
Somebody help me out here.


We all identify for various reasons, Napia5, but yes, the identification creates images that are hard for us to let go of.
As parents, saying it could have happened to our child.
My sympathies would always have been with the Kerchers, as for any parent of a murdered child.
Their essential dignity and courage makes them even more memorable.

If I had any inkling that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent I would have defended them as passionately.
But the evidence against them is so overwhelming that one would have to be, er, 'not intelligent', or easily manipulable by media tropes to believe in their innocence.

What was done to Meredith, and to her family, was a violation. In order to get away with what they had done, they had to violate her again, by displaying that video on TV. By attacking her family, then, when they realized how demented that made them look, by attacking their lawyer, then, attacking the people on PMF and TJMK who exposed their lies. Whatever differences we may have amongst ourselves, that does not take away the fact that we honour Meredith's memory by fighting for justice for her and her family.

And yes, it is a beautiful book, and if it evokes strong feelings in us, then that is the power of writing, and the memory of a wonderful young woman.



Well put.


Violation. Absolutely.

I've seen comments by some of these soul-sucking bastards that try to paint a picture of John Kercher as a slightly slick, slightly dishonest tabloid writer, trying to make a buck from his tragedy. Comments about the fact that he didn't attend the verdict of the appeal trail, wanting to make it look as if he didn't care enough. Ignoring completely his health problems twisting truth into something different, something obscene.

I've read the shrill, phony harpies on Gather,with their pretend compassion, their 'Godliness' and I think, "No God I know will welcome you with open arms for what you are doing."

This book is by a bereaved, loving father. He loved his daughter, he was involved and sharing in her life. Meredith was a beautiful person, inside and out. It's obvious. His loss is unimaginable to me, and the VIOLATION that he and his family have suffered since is unforgivable.

I know I'm on a rant, and, frankly, for once, I don't care. I'd like to tell the FOAKERS, one and all, "Go, climb back under your rocks, you slimy bastards." And take your lovebirds with you .


I gave up giving them the time of day, what's the use, but I will continue to put them under a spotlight, not in debate with them, as that's an exercise that goes nowhere, but showing them up for the robotic, heartless fools they are, they just so ain't coming to my party.

_________________
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: Fri May 04, 2012 11:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

how did Candace Dempsey get access case documents?
really michael -- I have suspected for a long time that FOA stalwarts (some of the players within JREF)
have access - Bruce Fisher for instance.

where are they getting this? There is nobody on our side that has access to those documents (is there?)
they are not publicising what is in them .. only using them fragmentarily when it suits them
what documents do they have? - what information is rumoured to be kicking round?

JREF:

Not too sure... it is clear that Demspey has, for "Murder in Italy", access to documents you and I, and the rest of the Internet, do not.

Dempsey seems to purposely cite some of these documents, only to cut them off mid-document ...
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It's a well known fact that from very early on in the case, Candace Dempsey was being fed snippets of case documents and pages from Knox's diary by Knox's family. This began just as soon as the Knox family began to see her as an ally in the 'PR War'. Similar access was later granted to other prominent FOAKers.

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ttrroonniicc, upthread you posted a list of questions from TJMK to which you posted your replies. One of them is particularly interesting, especially your answer.

Question "11. Why do you think Raffaele told the police – contrary to your own alibi that you had spent the whole time with Raffaele at his apartment – that you had gone out at 9 pm and did not return until 1 am?"

Your answer: "Bongiorno (Sollecito lawyer) was leaving Sollecitos option open. The cases of Knox / Sollecito she held separate until the very end. Knox was a wild card on the stand could have said anything. The option of throwing Knox under the bus."

In light of Michael's explanation about the evidence leaks occurring early on from Knox's camp, your answers is definitely worth consideration. It was reported that Knox's own defense team was unhappy with the hiring of a PR firm. Imagine trying to keep a watchful eye from Sollecito's team. Bongiorno not only had to worry about what came out of Knox's mouth on the stand, She had an entire PR campaign to worry about. One wonders if she had any input.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I feel it's better not to make any references to certain imbeciles, it only adds to raise their search ratings.

All I know is that the Miserable Detective that despises her Italian grandparents, however does keep going on about Italian things.

What this individual always reminded me of - what with her using the Italian thing for profit on the one hand while criticising everything Italian on the other - is like some kind of bad novel spy thing, like involving traitors and double crossing; let's face it doesn't look like the poor thing is getting any second book deal, instead of putting the Italians down for profit, looks as though she'll need to start selling bread rolls at the evening knitting classes again, oh yeah, then praising everything Italian... back in the old country bla bla bla, my granny this, my granny that!!!.

What the case exposed was people like her with cultural identity complex, it more than verges on the schizoid.

How cheap can you get as to use a murder in order to try to accumulate wealth?

_________________
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: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

OTOT, but speaking of nicer things for a moment. zorba mentioned his work and you can hear the pleasure which he talks about it. Well, when I was studying for my degree in London in the early 70's one of my many jobs to pay for my loans was as a chef's assistant in West London, a company kitchen with hundreds of employees, gallons of Chateau Neuf de Pape and dozens of kilos of steak every lunch :)

It truly is a labour of love, to cook for others, and, be it for my family or hundreds of people, a joy. I thank my mum for insisting I learn to cook when I was a teen ager, and I thank zorba for reminding me of that. So if he can tell us what his favourite dish is, I will share my killer recipes for beef and potatoes, and, shrimp curry.

Candace Dempsey, eat your heart out :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

What heart?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

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

Ergon wrote:
OTOT, but speaking of nicer things for a moment. zorba mentioned his work and you can hear the pleasure which he talks about it. Well, when I was studying for my degree in London in the early 70's one of my many jobs to pay for my loans was as a chef's assistant in West London, a company kitchen with hundreds of employees, gallons of Chateau Neuf de Pape and dozens of kilos of steak every lunch :)

It truly is a labour of love, to cook for others, and, be it for my family or hundreds of people, a joy. I thank my mum for insisting I learn to cook when I was a teen ager, and I thank zorba for reminding me of that. So if he can tell us what his favourite dish is, I will share my killer recipes for beef and potatoes, and, shrimp curry.

Candace Dempsey, eat your heart out :)



That sounds like nice work you had in London Ergon.
My work I guess will always be as a chef, as why I came to cuisine was not about eating nice things, it had to do with becoming conscious, when I heard about this thing called awareness, and was becoming aware too, at about 15 years of age, I grew into it, after many years of trying to eat in an environmentally-friendly way, I was so into it as a way of life, that I made my work of it, studied to become a professional chef. have been translating since 2004, solidly, but have, just about had enough of it, as it changed my life, into one where I'm alone all the time working, as most translators do not go to an office and work 9-5 but work from home, it has benefits but also negative things about it.
I sort of long to be physically active again.

Will have to see if I start working as a chef again, I like fixing things and am very handy, the best thing about being a translator is that one can work anywhere. That was my idea anyhow, only I gradually stayed at home alone more and more.

My favourite food is exotic food, Asian, specifically Indian, because of it's wide use of spices, where you do not need to use luxurious products, in the French kitchen, which I studied, it is nearly always about luxurious things, well it is outside of France anyway, in the restaurant business, while at home in France I know it is again all about simplicity.

You see this changing of what it is all about in many kitchens when they are done by people outside of the original country, like Italian food too, sure they do use plenty of tomatoes yet in Italy you'l see so many things you will never ever see outside Italy, or if they are they are nearly always placed into something, like a platform of luxury that has nothing to do with the way these products are used at home.
So he French kitchen is all about simplicity, you take it away from France and see people using mullions of eggs, tons of butter, cream, it made me sick seeing it, you see the Italian kitchen abroad,it's all about tomatoes, tomatoes tomatoes, whereas, in Italy they east so many things, like green pasts, the problem is that outside of the original country, more often than not these things are all being made for money, instead of having the actual lifestyles behind it all, that's why authentic dishes aren't made as they know that people do not know how to appreciate them for what they are, if they are then made they are ridiculously expensive.

Personally, I prefer Italian cuisine over French.
More than these tough I love Mexican and Asian cooking, I like spicy food.
It is really hard to choose a favourite but I think mine would be certain Indian things, because the vegetarian stuff is so good.
Anyway, chapatis made with real chapati flour, which is wholemeal flour that has been milled twice so that the bran in the flour becomes really fine, along with any number of those little curries made from 2 kinds of vegetables, like spinach and potatoes, cauliflower and fresh peas, mixed vegetable sabzi, the pulses (dal).
When I start cooking these things using black mustard seeds, fenugreek seeds, fennel seeds, fenugreek leaves, curry leaves, fresh ginger, asafoetida (hing) cardamon, cinnamon, coriander, cumin, lemon grass, all kinds of peppers, garlic, mace, turmeric, coconut milk, etc, I get back into it all again, and really enjoy being busy with it all, because of all of these exceptional spices and ingredients no other cuisine ever did inspire me as much.

The favourite meat dishes would be lamb curry and Kashmiri Roghan Josh.

What happened was I started to make what I called the global plate or cuisine, which means I took things from anywhere, anything I liked, so a meal might include Mexican, Greek, Indian, French, Italian things.
Like Greek filo pastry filled with feta and celery leaves rolled up an deep-fried can fit perfectly into an Asian meal, or any meal come to that, a spinach dish as made in Greece from that rough spinach, or wild spinach not that super fine stuff but the big leaves, with stalks, served cold with lemon juice on it, that goes with anything you like too.
Mexican picadillo can go with almost anything as well, as can their shredded chicken and stewed beef with aubergine and paprika.
Guacamole can go with any Asian meal.
I kind of long to get back into all of this, I find it very hard working for someone else though.
Oh yeah I love enchiladas as well.
Getting an appetite talking about this as only ate bread today.
I make all kinds of fresh chutneys and pickles too, like tamarind, coriander & coconut, mint, plum chutneys, lime pickles, hot Madam Jeanette pickles.

_________________
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: Sat May 05, 2012 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

JREF they are using moderation to filter dissent
got reply to post from "anglolawyer" - took time to reply strongly to his reply
twice.
they're gone - disappeared
whats the point of that place
recently was saving stuff thought there would may be a problem - got relaxed
two posts just disappeared .. I won't bother anymore
leave em too it
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 9:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

(( OT OT ))

I'm looking for a little advice. Is anyone here any good with videos? I'm having a problem with Media Player Classic - Home Cinema (latest version) in video playback. They are playing back with an artifact. The artifact in question is a distortion by vertical colour bars on the screen. It seems if the video contains any object of a strong colour (especially a bright colour) the colour bleeds out into a verticle coloured bar, of the same colour, that runs from the top to the bottom of the screen. For example, if a woman in a bright yellow dress appears on screen, she is accompanied by a yellow verticle bar running through her, from the top to the bottom of the screen. I have a variety of media players and this problem is only happening in that one (to date, with flv and mp4 videos), so it's not my hardware or installed codecs. There are no other issues with videos aside from that. Does anyone know what this particular artifact is and most helpfully of all, what sort of filter I need to use to eliminate it?

I'd appreciate any advice.

_________________
"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 May 05, 2012 9:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

What has got through on JREF (just now)
apart from absolute BULLSHIT about the break-in - rock - even just saying "the police staged it" ???
my two replies were outright flames about the impossibility of that break-in being real
the weakest part of the defence - the weakest part of the Hellman report

JREF:
Image
^ .... because knox is the killer

will lay off - am just pissed off about the place - wasted all that time typing -- it's been over a day - later
posts of other people getting through now ... what I typed (dissent) has been filtered out

wrote a lot on marie pace - break-down with references
wrote a lot on how the break-in must have been staged

go back there and see that they're currently analysing what they think is a single leaf on the window sill
and also analysing what they say is proof the rock was thrown from outside that small mark on the inner shutter

what pisses me off is that anglolawyers abysmal empty reply stands
just should have saved things -- won't go back there
the level of debate in that place is pitiful anyway

its a backslapping place of me toos and lies and twilight zone arguments -- they are the insular laughing stock of JREF now
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 10:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello Troon,

That video you put up here the other day, the comedy wih Marty Feldman, is hilarious, thanks for that.

In all the time I've followed the case, I don't think I ever saw anyone, who was reasonable and able to think, supporting Knox.

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

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 11:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
What has got through on JREF (just now)
apart from absolute BULLSHIT about the break-in - rock - even just saying "the police staged it" ???
my two replies were outright flames about the impossibility of that break-in being real
the weakest part of the defence - the weakest part of the Hellman report

JREF:
Image
^ .... because knox is the killer

will lay off - am just pissed off about the place - wasted all that time typing -- it's been over a day - later
posts of other people getting through now ... what I typed (dissent) has been filtered out

wrote a lot on marie pace - break-down with references
wrote a lot on how the break-in must have been staged

go back there and see that they're currently analysing what they think is a single leaf on the window sill
and also analysing what they say is proof the rock was thrown from outside that small mark on the inner shutter

what pisses me off is that anglolawyers abysmal empty reply stands
just should have saved things -- won't go back there
the level of debate in that place is pitiful anyway

its a backslapping place of me toos and lies and twilight zone arguments -- they are the insular laughing stock of JREF now

If the rock was thrown from the inside , the stagers would have closed the shutters if they weren't already. To not do this would send the rock flying out the window. Could this have caused the mark on the shutter? I'm not sure if this is an old discussion. The pattern of glass on the sill plus the amount scattered in the room are consistent with an inside toss with the glass bouncing off the closed shutters.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi, malvern, I think you're right about the mark. I remember seeing an excellent presesntation at TJMK about the window. One of the things that sold me on staging is the fact that, even if the shutters had been open, someone breaking the window from the outside would have had to reach through the glass, raise their arm up to reach the slide that held the windows closed. Trying to stand on anything (nail, frame, etc.) outside and reaching through that sharp, broken glass to get to that closure up at the top would have been impossible, IMO. I will see if I can find the presentation again.

ETA I should have stated that this fact is not the ONLY factor that convinced me that the break-in was staged.
The size of the rock. the fact that the window was a second-story one, and clearly visible from traffic, that there were no scuff marks found on the outside wall, the glass on top of the clothes, Filomena testifying that she had pulled the shutters in before she left, and I could go on.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
JREF they are using moderation to filter dissent
got reply to post from "anglolawyer" - took time to reply strongly to his reply
twice.
they're gone - disappeared
whats the point of that place
recently was saving stuff thought there would may be a problem - got relaxed
two posts just disappeared .. I won't bother anymore
leave em too it


Yep, their new tactic: flag a comment when they can't debate or refute it ;)

And they seem to have inserted a moderator into the HuffPo UK thread on John Kerchers book. When three of my comments got deleted after being accepted, I left them to it, and letting people know, here, not to waste their time. I'd rather mow my lawn.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Still, here's a perspective on social media and media manipulation, which I mentioned briefly when I was posting on dot org.

During the Bush years, the Pentagon developed software which allowed people to create multiple sock accounts on social media, with script allowing people to hide their IP addresses. So, one person could keep track of multiple discussions on Huffington Post, and, be it war in Iraq or coups in Honduras, there would be "Abdul bin Abdul" or "Juan Gonzalez" popping up to say that war was a good thing.

You can see there really aren't that many people commenting on IIP and JREF any more, but there they are on Gather and Huffington Post, the same crew identifiable by their verbal tics (that's how you can tell past all their false identities)

One thing they keep saying now, how few of us there are left. Well, yes, the PMF split was harmful to us. I blame no one because it's done and we move on. The October 3 decision by Hellmann was a surprise to many, and some may have been disheartened, but only a very few actually changed their minds on Knox and Sollecito's guilt.

But while less people may actually post on PMF, our readership figures are still, respectably high, and a lot better than any of the Knox fan clubs.
All we have to do is keep the conversation going. People still care about justice for Meredith.

And keep in mind, the Supreme Court still has to rule. The battle is yet to be won.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 7:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Still, here's a perspective on social media and media manipulation, which I mentioned briefly when I was posting on dot org.

During the Bush years, the Pentagon developed software which allowed people to create multiple sock accounts on social media, with script allowing people to hide their IP addresses. So, one person could keep track of multiple discussions on Huffington Post, and, be it war in Iraq or coups in Honduras, there would be "Abdul bin Abdul" or "Juan Gonzalez" popping up to say that war was a good thing.

You can see there really aren't that many people commenting on IIP and JREF any more, but there they are on Gather and Huffington Post, the same crew identifiable by their verbal tics (that's how you can tell past all their false identities)

One thing they keep saying now, how few of us there are left. Well, yes, the PMF split was harmful to us. I blame no one because it's done and we move on. The October 3 decision by Hellmann was a surprise to many, and some may have been disheartened, but only a very few actually changed their minds on Knox and Sollecito's guilt.

But while less people may actually post on PMF, our readership figures are still, respectably high, and a lot better than any of the Knox fan clubs.
All we have to do is keep the conversation going. People still care about justice for Meredith.

And keep in mind, the Supreme Court still has to rule. The battle is yet to be won.


Keep the conversation going? Who, Me? No problem there. You are 100% spot on with this, Ergon. People are still looking for information. Wanting to know what happened. This site caused me to hang in there after the Hellman verdict.
I know it must seem monotonous to some, who have followed and posted from the beginning, to re-hash facts that have long-since been resolved here, but most people don't have this wealth of knowledge in their heads, and don't have the time to do the incredible amount of searching involved to track things down.

Those who post know how difficult it is to play catch-up once they've been away for a week or two. Just imagine how it is for those reading who have just started to realize something is 'wrong with this picture'.

I spent months about two years ago, reading PMF, and then IIP and sometimes JREF (Although those people mostly give me a headache), because I wanted to see both perspectives so I could form an opinion. And I'm still learning.
Who has time to do that?

So, please, take it from a relative newbie, post your links especially. It helps to not have to search databases to find things. I am guilty of not posting links because I didn't think to write things down as I read them in the past, and I can't always readily remember exactly where I saw what I read.

And I believe, especially now, as John Kercher's book "Meredith", has caused renewed interest, people will be looking.
Let's help them out.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Yep, their new tactic: flag a comment when they can't debate or refute it


It's not new. They were constantly doing it on the JREF from the moment the first posters arguing the case for guilt or questioning innocence began posting there. And then they wonder why nobody wants to go over there to debate with them. And then they also wonder, after constantly calling on the Mods to edit or delete posts and to give warnings to the posters they didn't like, why the thread ended up getting put on permanent moderated status...or had the cheek to blame us for it. It's quite simple, if you constantly flag posts and complain to the Mods about other posters, the Mods are going to end up cracking down big time on the thread. If you want a thread to remain open, then you want to be flagging posts and complaining to Mods as little as possible. It's just like at school...if you get a lot of kids constantly running to teacher complaining about what the other kids are doing in the sand pit, then the sand pit gets closed down and the toys put away. Did the FOAKers not learn this at school? Talk about shooting youself in the foot.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
One thing they keep saying now, how few of us there are left. Well, yes, the PMF split was harmful to us. I blame no one because it's done and we move on. The October 3 decision by Hellmann was a surprise to many, and some may have been disheartened, but only a very few actually changed their minds on Knox and Sollecito's guilt.


The numbers are so few because most case projects have been completed...and because unlike the old days, there are very large gaps between new case events and important news on the case being published (where Knox has gone to buy her pizza this weekend isn't 'news'). So, it means a lot of lulls...and things go quiet in lulls. It means often, the discussion is the constant rehashing of old discussions and while some people don't mind that, many feel they have gone over the old ground enough.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Posted by Troon in the chatbox:

Quote:
ttrroonniicc « Sat May 05, 2012 9:29 pm » Better yet is your inclusion (if one clicks the photo link and scrolls down) of the Curt Knox photo. This photo famously shows exactly where Rudy picked up the large (bout 10 lbs) rock that he used to break Filomenas window by an almost silly easy toss from the low wall directly across from the window...a toss that the worst bocci player could make blindfolded and with one arm behind her back....and then following the ricochet off the inner shutter near the hinge (try opening your door with one finger by pushing it from near the hinge) to land exactly where every physical law known says it should be...who cant understand that? <- JREF




Note
Just a Note.
~ If you are going to bring over posts made by people on other sites, please also include the name/handle of the author of the post and a direct link to that post. If you don't know how to link to a specific post, or the software of the site in question does not include that ability, then at least provide a link to the specific page it's on. Referencing is important, especially for context and to demonstrate to the reader that what has been copied over has been done so without change or error. And not in the chatbox please. The chatbox is for general heads-ups, shouts, quick enquiries and chit-chat. Thank you.~

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Here's my post what got deleted by the flaggers at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04 ... 62235.html

"The comment below was removed by a flagger even though it wasn't abusive. Shows how the Amandii can't debate, but let's see if this post makes it. I've already complained to Huffington Post.

The most shocking thing about the case is the release of the murder scene video showing Meredith Kercher's body and throat slash to a TV station in Sollecito's home. The video was released by Sollecito lawyer Julia Bongiorno's office, they had primary custody of that even though it was the Sollecitos who were charged.

So, who wants to defend that evil deed?"

This is the sort of comment they can't reply to, so they delete it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

On the other hand, Huffington Post reinstated this comment after I complained.

"You really ought to see the video reconstruction of the murder of Meredith Kercher. All the groupie lies about how small the room was for 3 attackers, clearly disproven. And that the swarming attack there is so clearly mirrored by the groupies attack on Mr. Kercher here shows that perhaps, their identification with Knox and Sollecito has deeper reasons than they might want to admit".

So yeah, you need to complain if it happens to you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I am still a bit on the fence if the rock was thrown from the inside or the outside. All depends if there really should be glass on the outside if it was thrown from there or not. If the window was broken from the inside then I think it was tapped inwards, and maybe the glass was spread around a bit. Seems rather clever. On the other hand, I can also imagine that before they left they tossed the window from the outside. This could have been a rather simple plan A. Toss a rock through the window, run back to RS's apartment, police will come and discover Meredith, they think a burglar did it, and AK and RS pretend to have been asleep all night.

The Hellmann court did not think it is necessary but it is not clear how they reached that conclusion. Did the Pasquale experiment show it?

Quote:
On this point, however, this Court disagrees, since the dynamics of the throwing of the stone and the force of impact did not make it necessary that some broken glass should end up outside rather than inside the room

How then is it possible that Massei reaches a completely different conclusion mentioning the same Pasquale experiment??? Weird.

Quote:
The next fact to consider is that the pieces of glass from the broken pane were distributed in a homogeneous manner on the inside and outside parts of the windowsill, without any displacement being noted or any piece of glass being found on the ground underneath the window. This circumstance, as confirmed also by the consultant Pasquali, tends to exclude the possibility that the rock was thrown from outside the house to create access to the house through the window after the breaking of the pane.

So should there be glass on the outside or not? The window is still there, plenty of rocks, so... :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The answer to your question, max, might be, depends on whether the shutters were open or shut. I think Massei concludes they were shut, therefore an equal amount of glass would be on the sill on both sides of the window, but, since the shutters were in the way, most of the glass bounced back into the room. The reason there's no glass on the ground outside is because the shutters were shut.

That may be why no one noticed or heard the 'break in'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 4:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I understand that is the situation from when the rock is thrown from the inside but it doesn't answer the what if question. What if it was thrown from the outside...should there be pieces of glass outside or not? The Hellmann court says it is not necessary. They say it in the context of mentioning the Pasquali experiment, while Massei mentions the same but makes a different conclusion. The video doesn't show the outside (not surprisingly).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ38uzwD2Is

Of course, had they thrown the rock from the outside they would have opened the shutters first. Not so difficult from the inside. Then probably later in the morning when they realized plan A had failed then they closed the shutters not to attract anyone while they did some more cleaning. The closing of the shutters would have pushed the glass inwards anyway so I don't find that very conclusive either. What is conclusive is if there would have had to be glass outside.

Hellmann says no, and Masssei says yes. Both are mentioning the Pasquali experiment. My only experience is with a soccer ball and there was definitely glass outside. But this was not a soccer ball :)
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 5:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

There's a good deal of collusion in what reasonable people think of the impossibility of the window/rock/Filomena bedroom entry scenario. Here is an excerpt from Amazon review of Candace Dempsey book "Murder in Italy" (1 star). Followed by a repost of comment from another site.



(expected to believe): Guede scales a 3 meter and more wall in the dark, miraculously not making any traces on the wall and managing to avoid the huge nail that’s sticking out there. Incredibly, he manages to open the stiff wooden shutters, presumably with one hand. Then, he climbs down again to get a rock and throws that, smashing the window without anyone hearing the noise. Meredith, who is inside the apartment didn’t hear of course - as she would have screamed, ran outside or called the cops on one of her two cellphones. Cunningly, Guede then scales the wall for a second time, again leaving no trace. As luck would have it, none of the glass has fallen on the ground and he manages to climb through the window without cutting himself.

Amazing! But not as amazing as what happens next, according to what Knox wants us to believe.

Next, Guede ransacks Filomena’s room. During this time, Meredith continues to hear nothing… or she would have called the cops. Or screamed. Or ran outside. Or all three.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 9:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

WHAT PLANET??????

(JREF)

Image

The leaf they are talking about is on the right here - one photo - no indication when it was taken.
There are other labelled photos of the ledge where it seems to have blown off.



The "mark on the wall" they are talking about -- here:



The slight white line above the barred lower window

a wide foot? a step? no. any other scrabbling marks on the white wall - no scuff marks?
that's it? .... NO

That's all they have

They also think the 10lb rock thrown from the overlooking parapet to the LEFT of the window looking out, left the
small mark on the inner shutter pointed to by one of them here. Window was broken from the inside - the mark
is from the rock being swung (lower velocity) from the inside. A rock of that size hurled over the gap through the
closed shutter would have left a huge indentation or smashed the shutter - not that miniscule mark ...

also -- the rock landed next to a light foldeable chair near to, to the right of the window (still upright) -- to get
there what did it bounce off?



2nd arrow pointing right is "chip of paint" (explanation):

"If one imagines the windows closed, and the inside white shutters closed then a chip of paint falling off the white shutters will be trapped between them. So in order for that chip of paint to fall on the window sill where it did there needs to be a gap between the closed window panes and the white shutter. And this fits very well with a rock being thrown from outside, breaking through the window pane, then striking the white shutter and forcing it open. The strike on the white shutter will simultaneously dislodge the chip of paint and push the shutter to the inside which creates the gap required for that chip to fall onto the sill."


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sun May 06, 2012 10:13 am, edited 9 times 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: Sun May 06, 2012 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Review: Biography: Meredith: Our Daughter’s Murder, and the Heartbreaking Quest for Truth by John Kercher
Hodder & Stoughton,
£16.99, hbk, 304 pages
Available with free P&P onwww.kennys.ie or by calling 091 709350

Saturday May 05 2012




IRISH INDEPENDENT

( A MUST READ! )

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


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

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
WHAT PLANET??????

(JREF)

Image

The leaf they are talking about is on the right here - one photo - no indication when it was taken.
There are other labelled photos of the ledge where it seems to have blown off.



The "mark on the wall" they are talking about -- here:


I checked out the leaf/guppy photo. First the guppy shape paint chip? ,while looks similar in one photo it is not. The 'tail fin' is very different,if you look at the straight lines versus curvy. In the second "leaf" photo #36 the guppy reflection or whatever it is, is completely different and looks nothing like the missing paint. So what are we left with a possible leaf? It had been rainy and windy so a leaf had blown from the tree onto the sill? Now if it had been a blade of grass or a smudge of dirt that would have been something.

The slight white line above the barred lower window

a wide foot? a step? no. any other scrabbling marks on the white wall - no scuff marks?
that's it? .... NO

That's all they have

They also think the 10lb rock thrown from the overlooking parapet to the LEFT of the window looking out, left the
small mark on the inner shutter pointed to by one of them here. Window was broken from the inside - the mark
is from the rock being swung (lower velocity) from the inside. A rock of that size hurled over the gap through the
closed shutter would have left a huge indentation or smashed the shutter - not that miniscule mark ...

also -- the rock landed next to a light foldeable chair near to, to the right of the window (still upright) -- to get
there what did it bounce off?



2nd arrow pointing right is "chip of paint" (explanation):

"If one imagines the windows closed, and the inside white shutters closed then a chip of paint falling off the white shutters will be trapped between them. So in order for that chip of paint to fall on the window sill where it did there needs to be a gap between the closed window panes and the white shutter. And this fits very well with a rock being thrown from outside, breaking through the window pane, then striking the white shutter and forcing it open. The strike on the white shutter will simultaneously dislodge the chip of paint and push the shutter to the inside which creates the gap required for that chip to fall onto the sill."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael Sands
Michael Sands, who has died aged 66, was a nude Playgirl model, cheesecake entrepreneur and, he said, undercover operative for the CIA. His motto was “the truth shall set you free!” — but some questioned whether he always followed his own advice.

Quote:
Meanwhile, although he was inclined to despair of Paris Hilton (“In order to really reinvent Paris, I would put her on a plane for Iraq or Afghanistan”), he saw a great future for Amanda Knox, the woman convicted but subsequently cleared of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia. “Amanda could garner $2 million to well over $15 million and more through magazine cover stories, interviews on television like Diane Sawyer or Piers Morgan and a movie from her best selling book,” he predicted. “What a profit centre!”



TELEGRAPH

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
I understand that is the situation from when the rock is thrown from the inside but it doesn't answer the what if question. What if it was thrown from the outside...should there be pieces of glass outside or not? The Hellmann court says it is not necessary. They say it in the context of mentioning the Pasquali experiment, while Massei mentions the same but makes a different conclusion. The video doesn't show the outside (not surprisingly).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ38uzwD2Is

Of course, had they thrown the rock from the outside they would have opened the shutters first. Not so difficult from the inside. Then probably later in the morning when they realized plan A had failed then they closed the shutters not to attract anyone while they did some more cleaning. The closing of the shutters would have pushed the glass inwards anyway so I don't find that very conclusive either. What is conclusive is if there would have had to be glass outside.

Hellmann says no, and Masssei says yes. Both are mentioning the Pasquali experiment. My only experience is with a soccer ball and there was definitely glass outside. But this was not a soccer ball :)


A good question, what if the shutters were opened prior from the inside and rock thrown from the parapet, then shutters closed later? I'd ask why, though. Too many steps, when it's simpler to do from the inside.

Then again, I've some experience, lots actually, of seeing footage of the G20 cop/anarchist riots in Toronto. Admittedly plate glass on broken shop windows, but there was lots of glass on the outside AND inside. Also broke many a window in my day with cricket and basket ball, though never a brick :-) and yes, there ALWAYS was glass on the outside.

I am not so up on the Pasquale experiment and so hope someone else will answer that for you.

But, for me, witnesses Capezzali and Monacchia (plus Curatolo) are the clinchers. On a night when multiple accounts were made of running footsteps, piercing screams, arguments in Italian, animated lovebirds, NO ONE reported the sound of breaking glass, which I think odd. The sound of breaking glass carries some distance, especially at night. Especially if a rock had been thrown from the outside. But if the windows were shuttered, and rock in shopping bag swung at window from the inside, that would explain why the glass fell inside, and not much sound, escaped outside.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Review: Biography: Meredith: Our Daughter’s Murder, and the Heartbreaking Quest for Truth by John Kercher
Hodder & Stoughton,
£16.99, hbk, 304 pages
Available with free P&P onwww.kennys.ie or by calling 091 709350

Saturday May 05 2012




IRISH INDEPENDENT

( A MUST READ! )


A ggod review, and (moderated) comments allowed.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Troon wrote:
The leaf they are talking about is on the right here - one photo - no indication when it was taken.
There are other labelled photos of the ledge where it seems to have blown off.


A leaf? A leaf is supposed to prove the text book fake break-in was real? What geniuses! So then, what piece of hi-tech special laboratory laboratory equipment did the FOAKers use to DATE the depositing of said leaf? I mean, it's an outside window ledge, a leaf couldn't POSSIBLY have blown onto the ledge by Autumn winds, on the side of a windy hill, any day of the previous week! Or even, as a damp leaf from the damp previous night, been clinging to the rock the pair picked up from outside and carried upstairs the previous night. There's many ways and whens the leaf could have gotten there. I'm often getting leaves blowing in my window and I live upstais too. It's not evidence.


Troon wrote:
The "mark on the wall" they are talking about -- here:


They'll be seeing the face of Jesus on that wall next. That wall hasn't been painted for a LONG time, so the paint is very much worn away, faded and stained with polution. Discolouration does not constitute fresh scrape marks, which you couldn't possibly discern from a grainy photograph taken from a long distance away. You need to make a fingertip examination inches away of that wall in order to see if there ate any marks that are caused by recent abrasion or smearing. The police did though. So, that's an end to that.



Troon wrote:
A rock of that size hurled over the gap through the
closed shutter would have left a huge indentation or smashed the shutter - not that miniscule mark ...


At that velocity and momentum, you're not kidding. Not to mention, it would have been heard by every neighbour within a radius of 200 metres. And there's not a single chance in hell that not a single piece of glass wouldn't have fallen to the ground outside below. It was done from close-up and the outside shutters were closed.

And all the leaves and faces of Jesus in the world don't change the fact that glass was all over the top of Filomena's ransacked clothes and laptop. That ends all argument, there's nowhere to go with that. Claims it was a genuine break-in completely dissolve in the face of the crime scene evidence and sworn testimony of witnesses, no matter what assinine desperate Hail Mary contortions they try and fling at it.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
A ggod review, and (moderated) comments allowed.


I find the photo from that article quite poignant and sad and not only for the obvious reasons. That photo was not that many years ago and John kercher had lots of colour in his hair. He's white now.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2012 9:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

These are the sort of posts the FOAKers are now making to attack Chelsea Hoffmann on her blog:

Quote:
Bob Smith May 6, 2012, 3:10pm EDT

More comments for Chelsea, more views for Chelsea. Ca-ching, Ca-ching!

Oh Chelsea ... Kim Kardashian just called. She wants you to join her and Paris Hilton on a new reality show - "Making a buck without a brain cell".


http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4981306896 (bottom of comments)

It's now full-on abuse. It's unacceptable.

_________________
"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: Mon May 07, 2012 8:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
max wrote:
I understand that is the situation from when the rock is thrown from the inside but it doesn't answer the what if question. What if it was thrown from the outside...should there be pieces of glass outside or not? The Hellmann court says it is not necessary. They say it in the context of mentioning the Pasquali experiment, while Massei mentions the same but makes a different conclusion. The video doesn't show the outside (not surprisingly).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ38uzwD2Is

Of course, had they thrown the rock from the outside they would have opened the shutters first. Not so difficult from the inside. Then probably later in the morning when they realized plan A had failed then they closed the shutters not to attract anyone while they did some more cleaning. The closing of the shutters would have pushed the glass inwards anyway so I don't find that very conclusive either. What is conclusive is if there would have had to be glass outside.

Hellmann says no, and Masssei says yes. Both are mentioning the Pasquali experiment. My only experience is with a soccer ball and there was definitely glass outside. But this was not a soccer ball :)


A good question, what if the shutters were opened prior from the inside and rock thrown from the parapet, then shutters closed later? I'd ask why, though. Too many steps, when it's simpler to do from the inside.

Then again, I've some experience, lots actually, of seeing footage of the G20 cop/anarchist riots in Toronto. Admittedly plate glass on broken shop windows, but there was lots of glass on the outside AND inside. Also broke many a window in my day with cricket and basket ball, though never a brick :-) and yes, there ALWAYS was glass on the outside.

I am not so up on the Pasquale experiment and so hope someone else will answer that for you.

But, for me, witnesses Capezzali and Monacchia (plus Curatolo) are the clinchers. On a night when multiple accounts were made of running footsteps, piercing screams, arguments in Italian, animated lovebirds, NO ONE reported the sound of breaking glass, which I think odd. The sound of breaking glass carries some distance, especially at night. Especially if a rock had been thrown from the outside. But if the windows were shuttered, and rock in shopping bag swung at window from the inside, that would explain why the glass fell inside, and not much sound, escaped outside.

Thanks Ergon. I always thought that there should have been some glass outside as well. But when Massei didn't make that his number one proof point, and somehow Hellmann is able to flatly deny it then I keep in the back of my head the alternative of 'plan A'. Plan A that consists of very few steps actually. Just go outside, toss a rock, hope somebody will come and discover the 'burglary' while they were back home 'sleeping'.

That it didn't succeed would then lead to more steps the next morning. Lets not forget that Capezzali hearing the scream was a total coincidence. She just happened to pass by the window on her way to the bathroom when exactly at that moment the scream occurred. She then listened at the window and could hear the footsteps. That is why she is a reliable witness and it is an explanation why not more people could hear it (maybe Monacchia heard the same scream but we can't be totally sure of that).

Anyway, not that it really matters if the window was broken from inside or outside. Nobody climbed that wall :)
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

One further thing --
for the 10lb rock to have caused the small mark on the inner shutter
which the idiots over at JREF and elsewhere say is proof that rock
was thrown from the outside from the fenced parapet (from this position):



small mark - position is to the left - it would have been impossible for
that rock thrown from the parapet to have made that mark



so what do they have? the leaf possibly
there are NO MARKS on the wall ...
there has been no proof at all that the crime scene was not staged

lets do them a favor
maybe they can say that GUEDE STAGED the break-in because it was
staged ????

we have to regard the absurd here
they have already accepted that the naked footprint set in blood on the
bathmat was that of guede -- so ..

there are no other bloody footprints in the bathroom -- so guede
staged the break-in and he also cleaned the bath-room - he also took
a shower

will stop banging on about it -- totally exasperated - arguing with idiots
can't even argue - they just strike posts
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
One further thing --










Look at the height, and look at the distance from that opposite height, the right opposite the window, so you really couldn't take a running leap and grab hold of the other side then sustain enough energy with which to delicately find out first, with one hand holding and one hand searching while hanging there, where the actual latches and catches were inside, one slip and you might slit your wrists, but slitting the wrists accidentally would be just about what running and leaping then missing, would add up to if you fell onto the 'hard' concrete, I use the adjective hard but well, when was concrete ever soft? Also while climbing up to it, which would have taken so much stamina that only an Olympic athlete might manage to even get there, lest hold on there and also delicately seek out how to get the shutters open with you-yourself-and-you right in the way of doing that, did I mention, you'd be the thing in the way, so what, after getting them open did Evel Wotshisname Knievel jump down again only to go off in search of a long stick thereupon opening the shutters and thereafter climbing one again up onto the ledge i the most favourable location around the house in which to be seen by any motorist or walker that just happened to be, potentially, passing.
No, as a burglar, you'd know within 5 minutes that the place to enter would have been from behind and out of sight and through the entrance most easy to get in through.

Now there's this window that looks like a lovely would-be suicide artists delight, or the back way in, but come on, if you were going to go to all of that trouble pretending to be a circus artist with super human muscle strength and stamina, surely you could have just kicked the shit out of the front door? run hugely less risk of being seen each time you have the front door a kick? as the only time you'd be at risk of being seen doing that was the moment you kicked the door, thereafter you could resume the ordinary, I am Mr Ordinary Joe Visitor Person visiting and waiting for someone to open the door position.

No, if that had been a burglar, he'd have huffed and puffed and blown that door down, the truth is the killers did huff and puff; on water pipes and crack pipes or whatever crap it was they used that night besides joints.

Now I do hope Mr Sollecito can get his life back in Verona, the poor wee child, daddy has trusted him now, that may well be the case though I wonder if the parents of the female students at that university will be quite so happy if their daughters come home telling them about heir nice new friend!!!

Did he do it, did he not, oh that poor guy, he's so intelligent, his little beady turnip shoving eyes; listen dad he didn't do that murder right, and if there is another murder right, it wasn't him either right, and if you do happen to see me your daughter right, stood there at some murder scene right, kissing the guy right and looking like I ain't slept or showered in a week right, saying I just woke up and showered twice brushing my hair, well remember we are young right, the messed up hair is fashion, and, if you do hear about us all off down to the lingerie store right, and being concerned about ourselves right and pizza eating right, well, remember that's the way you'd want us to be right? And if half of the good citizens like shop owners with no reason to lie say they saw us at an unearthly hour of the morning hanging around waiting for the store to open like heroin addict dying for a fix, then think nothing of it, for we are the only truth tellers, we who have so many reasons to lie.

Thief Killer 1: Hey shall we just kick the front door in, ain't nobody gonna see
Thief Killer 2: Nah, let's do things the hard way, lets do it like we were in a competition, an obstacle course ahead, let's do it, I'll keep watch, you just go down to the front gate then run and take a flying leap, in through that window, you okay with that?
Thief Killer 1: Well no, why don't you show me how to do it, let's kick the front door open
Thief Killer 2: Are you nuts, that's way too easy, come on you scaredy pants, what you afraid of, breaking your neck or what? Come on, let's scale that wall where everyone can see us, where we will leave all kinds of marks and traces and probably lots of blood from the wounds we get from the glass, look you are the smallest, all 50 pounds of you, so you climb through then open the door for me!

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue May 08, 2012 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:

Thanks Ergon. I always thought that there should have been some glass outside as well. But when Massei didn't make that his number one proof point, and somehow Hellmann is able to flatly deny it then I keep in the back of my head the alternative of 'plan A'. Plan A that consists of very few steps actually. Just go outside, toss a rock, hope somebody will come and discover the 'burglary' while they were back home 'sleeping'.


Yes, but was a staged 'break in', not, a burglary. Why didn't they steal Filomena's laptop, to make that more convincing? Maybe because Amanda liked her? I don't know.

I think their main activity that night was to clean every as much as they could of their fingerprints, shower and get rid of the evidence. They were inside for most of that. It really makes more sense to stage it from the inside, when doing it from the outside would increase their chances of getting caught.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello everybody,

since I'm a Gallery Moderator without a gallery at the moment (hopefully not for long), I thought I'd take care of the LINKS subforum instead.

I've created a new thread where we can now post links in chronological order:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=382

I know some of the links are a bit buried as they are in different topic threads/folders. I'll be adding more links in the ongoing thread and filling in the gaps as we go along. Hopefully it will make it easier to find links you need.

We'll start with the one thread, see how it goes; and then, if there is a big need to do so later, consider adding more topic / theme folders.

If you've got time to kill (no pun intended), do check out some of the old links (2009-present). It's been wonderful not seeing faces of the Family on TV and reading about them in newspapers since the acquittal, so be prepared for a fresh deluge of déjà vu when you visit the LINKS subforum. :(
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Yes, but was a staged 'break in', not, a burglary. Why didn't they steal Filomena's laptop, to make that more convincing?

It wasn't the motivation. Also limited time - the rashness of the crime scene staging; an automatic decision - Sollecito boosted the rock against the window/shutter from the inside then they both fled. Dissasociation from the scene. Blame it on the black then get out of the building. They wouldn't hang around. Nobody would think it was them. Appear to be nice middle class kids. The only reason they were back the next day / skulking round, continuing to manipulate the crime scene was because Knox lived there.

Also why they didn't think to steal - they were out of their brains on alcohol/drugs. It never entered their tiny minds. They would have had to dispose of the items - automatic evidence. They were interfering with the scene as little as possible apart from the cleanup. Creeping round.

Knox and Sollecito are murderers but not natural thieves.

Another reason to confirm their involvement. The prosecution outlined Guede as a thief/burglar for disposeable cash items. Nothing at all was stolen - expensive sunglasses - laptop.
The high value, easily disposable items left.

But Sollecito had that information right away -- he stated to the police on the phone (as if he owned the place - taking control of the situation - arrogantly dismissing the postal police) that there was nothing stolen. He didn't even live there. HOW DID HE KNOW THAT AUTOMATICALLY?
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

more information from the room of the staged break-in.

the small mark on the inner shutter on the left of the window is from Sollecito swinging the rock from
right to left against that shutter. Because the rock was so heavy, this fits. The mark is low down, he
managed to manhandle the rock up above the ledge but not too far. Also a small mark after bashing
through the window.

Glass is still in place at the top of the window. Glass is not in place around that mark. The amount of
glass still in place is another indication that nobody got through that window. The amount of glass still
in place is another indication that the 10lb rock was not thrown 15 feet through the window from the
overlooking fenced parapet.

Also. The rock after that rebounded a small way to the right, not too far - under the foldeable
collapseable chair seen here, without knocking it over (or even displacing it). That rock was not thrown
15 feet from the parapet overlooking the window outside.

Haven't chosen to address the crime scene photos/room occupant recollection of closed shutters
and reason why. The shutters were closed anyway as Sollecito wanted to minimize noise (alert).

My reason for posting the below photo -- it shows glass shards - and the glass spatter is to the right.
Exactly where it should appear after what I described. They're not to the left - they're not over the
bed - what would be the south-west of that photo (if the 10lb rock had been hurled through the window
from the overlooking parapet, a distance of fifteen feet).



Just one more (new photo)

glass is shown in a line on the ledge beside the big fat zero notice
The window was smashed when the outer shutters were closed. Filomena informed the police
that the shutters were closed all the time (of course, in the cold weather). The shutters were
swollen she said. You can see that that one hasn't been maintained much, paint flecked, damp,
as she said. Photos of the window from the outside the next morning show those shutters closed
over. The inner shutters were obviously open at the time of Sollecitos rash staging/decision.

Image

Also - on the face of it ..
JREF snidely this week saying the room was untidy (not ransacked). To discredit Filomena "they
were all slovenly - not just Knox". To try to discredit. It's the game they play. It goes on permanently.

ignoring that -

... the degree to which the room was "ransacked" fits with staging ... nothing stolen but seemingly
"ransacked" ... They considered taking the high-value items but as that is evidence - they had enough
on their plate - they decided against. It wasn't their motivation. Filomena stated that the room was
"ransacked". Why was the wardrome symbolically "ransacked" when those high value items were on
display. That's it .. it was symbolic. If someone had been out to burgle - they would have snatched
the high value items. Simple - easy enough. Small items.

More evidence for the crime scene being staged. It is obvious. State something else obvious - the
reason any gumshoe would know automatically the break-in was staged.

glass fragments were ON TOP OF clothing pulled out of the wardrobe (the staged "ransack").
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
Yes, but was a staged 'break in', not, a burglary. Why didn't they steal Filomena's laptop, to make that more convincing?

It wasn't the motivation. Also limited time - the rashness of the crime scene staging; an automatic decision - Sollecito boosted the rock against the window/shutter from the inside then they both fled. Dissasociation from the scene. Blame it on the black then get out of the building. They wouldn't hang around. Nobody would think it was them. Appear to be nice middle class kids. The only reason they were back the next day / skulking round, continuing to manipulate the crime scene was because Knox lived there.

Also why they didn't think to steal - they were out of their brains on alcohol/drugs. It never entered their tiny minds. They would have had to dispose of the items - automatic evidence. They were interfering with the scene as little as possible apart from the cleanup. Creeping round.

Knox and Sollecito are murderers but not natural thieves.

Another reason to confirm their involvement. The prosecution outlined Guede as a thief/burglar for disposeable cash items. Nothing at all was stolen - expensive sunglasses - laptop.
The high value, easily disposable items left.

But Sollecito had that information right away -- he stated to the police on the phone (as if he owned the place - taking control of the situation - arrogantly dismissing the postal police) that there was nothing stolen. He didn't even live there. HOW DID HE KNOW THAT AUTOMATICALLY?



Yeah I agree, the disposability was the thing that concerned them if anything did, if they'd have stolen a laptop they'd have had to get rid of it, if they even thought about stealing lots of stuff then they'd have realised they couldn't keep the things they took and why would a thief throw away a computer down the street, or if not throw it, try to hide it, like in someones trash (that'd be too risky too, of it being found, just more stuff that could potentially carry traces from them), it was all too much, I doubt they thought that far, they were simply trying to make a murder look like a burglary, I think that only later confronted with the situation as it ran, with police in front of them, that they just grabbed things to say, they would have been nervous, what with everything they had to hide, tha'ts when they made mistakes with what they said like Sollecito explaining in a too helpful way that nothing was missing.

If they'd planned to murder Meredith then the murder would not have even taken place in the house.

_________________
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 08, 2012 6:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

guermantes wrote:
Hello everybody,

since I'm a Gallery Moderator without a gallery at the moment (hopefully not for long), I thought I'd take care of the LINKS subforum instead.

I've created a new thread where we can now post links in chronological order:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=382

I know some of the links are a bit buried as they are in different topic threads/folders. I'll be adding more links in the ongoing thread and filling in the gaps as we go along. Hopefully it will make it easier to find links you need.

We'll start with the one thread, see how it goes; and then, if there is a big need to do so later, consider adding more topic / theme folders.

If you've got time to kill (no pun intended), do check out some of the old links (2009-present). It's been wonderful not seeing faces of the Family on TV and reading about them in newspapers since the acquittal, so be prepared for a fresh deluge of déjà vu when you visit the LINKS subforum. :(


Thanks so much for this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
max wrote:
Yes, but was a staged 'break in', not, a burglary. Why didn't they steal Filomena's laptop, to make that more convincing?

It wasn't the motivation. Also limited time - the rashness of the crime scene staging; an automatic decision - Sollecito boosted the rock against the window/shutter from the inside then they both fled. Dissasociation from the scene. Blame it on the black then get out of the building. They wouldn't hang around. Nobody would think it was them. Appear to be nice middle class kids. The only reason they were back the next day / skulking round, continuing to manipulate the crime scene was because Knox lived there.

Also why they didn't think to steal - they were out of their brains on alcohol/drugs. It never entered their tiny minds. They would have had to dispose of the items - automatic evidence. They were interfering with the scene as little as possible apart from the cleanup. Creeping round.

Knox and Sollecito are murderers but not natural thieves.

Another reason to confirm their involvement. The prosecution outlined Guede as a thief/burglar for disposeable cash items. Nothing at all was stolen - expensive sunglasses - laptop.
The high value, easily disposable items left.

But Sollecito had that information right away -- he stated to the police on the phone (as if he owned the place - taking control of the situation - arrogantly dismissing the postal police) that there was nothing stolen. He didn't even live there. HOW DID HE KNOW THAT AUTOMATICALLY?

The glass shards on the left in the lower photo look like it is one piece that has split in three. The force of a throw from then outside would have scattered these three pieces into the room. It looks consistant with a short fall on the sill from an inside toss with closed shutters. The pieces remain side by side on the sill.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The member brmull on .org has unearthed the blog from a writer who has been among those competing to be Amanda Knox's ghostwriter.

Here are his comments:

Quote:
Paul Stenning - Ghostwriter and Biographer

What A Rollercoaster

April 23, 2012

Busy, busy, busy. Life doesn't ever slow down what with moving house, replying to emails (thanks to everyone for their recent fan mail), working on new books and arranging training in a new secondary vocation (more about this another time). Looking after a two-year-old is also the hardest, yet most rewarding, job in life!

There were numerous books in the pipeline for me recently but I had to say no to a couple of them as they either didn't fit my schedule, or were not my chosen subjects. Then there were those who were interested in me but ultimately either did not have the timing right in their own schedules, or, in one case, went with another writer. The latter case was no stranger to the public. You know her as Amanda Knox.

Yes folks, I can now reveal I was in the frame for being the ghostwriter for Amanda Knox's autobiography, for which she recently signed a six-figure deal with Harper Collins.

Overwhelmingly, everyone I have spoken to feel that it has been a blessing not to be chosen for this work - too controversial (perhaps even for me) and too emotionally fraught. It's a very difficult case and to have to approach a memoir from the point of view of a person considered by many to be guilty despite her legally confirmed innocence, is a potential minefield. I have to agree with my friends and associates who think it might be for the best. Besides, she lives in Seattle and I don't like the rain. That, in fact, might be one of the best reasons I was not the chosen one in the end.

This week I am in London to meet with a 93-year-old lady who will be telling me her life story. She is not famous, that I know of! However, by the sounds of it, I am in for a remarkable experience. She has had an amazing life by the little I already know and you just can't fathom how much experience a person of that age can impart. It will certainly be a first for me, but I'm looking forward to it.


I find Mr. Stennings six-figure deal easier to believe than a multimillion dollar sum for a boring prison experience that has already been reported extensively. Describing 'not having been chosen' as a blessing is also very revealing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks, Nell. I knew there was no way the $4 million deal was real, it completely flies in the face of every thing we know about how book publishers operate.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
The member brmull on .org has unearthed the blog from a writer who has been among those competing to be Amanda Knox's ghostwriter.

Here are his comments:

Quote:
Paul Stenning - Ghostwriter and Biographer

What A Rollercoaster

April 23, 2012

Busy, busy, busy. Life doesn't ever slow down what with moving house, replying to emails (thanks to everyone for their recent fan mail), working on new books and arranging training in a new secondary vocation (more about this another time). Looking after a two-year-old is also the hardest, yet most rewarding, job in life!

There were numerous books in the pipeline for me recently but I had to say no to a couple of them as they either didn't fit my schedule, or were not my chosen subjects. Then there were those who were interested in me but ultimately either did not have the timing right in their own schedules, or, in one case, went with another writer. The latter case was no stranger to the public. You know her as Amanda Knox.

Yes folks, I can now reveal I was in the frame for being the ghostwriter for Amanda Knox's autobiography, for which she recently signed a six-figure deal with Harper Collins.

Overwhelmingly, everyone I have spoken to feel that it has been a blessing not to be chosen for this work - too controversial (perhaps even for me) and too emotionally fraught. It's a very difficult case and to have to approach a memoir from the point of view of a person considered by many to be guilty despite her legally confirmed innocence, is a potential minefield. I have to agree with my friends and associates who think it might be for the best. Besides, she lives in Seattle and I don't like the rain. That, in fact, might be one of the best reasons I was not the chosen one in the end.

This week I am in London to meet with a 93-year-old lady who will be telling me her life story. She is not famous, that I know of! However, by the sounds of it, I am in for a remarkable experience. She has had an amazing life by the little I already know and you just can't fathom how much experience a person of that age can impart. It will certainly be a first for me, but I'm looking forward to it.


I find Mr. Stennings six-figure deal easier to believe than a multimillion dollar sum for a boring prison experience that has already been reported extensively. Describing 'not having been chosen' as a blessing is also very revealing.


Yes some Brits are money whores too, like this guy, he pretends his chums made him see the light, but in fact, by the way he writes and the bubble gum, throwaway nature of what he said, it seems to me he'd have taken it if he had been given it but he wasn't, he looks like one of those really commercial types.
Will have to look him up.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

What will the cover of Sollecito's book look like? Saw this on Amazon:

Attachment:
Sollecito's book cover.jpg


A new (US) edition of John Follain's book is due to be published by August 21, 2012 (note the change in title):

Attachment:
John Follan's Death in Italy (US edition).jpg


Nina Burleigh's paperback (July 10, 2012):

Attachment:
Burleigh's paperback.jpg


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

guermantes wrote:
What will the cover of Sollecito's book look like? Saw this on Amazon:



I think he meant to write INDEED GUILTY AS SHOWN

Burleigh, my, she is rather more than dense isn't she, what a stupid idea, that it was all about Knox being pretty, she is a plain jane that's all and the murder has nothing to do with Burleigh's idiotic ideas.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 4:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

What will the cover of Knox's book look like? ;)

Attachment:
knoxymonsterofperugia.jpg


Image courtesy of Jester (a re-post from Oct 6, 2011).


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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 11:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/aman ... -1.3709861

Do you get the feeling that there will be no court appearances in Italy until a certain pair of twenty somethings hang themselves in their own books? These books will either need to be so mild that they couldn't possibly incriminate their authors OR they will need to go on hold until the legal stuff is completed, whenever that may be. If what I suspect is going in is going on then I commend the Italian court system for being clever little pixies and letting the lovebirds convict themselves through the medium of print :)
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/amanda-knox-slander-trial-postponed-in-italy-1.3709861

Do you get the feeling that there will be no court appearances in Italy until a certain pair of twenty somethings hang themselves in their own books? These books will either need to be so mild that they couldn't possibly incriminate their authors OR they will need to go on hold until the legal stuff is completed, whenever that may be. If what I suspect is going in is going on then I commend the Italian court system for being clever little pixies and letting the lovebirds convict themselves through the medium of print :)



I don't know Daisy, but I sure hope you are correct, and that they do hang themselves, a rather nice way of putting it.

Wouldn't that be nice eh, if murderers could just go to a new town and forget everything they did, I fear that this will not just leave them, Sollecito I mean, specifically, I'm sure he was present when Meredith was murdered if he didn't actually actually kill Meredith himself, he was a full member of the murder squad, as much a part of the sheer disregard for Meredith as well after Meredith had been murdered, the disregard was their thing, theirs being Sollecito and Knox's thing, that's what they did, have a joke and a laugh, in Knox's case talking harshly to people.
Only, I still can't choose who it is that delivered the fatal blow. Often that snide look of his, this thing about him that's nasty, the wlement of arrogance that is part of him tells me he could have done it, but when I think about Knox and her attitude and temperament, I see her as the one that finished Meredith off.

Nope, I sure do hope that their inner demons eat away at them, as they deserve it.
Looking at Knox, I do not see her in a state of release, I ind that it is all written over her, her aura, her persona, her being, some say she was good at acting, I say Sollecito does his best to pretend he is a just a nice little boy, who me, no, of course I am innocent, that's why I contradicted myself all the time.

Somehow, the law, the system, the systems everywhere, are wrong wherein people can get away with saying things that really show that they are guilty but not be made to repeat it in court. I think he should have been forced to repeat in court what he had said to the police, and they should have been cross-examined on those things. I know that people cannot be forced, but I think that they should be.

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri May 11, 2012 9:54 am, 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: Fri May 11, 2012 2:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I don't believe that either Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox are going to reveal anything in their books that could possibly be more incriminating than the statements they've already made.

I am convinced that Amanda Knox will take the opportunity to dish out against her former Italian roommates, Giacomo and Meredith's British friends. She might also use her book to portray Meredith in a negative light. Through Meredith's family and friends we know a few details about what Meredith said and thought about Amanda Knox. I cannot imagine that sat well with Amanda Knox. I wouldn't be surprised if her hate was so overwhelming that she completely forgets to express any sadness about her "friend's" murder in her book.

I remember when Amanda Knox was arrested and Edda Mellas and Curt Knox said it was all their fault, because they didn't insist she came home. They also embellished their story by saying Amanda wanted to stay in Italy to console the Kerchers and to help police. Now try to square that with what Amanda Knox actually said in court and how she behaved at the police station and at the crime scene.

I don't think Amanda Knox will change. I expect her book to be filled with the same verbal diarrhea she's already so well known for. She has only her unhinged family to rely on for advice.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I think the delays have more to do with the SC appeal. They seem to be waiting the outcome of that one. Or maybe it is the other way around that they don't want the outcome of the slander cases to have any influence on the SC appeal. I don't know, but I am not really liking it. One shouldn't have any effect on the other. The police is busy and now the judge is busy? Yeah right :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
I think the delays have more to do with the SC appeal. They seem to be waiting the outcome of that one. Or maybe it is the other way around that they don't want the outcome of the slander cases to have any influence on the SC appeal. I don't know, but I am not really liking it. One shouldn't have any effect on the other. The police is busy and now the judge is busy? Yeah right :roll:


I absolutely agree with you.

Personally, I don't think of the Italian justice system that highly. I have no doubts the police, carabinieri and forensic examiner did an excellent job, but to let all involved - victim's family and accused - wait for years to know the outcome of a trial is simply cruel and unprofessional in my opinion.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 10:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
max wrote:
I think the delays have more to do with the SC appeal. They seem to be waiting the outcome of that one. Or maybe it is the other way around that they don't want the outcome of the slander cases to have any influence on the SC appeal. I don't know, but I am not really liking it. One shouldn't have any effect on the other. The police is busy and now the judge is busy? Yeah right :roll:


I absolutely agree with you.

Personally, I don't think of the Italian justice system that highly. I have no doubts the police, carabinieri and forensic examiner did an excellent job, but to let all involved - victim's family and accused - wait for years to know the outcome of a trial is simply cruel and unprofessional in my opinion.


I agree with that last bit, that it takes too long.
In addition to that, the system of appeals is way too easy on criminals, it allows a second trial but without all of the evidence the way it was presented before, the presence of the witnesses, such as Meredith's friends, the housemates, all of that is watered down so that it is only on paper which I fear lay judges will not even have read properly and it would have meant little to their sense of reality and so it would be just words on paper not touching their emotions and not in connection to anything making them think.

That means the appeal as executed in Italy, allow lawyers to bend a case, making it look entirely different, a judge who looks like he popped in for a coffee disregards the reasoning of the judges that went before.

I also disagree with having such cases filmed, and I'm against allowing the media to play games with their tweeting in court, etc, showing how to them (hello, yeah I just got here, I heard bla bla bla) it's more like it's all about their own ego-tripping and about telling their media audience brethren and families (in the articles nota bene) how lucky they the journalist is to be down in sunny Italy, on an all paid-up working holiday kind of thing, then saying stupid, uninformed uninsightful things that in this case did leave me in complete disgust, realising how awful some people in this wold are with their careeers and their selfishness.

I could have done without all of that, because there are heavy duty cases going on every day so why should they have allowed this one to be used by the media with their talky talk shows all the time and the side show opportunistic lunatics like Moore, Bremner, and many more being able to make a buck too, off of Meredith's death?

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri May 11, 2012 6:35 pm, edited 2 times 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: Fri May 11, 2012 11:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The problem with the Italian system, is that it doesn't have the funding to enable it to live up to its ambitious legal ideals. Add to that its complication, which also adds to delays. The Italian system is geared towards 'truth' and in favour of accused, as well as being designed to cater to the victims. This means more hearings, more appeals and more parties directly involved in the process. And for fairness, the same judges are not permitted to preside over more then one aspect of a case or cases directly connected to those they have already presided over. Dates have to be made where legitimate judges are able to preside over the hearing and where all parties are available (defence, victims and prosecution teams). Unfortunately, the funding doesn't match the requirements for such a system...there are simply not enough judges, court rooms and lawyers for the task. For these reasons, the Italian system is very thorough, but also very slow.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The good news about the delay of Amanda's calunnia trial, is that it will also delay the publication of her rag book. And the longer the delay on that, the lower the sales as the further she'll be out of the general publics memory.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It will be interesting to see if the Italian Supreme Court rules against Amanda Knox. In that case I hope the Kerchers sue her in US Federal Court to stop her from profiting from the proceeds of her crime.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello everyone......You may ( or not :) have noticed my absence. I have a medical problem which needs to be addressed, ( not life threatening, but extremely painful.) I am with all of you in mind and spirit, if not on line.

I WILL be back, for sure. Just a quick note, on Nell's linked post. Very illuminating. Just reading that the deal was in the 6 figures ( although that's 6 figures too much) actually had me feeling a bit better for a mo. And, it's iteresting that the ghostwriter mentions that he may not have been chosen because he doesn't live in Seattle. ( where the little core group of supporters live.)

Personally, I think he wasn't chosen because he didn't believe in the innocence of Knox, necessarily. I guess he didn't fawn enough, and was too discerning.

Take care all. Keeping the Faith. See you fairly soon, I hope. co-) k-((

_________________
"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 May 11, 2012 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I'm personally having difficulty wrapping my head around what the terms of her book deal actually are.
If I set aside the fact that I have been following this case, and ask myself what the blockbuster would be from a financial standpoint, it would have to be the COMPLETE story, from Knox's viewpoint. And that story has not ended yet, not by a mile.
Follow the money. The agent and the publisher are in this for the money. Plain and simple. Unless she has committed to a sequel, I can't see how there is any money to be earned now. She can't slander the police any further in print at this point. So, unless they have locked her in to further publications, I can't see the sense to this deal happening now.
Could she, at a later date, publish the ending to her saga with another publisher?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hello everyone......You may ( or not :) have noticed my absence. I have a medical problem which needs to be addressed, ( not life threatening, but extremely painful.) I am with all of you in mind and spirit, if not on line.

I WILL be back, for sure. Just a quick note, on Nell's linked post. Very illuminating. Just reading that the deal was in the 6 figures ( although that's 6 figures too much) actually had me feeling a bit better for a mo. And, it's iteresting that the ghostwriter mentions that he may not have been chosen because he doesn't live in Seattle. ( where the little core group of supporters live.)

Personally, I think he wasn't chosen because he didn't believe in the innocence of Knox, necessarily. I guess he didn't fawn enough, and was too discerning.

Take care all. Keeping the Faith. See you fairly soon, I hope. co-) k-((


Sorry you are having difficulties, capealadin. Hope all works out for the best. I've missed reading you lately.
If you don't mind me saying so, you have what my dear mom always called "piss and vinegar' in your comments. which go right to the point of the issue at hand. Come back soon.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Get well soon, capealadin. Rest and take care of yourself. We did miss you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

They're still banging on at Chelsea Hoffman's blog. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 1#comments

I wonder whether "don't feed the troll" should be applied now?

Nah, they need to be reminded that if very few people believe in Amanda Knox's innocence, it might be due to their own actions.

Criminals DO hire PR agencies all the time (I am referring to politicians and corporations :)

So if the 'message' fails, maybe the PR agency needs to be fired? I am not one of those who think David Marriott ran a brilliant campaign. If anything, it was inept, amateurish, and heavy handed, and it only was the major networks, looking for an American Female in Distress they needed to sell as news, that allowed it to go so far.

This is called doubling down, folks. When losing, nothing telegraphs desperation more than the antics of the Amandii.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
The problem with the Italian system, is that it doesn't have the funding to enable it to live up to its ambitious legal ideals. Add to that its complication, which also adds to delays. The Italian system is geared towards 'truth' and in favour of accused, as well as being designed to cater to the victims. This means more hearings, more appeals and more parties directly involved in the process. And for fairness, the same judges are not permitted to preside over more then one aspect of a case or cases directly connected to those they have already presided over. Dates have to be made where legitimate judges are able to preside over the hearing and where all parties are available (defence, victims and prosecution teams). Unfortunately, the funding doesn't match the requirements for such a system...there are simply not enough judges, court rooms and lawyers for the task. For these reasons, the Italian system is very thorough, but also very slow.



Yes That's right. I do not find it excusable though, as we are living in 2012 and Italy is not the only country with the Civil Law system or a form of it.

For example, CIVIL LAW, info found online:
All European Union states except UK (excluding Scotland) and Ireland,
Brazil,
Canada (Quebec only),
China (except Hong Kong),
Japan,
Mexico,
Russia,
Switzerland,
Turkey,
USA (Louisiana only),
India (Goa only


In light of this where Common Law is by no means the only system, as adhered to by Britain and the USA, then the Italian model could be updated and improved by looking for instance at the German and Dutch systems, which are also civil law systems but do not take forever as a general rule to get anywhere, nor do those systems allow for appeals as a matter of general procedure. Before the appeals are granted the case has to be reviewed by those trained to consider such serious matter instead of it all just being given to a court that doesn't want to have to be there, and does not get to see the evidence in its entirety.

Hellmann even comes across as though to him it was like sorting out parking fines.

The Italian system is costing far too much money in the long, drawn out/stretched out way of things, and even with that, still doesn't seem to deliver enough quality, because the length of time it takes and the right to automatically get an appeal appears to be where the money goes/is spent.
Apparently many professionals are underpaid, and in serious cases that's dangerous, as we see strange persons such as Carlo Torres appearing for people, hired i, coming up with the most outlandish of theories, while to me it seemed to resemble someone working as a carpenter in the day for a firm and doing a bit of private work in the weekends and evenings to earn extra money, I think the judiciary ought not be set up so it can work like that, as it seems to me the idea of ethical codes get thrown out of the window because lead me not into temptation becomes, I solemnly vow to allow myself to be led into temptation, namely that of fast cash, to someone not earning lots the temptation to fail to comply with considerations related directly to the ethics of practice must be great and increased. I find that situation, where scholars and learned fellows/women-fellows can play about with their expertise a wrong situation/possibility/option.
Like the experts Hellmann had brought in, were not the be all, end all in their fields, they were in no way the experts with superior knowledge and skills. One was the female who herself had some murky dealings, which allowed a murderer to go free, based on her dodgy DNA findings. The person he appears to have covered for, was from a certain elechon of society, and his aunt was the lecturer that taught this expert brought in by Hellmann.

a) So did this woman expert do her old lecturer a favour by helping out by declaring that the DNA found in North Africa, obtained from a person that had died there, to be the DNA of the man sought in Italy for many years, the nephew of the lecturer, in that way, causing the Italian state to stop searching for him?

What happened was, after him being declared dead, by the Hellmann expert, he was spotted more than once in Italy.

b) Did this expert know he was actually still alive, or did she make a mistake with the analysis of the DNA?

What is it then with her, she either made a mistake and thus was not good at conducting DNA research, or else she knew what she was doing it and did it for criminal reasons.
Either one of the two options is not good.

For Hellmann then, it means, on the one hand: either she was terrible at analysing DNA, and she must have been to make such a mistake if it was a mistake, and so he should never have had her brought in.
On the other hand, if she did know, and it was not a mistake: he also should never have allowed her into his courtroom.

Either way, Hellmann was in the wrong to bring in and have her obvious inability, or obviously shady dealings, affect the case the way he allowed it to.

So this example, to my mind, demonstrates that there was a bad situation and there ought to be system in place that disallows it, I cannot understand how that so-called expert is still working.
It reeks of (class = perhaps wealthy old families) protectionism within an elistis rank of society!


What Mignini spent on trying to prove matters was peanuts compared to some other cases outside Italy.

Truth is Knox and Sollecito ought to be in prison and so should some of their family members.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat May 12, 2012 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks, Napia and Ergon. Piss and Vinegar? Yes. I like to cut to the chase. Mind you, that partly comes from getting sick and tired of the rigmarole put out by the Foakers. I tend to think..* Stop faffing, and get to the point. Or..*.Rubbish. Let's call it how it is *.

I don't go through life, thinking people are stupid. UNLIKE the Foakers. They HAVE to believe people are stupid, to think that anyone with slightly more than a pea sized brain, could swallow their mantra.

See ya'll soon..........

_________________
"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: Fri May 11, 2012 6:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hello everyone......You may ( or not :) have noticed my absence. I have a medical problem which needs to be addressed, ( not life threatening, but extremely painful.) I am with all of you in mind and spirit, if not on line.

I WILL be back, for sure. Just a quick note, on Nell's linked post. Very illuminating. Just reading that the deal was in the 6 figures ( although that's 6 figures too much) actually had me feeling a bit better for a mo. And, it's iteresting that the ghostwriter mentions that he may not have been chosen because he doesn't live in Seattle. ( where the little core group of supporters live.)

Personally, I think he wasn't chosen because he didn't believe in the innocence of Knox, necessarily. I guess he didn't fawn enough, and was too discerning.

Take care all. Keeping the Faith. See you fairly soon, I hope. co-) k-((



Yes did notice and you are missed from our front lines here.

Hope you get relief fast from the pain, get better soon~

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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Get better soon cape, I miss you! hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Zorba. When I'm feeling better, I will do more than skim the posts. Which is all I'm really capable of, right now.

There are wonderful nuggets, I'm sure, from all of you. I've come to expect that. And, I am seldom disappointed.

I was thinking a little more about the book deal. After taxes, paying the ghostwriter, etc, not much left. Sooooo, the money expectations are going to have to come to fruition with...........LIVE Interviews. That's a whole different ball of wax. Yes, certain Interviewers will be chosen, who will go along with the BS. HOWEVER, that's not going to fly with the audience. There will be a lot more questions in people's minds. Oh, like, Hmm, why didn't they ask Knox this? Or, why not press further on that? If these interviews are done, before the SC decide their fate, then the running excuse will be * I can't answer that at this time *. And, that will annoy viewers even more.

The viewers will pretty soon twig on to the fact that questions will have been given to Knox beforehand. It always is transparent when something is rehearsed. Oh, it will for sure be the Dog and Pony Show....Knox with her yet another * Persona*. This persona will be the * HUMBLE, SCHOLARLY ONE*............That's the one voted for, by the PR and the Foakers. ( If you could SEE ME typing this, you would see how cynical I must look)......apart from disgust.

I will be optimistic, and hope that viewers are not taken in. I really believe enough of the viewing audience have seen enough real trials on TV, and are educated into the real nitty gritty of Murderers, and how they lie. And the simple answer. They lie, because killers DO NOT want to get caught. Simples.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks dg. Kiss.

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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

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

Best Wishes to you, Cape, get well soon! r-((

(otherwise, I'm not up to date at all with recent posts, so can't really say anything...)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Ava. Not up to date with recent posts? I'm not up to ANYTHING :)

_________________
"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: Sat May 12, 2012 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
--- snip ---

In addition to that, the system of appeals is way too easy on criminals, it allows a second trial but without all of the evidence the way it was presented before, the presence of the witnesses, such as Meredith's friends, the housemates, all of that is watered down so that it is only on paper which I fear lay judges will not even have read properly and it would have meant little to their sense of reality and so it would be just words on paper not touching their emotions and not in connection to anything making them think.

That means the appeal as executed in Italy, allow lawyers to bend a case, making it look entirely different, a judge who looks like he popped in for a coffee disregards the reasoning of the judges that went before.

--- snap ---


I am not an expert in Italian law, but my understanding is that this is not how it is supposed to be, even though it is what judge Pratillo Hellmann did. It was wrong. You cannot look at two pieces of evidence, declare them unreliable and overthrow a conviction based on that without having looked at and taken into account all the other incriminating evidence. I know Hellmann did that, but I am not sure that he was actually allowed to do that. In his motivations report he does a lot of mental gymnastics that are at odds with the evidence, the findings of the original experts and logic in general. He based his reasoning on defense experts and defense theories only. He takes the defendants word as fact, no matter how outrageously outlandish their stories were.

I would like to know why he decided to acquit them? Was it some internal decision from the Italian courts, a political motive, or was he approached by the defense teams? I cannot say which one it is, but I am sure he did not look and did not want to look at the evidence. He found as many excuses as he needed to acquit them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

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

Hi cape,

Thanks for letting us know! I missed your posts.

I wish you a very speedy and painless recovery.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 1:25 am   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!   

Administrator Note:

Hello Everyone.

I have good news and bad news. Firstly, I'll get the bad news out of the way. A while ago, I promised some of you that I'd install some new games in the arcade. I'm afraid this is no longer possible. Somehow, the module that allows me to upload and unpack games has become corrupted. I've tried my best to fix it, but no cigar. Fortunately, nothing else regarding the arcade is effected (for now), so you should be able to play your games and record your scores as usual.

Now the good news. 1) I've removed the defunct Admin email addy contact from the footer of the forum 2) The navigation bar links to White PMF #1 & #2 have been fixed and they now point to the correct forum (perugiamurderfile.net), so now you can easily switch styles to a lighter style to view .net, logged in or not. Of the two, I recommend #2 :)

Thank You

Michael

PS: On behalf of myself and PMF, get well soon Cape!!!

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 2:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Nell and Michael. Next week will be the crunch, and some recovery time. For someone who doesn't take pills, thank GOD for them. For now.

I'm not used to feeling sorry formyself, but I am now officially a sob sister :)

Miss you all, and thanks again. Your wishes are so appreciated. hugz-) k-((

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

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 4:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Cape,

Just want to add my best wishes for a very speedy recovery. I've missed your posts and wondered if something was amiss or if you were playing with your new grandbaby. Get well soon!!!

beans
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The Roman system of law, which is another name, basically, for the Italian system, was the system that all of the following systems around the world were derived from.

The Penal Code was laid down by a fascist, and what it set out was written, set/fixed sentences for each crime, it really had to be updated and changed, and was, along with a lot of other matters.

The laws, also before the arrival of the written penal code, had meant that ordinary people had to be terrified of the state because they stood nowhere, were powerless with the great might of the state against them, only those with money could do anything at all to defend themselves.
The Penal Code having been drawn-up by a fascist, obviously had a lot of things wrong with it, and the length of processes were still extremely long.
This was changed but seeing this now, with Meredith murder, I reckon it is still in need of reform, not 'a la Berlusconi' so that crooks can avoid punishment, like he wanted to be able to do, but reformed to make the system efficient and effective.

If a huge, ancient Bible in a glass case (with worn, fingered pages, showing how very much the Bible was at the centre of village/town/city life) in the centre of some old church, resembling a museum, radiates a sense of the fear people had of God and the state, the Bible being like a tool, a tool for the oppression of people by means of state-driven religious obscurantism, then the courts were part of that, judges sitting on a raided podium up at a height way above everyone else (that physical scene and setting itself being symbolic for how they ruled over the people), meaning: the judges were not at that point in time servants of the people; the people were the downtrodden subjects, waiting years while secret evidence was run through and compiled perhaps on them, they often never knew anything but feared it nonetheless. They had basically no rights.

This might be true of Italy, however; it was true everywhere.

This is why all of the systems have been evolving as peoples gain more education about humility and human rights and thus get nearer to creating civilised societies.

Unlike says of old where a cave man could club someone and rob him, and then get caught by some of the others and clubbed too as retribution, we as peoples have been trying to find ways to co-exist successfully, without becoming barbaric like the persons we wish to control within society that go off and kill and tell lies and simply act in awful ways in the first place.
We do not wish to become like those we seek to stop from harming others but we cannot simply let them get away with murder.

If Knox and Sollecito ever imagine they are the only ones who will not simply be let alone they are wrong, as this endeavour is part of what it means to be truly human, where the human senses the injustice, and in this case, gross injustice has taken place, first the murder and then with the failing in court to see those guilty punished. The rest of the world is that little bit less safe, because two guilty people have been allowed to get off, for now, scot free and make a mockery of all those with an inkling of intelligence.

Therefore America has been undermined through the misuse of it by ordinary people, who took it upon themselves to manipulate people's minds through the power of the media. This was done by scaremongering, playing upon national sensitivities, thing is I cannot believe that anyone in America with a brain could simply swallow all of this and not see through the haze the family in Seattle set out to create. I do not blame all of America. I see it as a case of individuals misusing American power for their own ends because the real deal is that it all had nothing to do with nationalities, nothing at all, what they have done is sow misinformation, play on deep fears.

The line they put out is that the world is a place to be afraid of, whereas in truth, America has grown quickly too, it is not entirely the America as it was at the time of the Civil War, modern Americans are basically open to all kinds of nationalities, have learned tolerance and understanding, there are plenty of things still wrong in American society, it is a huge country, but seeing a how America has been built on foreign blood, from every kind of nationality brew, it is rather insane to be a racist in the first place.

However, what Knox's lot did was belittle Americans, insulting people's intelligence, bringing them in fact down to the level of some bunch of people fighting a Civil War, where blacks where hung like strange fruit in trees, when this is not the way modern Americans are anymore; they even tried to pretend that Italy is some kind of barbaric place, nothing like the good old USA.
None of this was anywhere near reality. It was'nt what was going on, they had to invent a version of reality. Perhaps this non-realism, was inspired by Knox's problem with reality.

If in trying to protect those who have done nothing we still allow things into the systems of law, making it possible for those who HAVE committed terrible crimes to get off scot free, then the system is failing the people too, just as it wold if it simply locked up the innocent or clubbed those that club and rob people.

Many of the ugly of tongue, and therefore mind, that we've witnessed as a result of following Meredith's murder, have attempted to simply aggravate matters, with the sole intention of creating a cloak under which to hide the dagger(s), in this case literally, but the acts carried out upon Meredith, have inspired like-minded persons to replicate the ill-intentions that were there when Meredith was killed that night, so these people shout and are aggressive online, lying too, by saying things that they know nothing about, like that in Italy you are not innocent until proven guilty, when this very thing/element/component of law is a requirement, certainly in Europe, meaning: Italy could never have entered the European Union if it had not signed up to that condition and made it part of Italian law.

A lot in Italian law changed, the Penal Code for one thing.

The actual legal system is not a purely civil system, it is a mixture of adversarial and civil law, it was inquisitorial where the judges did all of the investigating.

Is it a good thing though, that in Italy the lay judges get to sit om the very same panel as the judges?
The judges explain things to the lay judges when they go off into the closed chambers in the courthouse.
The clerks follow everything in court and compile date and simplify it for the lay judges so that they can understand it. Yet how much CAN a lay person get to understand of complicated laws? How much can any juror really grasp if lawyers speak in jargon talk? ?
Who controls what the clerks make of things?
The judges do.
Assuming the judges are reliable and honest, then they will make sure information is correct. However, what happens when you get a judge like Hellmann, who may have been contacted, and I think he was, privately, somehow by those who needed to contact him, to try to sway his opinions, and influence he case, even if they wrote him letters under fictitious names, he may still have, repeatedly, read those lines, the ones put out by Fort Marriot!

I'm wondering now whether it is such a good thing that judges can influence lay judges as much as they are able to in Italy; what the judges think means they can shape what they say to manipulate lay judges into thinking what they wish them to think, in some matters, especially where it is complicated. You can put a thing in a number of ways and one moment have people thinking one thing and the next minute the opposite.
Only, when the actual trial took place, then the lay judges were able to see for themselves what the witnesses said, how they said it, and thy could follow it all as it proceeded.

In the appeal I think the judges get to influence things in a way that could not work had the lay judges followed it like the lay judges had in the first court trial.

Twisting
What Sollecitós lawyers did, was sow confusion, they had no real reason to bring i the types of witnesses that they did, they didn't expect them to be believed. The reason they brought them in was to try to make people think it was one big crock of shit, meaning, the witnesses placed by the prosecution would look simply nuts too, when put into a heap with a pile of nutty people.

This was done then to undermine the words of any potential witnesses from the prosecution, like the vagabond in the park, he may have used drugs but to me it's clear he had no reason to lie about that night and wht he saw, he may have used drugs but he knew what he was saying.

Putting a child killer in the court was done to make the vagabond look useless too. So they could say look, we put a nutter in there, and so did the prosecution. All very confusing for the lay judges and onlookers but Bongiorno knew what she was doing.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun May 13, 2012 4:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Aranel


Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:57 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ha! I found FOA Central, or at least their new digs.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/291062117582686/


I think every last member is a known FOA. They are almost all there, even the bigger names.
It's unbelievable how they pretend there wasn't an organized PR campaign, and then you look at the new club house and there they ALL are. pffft
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

For those of us not on facebook, what's the member list?

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


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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

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

New article by Chelsea Hoffman:

Did Amanda Knox Commit Slander? Most Likely
May 12, 2012 03:25 AM EDT

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.acti ... 4981326774
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

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

Michael wrote:
For those of us not on facebook, what's the member list?


The group has 122 members, among them Bruce Fisher, Sarah Snyder, Jim Lovering, Anne Bremner, Nina Burleigh, David Anderson, Liz Huff, Greg Hampikian, Judy Bachrach, Doug Bremner, Douglas Preston, Vanessa Sollecito, Chris Mellas, Michelle Moore, Peter Van Sant, Katie Crouch, Frank Sfarzo, Mario Spezi, Paul Ciolino, Candace Dempsey, Steven Moore, Joseph Bishop, ...

It is noteworthy that except for six members (Jim Lovering, Chris Halkides, David Kamanski, Lisa Rieger, Sarah Snyder and Bruce Fisher), all of them have been added by Bruce Fisher and Sarah Snyder. This facebook group was created 6 months ago.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Nell. It's therefore safe to say, that Bruce Fisher and Sarah Snyder are the creators of the group, no doubt under the cheerleading of Jim Lovering. Does the group have a stated purpose/mission statement, anything like that? No David Marriott?

Has there been any activity there by Mario Spezi?

_________________
"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: Sat May 12, 2012 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello Michael, do you have the option of reducing image width sizes? as the images somewhere above have made the page, with me at least, too wide and I have to scroll back & forth all the time in order to be able to read.

Thanks

_________________
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: Sat May 12, 2012 3:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Nell wrote:
The member brmull on .org has unearthed the blog from a writer who has been among those competing to be Amanda Knox's ghostwriter.

Here are his comments:

Quote:
Paul Stenning - Ghostwriter and Biographer

What A Rollercoaster

April 23, 2012

Busy, busy, busy. Life doesn't ever slow down what with moving house, replying to emails (thanks to everyone for their recent fan mail), working on new books and arranging training in a new secondary vocation (more about this another time). Looking after a two-year-old is also the hardest, yet most rewarding, job in life!

There were numerous books in the pipeline for me recently but I had to say no to a couple of them as they either didn't fit my schedule, or were not my chosen subjects. Then there were those who were interested in me but ultimately either did not have the timing right in their own schedules, or, in one case, went with another writer. The latter case was no stranger to the public. You know her as Amanda Knox.

Yes folks, I can now reveal I was in the frame for being the ghostwriter for Amanda Knox's autobiography, for which she recently signed a six-figure deal with Harper Collins.

Overwhelmingly, everyone I have spoken to feel that it has been a blessing not to be chosen for this work - too controversial (perhaps even for me) and too emotionally fraught. It's a very difficult case and to have to approach a memoir from the point of view of a person considered by many to be guilty despite her legally confirmed innocence, is a potential minefield. I have to agree with my friends and associates who think it might be for the best. Besides, she lives in Seattle and I don't like the rain. That, in fact, might be one of the best reasons I was not the chosen one in the end.

This week I am in London to meet with a 93-year-old lady who will be telling me her life story. She is not famous, that I know of! However, by the sounds of it, I am in for a remarkable experience. She has had an amazing life by the little I already know and you just can't fathom how much experience a person of that age can impart. It will certainly be a first for me, but I'm looking forward to it.


I find Mr. Stennings six-figure deal easier to believe than a multimillion dollar sum for a boring prison experience that has already been reported extensively. Describing 'not having been chosen' as a blessing is also very revealing.



Following this blog entry, Paul Stenning published an update as response to those who have written him with questions. He retracts his former statement that Amanda Knox's book deal was only worth a six-figure sum. Basically, he says he doesn't know how much she is being paid, but the initial deal was around 600.000$ according to him and he doesn't have any knowledge for how much the rights to her story were finally sold except what has been printed in the papers.

Quote:
Paul Stenning - Ghostwriter and Biographer

Update

May 10, 2012

Another amazing week. Yesterday I spent the afternoon in the company of a former Bond girl who still looks amazing given the time that has passed since 1964. There, in the year, is a clue as to what I might be doing next.

An update regarding Amanda Knox.

There appears to have been a flurry of interest as to who the ghostwriter for her memoirs might be. Consequently my site has been besieged by visitors and I have received more emails than I have time to reply to. Thanks to all for writing.

As many of you have pointed out, there is some discrepancy as to the amount Amanda received for the deal. I suggested it might be six figures, which really was an oversight on my part. As I understand it, the original deal was going to be $600,000 but due to master negotiating from her lawyer, Robert Barnett, the final deal is somewhere in the region of $4,000,000.

I did receive one email which questioned my integrity as, with hindsight, I felt it was an emotional issue which was perhaps better avoided altogether. This is nothing to do with integrity. On the contrary, integrity is being able to own up to your thoughts and take responsibility for how you perceive a situation. If I had been lucky enough to be chosen I would have given everything to the work, and taken instructions as to the manner in which the book should be approached. This is professionalism and one can still be integral within the bounds of professionalism.

My thoughts in my last blog were written with hindsight and after absorbing comments from people close to me. In hindsight, I agreed with them and I shall continue working with subjects and people I feel most connected to. Perhaps Amanda and I would have forged a connection, I do not see a reason why not, but then who knows the real Amanda Knox? Will we learn of the real Amanda with the final book? This is down to the skill of the ghostwriter. I wish him well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
Hello Michael, do you have the option of reducing image width sizes? as the images somewhere above have made the page, with me at least, too wide and I have to scroll back & forth all the time in order to be able to read.

Thanks



Is it fixed now?

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I was having the same issue, Michael, and you have corrected it as far as I can see. Thank you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Thanks Napia5. The issue wasn't happening inside my browser. When it does, it makes it easy for me to tell what has caused the problem. When it doesn't effect my browser, I'm left having to guess where the problem is and what specific artifact is causing it, which could be anywhere upthread.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Beans. Thank you , Hon. This is not my * Finest Hour * or week, or month :) I'm trying to bear up, and hopefully will be back in awhile.

Thanks you so much, everyone. hugz-)

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:45 pm   Post subject: THE MONSTER OF FLORENCE   

One of the mainstays of the efforts to demonize PM Giliano Mignini as a satanism obsessed prosecutor was the writer Doug Preston, who had his own reasons to promote that trope, something much overused by the FOA nowdays.

Preston was overheard discussing with his co-writer Mario Spezi on The Monster of Florence what appeared to be an attempt to plant evidence in Mignini's ongoing investigation of the MOF (Source, Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face)

The CPJ , The Committee to Protect Journalists organization, next got involved in sending letters to the President of Italy denouncing Mignini, on specious grounds, for 'persecuting' 'journalist' Francesco Sforza (Sfarzo) the pro-Amanda Knox blogger. It appears that Doug Preston may have used his connections with CPJ, a supposedly independent organization, to get that ball rolling. Did the CPJ make any effort to conduct an investigation before they made that blind accusation? Of course not.

Perhaps his public battle has now resulted in his Monster of Florence movie, once supposed to be released in 2012 with Tom Cruise, then 2013 with George Clooney, now being in development limbo? (Per IMDB)

Another thing that might give future movie producers pause. As Kermit at PMF.Org pointed out, Preston's co-writer, Mario Spezi, may have 'borrowed' the research of the late English crime writer Magdalen Nabb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_of_Florence to arrive at the same suspect as she did. Her book, The Monster of Florence came out 12 years prior to Preston's, yet he does not give her any acknowledgment that I can find.

I see that Preston and Spezi will be promoting their upcoming book on the murder of Meredith Kercher soon. I will remind everyone it seems that much of the attacks on the Italian justice system and defense of Amanda Knox that we will be seeing in the next year are motivated by, not a quest for justice, but, commercial self-interest.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 3:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
Thanks Nell. It's therefore safe to say, that Bruce Fisher and Sarah Snyder are the creators of the group, no doubt under the cheerleading of Jim Lovering. Does the group have a stated purpose/mission statement, anything like that? No David Marriott?

Has there been any activity there by Mario Spezi?



Quote:
Open group
'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' - A grassroots effort working against the problem of wrongful convictions.

http://www.injustice-anywhere.org/
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/
https://twitter.com/#!/NJusticAnywhere


I haven't seen any activity from Mario Spezi, but he might have commented on other people's thoughts. I would have to open all threads to check that. He was added to the group 3 months ago. Knox supporters are high in number on his contact list.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
zorba wrote:
Hello Michael, do you have the option of reducing image width sizes? as the images somewhere above have made the page, with me at least, too wide and I have to scroll back & forth all the time in order to be able to read.

Thanks



Is it fixed now?



Yes mine it all fine again, thanks Michael, makes it much easier to read

_________________
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 May 13, 2012 2:55 pm   Post subject: Re: THE MONSTER OF FLORENCE   

Ergon wrote:
One of the mainstays of the efforts to demonize PM Giliano Mignini as a satanism obsessed prosecutor was the writer Doug Preston, who had his own reasons to promote that trope, something much overused by the FOA nowdays.

Preston was overheard discussing with his co-writer Mario Spezi on The Monster of Florence what appeared to be an attempt to plant evidence in Mignini's ongoing investigation of the MOF (Source, Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face)

The CPJ , The Committee to Protect Journalists organization, next got involved in sending letters to the President of Italy denouncing Mignini, on specious grounds, for 'persecuting' 'journalist' Francesco Sforza (Sfarzo) the pro-Amanda Knox blogger. It appears that Doug Preston may have used his connections with CPJ, a supposedly independent organization, to get that ball rolling. Did the CPJ make any effort to conduct an investigation before they made that blind accusation? Of course not.

Perhaps his public battle has now resulted in his Monster of Florence movie, once supposed to be released in 2012 with Tom Cruise, then 2013 with George Clooney, now being in development limbo? (Per IMDB)

Another thing that might give future movie producers pause. As Kermit at PMF.Org pointed out, Preston's co-writer, Mario Spezi, may have 'borrowed' the research of the late English crime writer Magdalen Nabb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_of_Florence to arrive at the same suspect as she did. Her book, The Monster of Florence came out 12 years prior to Preston's, yet he does not give her any acknowledgment that I can find.

I see that Preston and Spezi will be promoting their upcoming book on the murder of Meredith Kercher soon. I will remind everyone it seems that much of the attacks on the Italian justice system and defense of Amanda Knox that we will be seeing in the next year are motivated by, not a quest for justice, but, commercial self-interest.



We need to do a big piece on Preston and Spezi I feel. They have cynically milked this case for all it's worth...jumped on the bandwagon to use to further promote themselves and sales of 'their' MOF piece of trash as well as get a film deal on it. Not satisfied with that, they are now jointly publishing a book on the Meredith Kercher case with a working title of 'The Witch of Perugia' (or something similar). This case for them, has never been about helping some girl they see as innocent, but rather as a cash cow they can milk for all it's worth. Added to this, Spezi has been instrumental behind the scenes in Italy for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Indeed, Spezi is one of the (if not THE) "dark forces working in Italy" that Mignini referred to in his statement in court.

I knew their book was coming long before it was announced. Spezi was attending the appeal hearings. And Preston? Spezi needs him only to promote the English version of their books in the English speaking markets. Preston is the PR and promotion...but Spezi is the machine behind the 'product'.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Happy Mother's Day to every one. A special thought too, for Arline Kercher. One never gets over the loss of a loved one, but what I wish for the Kerchers is that they receive justice, this year.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
Happy Mother's Day to every one. A special thought too, for Arline Kercher. One never gets over the loss of a loved one, but what I wish for the Kerchers is that they receive justice, this year.



Actually, Mother's day was March 18 in the UK, the UK having a different date to the US (and Canada I presume) for it, so fortunately today shouldn't be particularly bad for Arline Kercher. But, Happy Mothers' Day to all mums where today is Mother's Day!!! :)

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:04 am   Post subject: ROBERTO CALVI MURDER   

We were a state within a state, Mafia supergrass reveals.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/1 ... CMP=twt_gu

""I was not the one who hanged Calvi. One day I may write the full story, but the real killers will never be brought to justice because they are being protected by the Italian state, by members of the P2 masonic lodge. They have massive power. They are made up of a mixture of politicians, bank presidents, the military, top security and so on. This is a case that they continue to open and close again and again but it will never be resolved. The higher you go, the less evidence you will find."

"11 June 1982 Roberto Calvi goes missing from his apartment in Rome.

18 June 1982 Calvi is found hanging from scaffolding under London's Blackfriars bridge, weighed down with bricks and £10,000 cash in currencies on him.

July 1982 An inquest finds that Calvi had killed himself.

July 1983 A second inquest returns an open verdict on his death.

December 1998 Calvi's body is exhumed as his family press for answers, insisting he was murdered.

October 2002 An independent forensic report confirms Calvi was murdered.

5 October 2005 Five defendants are put on trial in Rome for the banker's murder.

6 June 2007 All five defendants are acquitted of the charge.

18 November 2011 Italy's court of last resort upholds the acquittals"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

It was Roberto Calvi (along with the head of P2) that Yallop identified as being the murderer of Pope John Paul I.

_________________
"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 May 14, 2012 10:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Reviews are coming in slowly but surely on Amazon.co.uk - most of them are very positive but I had to reply to one review which was misleading and inaccurate - predictably the FOAkers started coming out of the woodwork to shout me down. I can't bear to respond to these people because they make my skin crawl and, more importantly, the review section is not the forum for their type of discussion so I am ignoring them and hoping they go away!

I hope you are all well - Cape - get well soon.

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 May 14, 2012 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

If the FOAKers are making off-topic posts in the review section there, it should be possible to flag their entries and have them removed.

_________________
"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 May 14, 2012 11:52 am   Post subject: Re: THE MONSTER OF FLORENCE   

Ergon wrote:
One of the mainstays of the efforts to demonize PM Giliano Mignini as a satanism obsessed prosecutor was the writer Doug Preston, who had his own reasons to promote that trope, something much overused by the FOA nowadays.

Preston was overheard discussing with his co-writer Mario Spezi on The Monster of Florence what appeared to be an attempt to plant evidence in Mignini's ongoing investigation of the MOF (Source, Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face)

The CPJ , The Committee to Protect Journalists organization, next got involved in sending letters to the President of Italy denouncing Mignini, on specious grounds, for 'persecuting' 'journalist' Francesco Sforza (Sfarzo) the pro-Amanda Knox blogger. It appears that Doug Preston may have used his connections with CPJ, a supposedly independent organization, to get that ball rolling. Did the CPJ make any effort to conduct an investigation before they made that blind accusation? Of course not.

Perhaps his public battle has now resulted in his Monster of Florence movie, once supposed to be released in 2012 with Tom Cruise, then 2013 with George Clooney, now being in development limbo? (Per IMDB)

Another thing that might give future movie producers pause. As Kermit at PMF.Org pointed out, Preston's co-writer, Mario Spezi, may have 'borrowed' the research of the late English crime writer Magdalen Nabb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_of_Florence to arrive at the same suspect as she did. Her book, The Monster of Florence came out 12 years prior to Preston's, yet he does not give her any acknowledgment that I can find.

I see that Preston and Spezi will be promoting their upcoming book on the murder of Meredith Kercher soon. I will remind everyone it seems that much of the attacks on the Italian justice system and defense of Amanda Knox that we will be seeing in the next year are motivated by, not a quest for justice, but, commercial self-interest.



Yes, agree with bolded and underlined.

For those just criticising it without any context, are mainly Americans, who are in one way or another, maybe even directly, connected to Knox, and, where America itself has a legal system that can least of all be held up as an example of a good, successful system, then those criticising the Italian system only because of Knox, are fooling nobody with any real knowledge or brains.

In any society, one must question why it is, people turn to crime, and it is not as simple as saying everyone is bad, wicked and evil, though some are all of these adjectives.
Even when people do become wicked, as well as rotten to the core, those with skills (expertise) need to examine what formed the basis of these people going so wrong, yes they need locking away, certainly when they are going to harm members of any given society, but in order to create societies where less of the bad takes place, simply locking people up will never change a thing.

In America most prison policy is very much focused on harsh punishment, with little rehabilitation.
For instance, in some other countries, a more intelligent approach is taken, where it can be, where instead of locking people up for silly little things, as is done in Britain and America as well as many, very many countries, including Australia and Canada, it is thought that it is better to punish people financially and to also have culprits be confronted with what they are doing, so if young kids wreck a train, make them take part in repairing it, all summer long sometimes, and have them meet the ordinary people, perhaps people/workers without lots of education, so not especially people who are by any means superior to them, who are tasked with having to repair all of the damage the kids do. A kid seeing this, seeing that the man fixing all the damage is just an ordinary person and that you as a hooligan, are damaging stuff which actually belongs to you too, as it is public property, seems to change people's minds.

Locking a kid away, and not looking into what is happening at home and why youths do certain things doesn't help prevent further damage. By locking them away and putting a stamp on them - the same thing with older people when they too are locked away - means they have even more trouble fitting in later on and getting jobs. This adds up to the fact that your policies create more of what you do not llike, want or need in society.

If people cannot do a thing, cannot get any work, then seeing as how they are people with needs, they are going to be forced to do criminal things or starve and perish on the street, if they have perhaps no family, no-one who can help them, what are they to eat, where are they to live if they cannot get any money from anywhere?
Where they will live is nowhere, or else if they live somewhere (a home), then they may need to pay for it with crime. And to me, seeing as how in America, socially, it seems that life is very hard for many people who fall out of the boat, where society doesn't provide for people, where people have the worst medical care schemes (meaning they have nothing, no health care) found anywhere in so-called Western societies, then it's no wonder America has so much crime and so much heavy-duty crime.
No amount of idiotic postings by a bunch of nasties, online, attached to Knox, is going to change the truth of the matter in this light. Those falsely pointing the finger at others, as is with Knox's little helpers, are at best a bunch of ill-informed hypocrites with bundles of ulterior motives for doing what they do and then some. They are human blood suckers, leaches, parasites.

From what I have seen in America; if you are behave badly, for any reaso, you go to jail you bad, bad, terrible person.
In reality many are not bad, they are needy, they are in trouble with trying to survive, or any number of situations any person could potentially face in life at some time, for even the best fall, and often very hard.

The prisons are then awful, with extremes of abuse from both co-prisoners and prison staff alike. Is a person to come out of there changed, only as a result of fear? Fear of having to spend time in there again, when on the outside, the stamp now on you won't wash off and you cannot get work anywhere because of that.

I think those people attached to Knox in Seattle must live in dreamland, trying as they do to make out that everywhere else is so bad, when in reality conditions in American prisons are far worse than any country in the Western world; prisoners run the show & conditions are so bad, like prisoners not being fed properly, this only leads to a need in prison for dealing in illegal substances, bullying & abuse, etc, it shows how unenlightened those behind such regimes are because punishing people by giving them inadequate food and suchlike is not going to help change people, all it means is that in the prisons, through these bad policies, conditions are created that are a benefit to the hardest bullies, it all enco urages bullying and bad behaviour. Criminals come out worse than when they went in. This isn't something that is found only in America, it's true anywhere. In the end, if you weren't real bad to start with; you probably will be as mean as shit by the time you get out, if you do get out at all.

That's another thing, how in America you can go in for a nothingness (petty crimes = probably committed in many cases out of dire necessity = but not always), and end up in trouble in prison and end up not getting out.

In other countries, this situation is safeguarded against, unless you do really bad things, but then it is not simply up to the prison staff to dish out punishment as they see fit, those doing wrong in prison have to go to the courts again.

So in countries where prison staff are free to add time onto prison sentences according to their own discretion, those prisons are thus turned into kangaroo courts, in that there is no court at all, just individuals punishing people according to their own whims and fancies.

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

Offline dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
If the FOAKers are making off-topic posts in the review section there, it should be possible to flag their entries and have them removed.


Thanks Michael - they are now threatening a reviewer called Dezzy with libel - but he/she isn't taking any of their cr*p :-)

RIP Meredith
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 9:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

was watching/waiting for the obnoxio to start filtering through into amazon reviews of john kercher book
they're in there now - 1 stars just totally negative - fake addresses set up you can tell
was going to wade in there having an amazon account but I will leave others to it for now
@ least the 1 1 star review standard FOA standpoint is getting shot down enough
they won - knox is out of italy - don't you think they'd leave it alone
maybe someone could get in there and respond to that review with something of an expose of
how they've been operating / marriot etc

gotta laugh - same reviewer with 1 star review of the follain book DO NOT READ!!! is the heading:

Dreadful book!!! please do not read or buy. Its difficult to say whats more insulting about the book....the aweful writing, the lies or the fact that the man is friends with the prosecution and would not know the word unbiased journalism if it hit him in the head.

(etc etc etc)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Here's a debate I had with the prolific "AC Tesla" on Chelsea Hoffman's site:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 1#comments

Quote:
AC Tesla May 11, 2012, 9:32pm EDT
I have no delusions Naseer about my own importance, I am not important at all. Of course you are right that this discussion will have zero influence effecting the Prosecution's appeal.
And you are also right that we are both trying to influence public opinion.
But you are wrong to say that the only lives ruined were the Kerchers. Two lives at least had great damage done to them needlessly and wrongfully.
4 years of Amanda and Raffaele’s young lives were stolen from them. Years frankly, that were the favorite in my own. I am sure that both suffered mightily in prison needlessly and wrongfully.
Not to mention the torment of the possibility of spending another 26 years behind bars for something they did not do.
In addition the Knox's and their friends paid dearly to rescue their daughter from prison. I can't imagine how the parents of both Knox and Sollecito suffered, feeling the pain of their children’s wrongful incarceration.
And this is just the emotional pain of that injustice.
In addition, both the Sollecitos and the Knoxs spent as much as a million dollars each of their own money to help secure the acquittal of their children. Mortgaging their homes, maxing out their credits cards. And it's not over yet. Beyond the prosecution's appeal there is the Calumny charges against Knox's parents for repeating what their daughter told them and the Calumny charge against Amanda that was postponed today.
Of course the Kercher’s suffered the greatest loss. No one is denying that. As the brother to a sister who died under very suspicious circumstances I do think I understand the pain the Kerchers have endured. But to say there weren’t other victims is patently false.
When this is all over and the appeal is rejected, Amanda and Raffaele have to go on with their lives. Do they really need to be looked at suspiciously everywhere they go? Should they be tormented by false accusations their entire lives as you so clearly desire.
I know you say you hope for justice, and I think I believe you. But there is little to support your suspicions certainly nothing that rises to the level of a trial let alone a conviction and imprisonment.
I believe that you are now so vested with your own pride in AK’s and RS’s guilt that you will battle on despite the weakness of your case. That this quest you are on is less about “justice” and much more about your own personal need to be right and satisfying your own hubris.
Of course quitting is throwing in the towel. I think that is exactly how a trainer surrenders. Surrender is not shameful. Not every battle need be fought to the death. There are many other more worthy battles to be waged.
Respectfully,”


Naseer Ahmad May 14, 2012, 7:17pm EDT

AC Tesla, I will answer you as directly, as you have addressed me. First of all, let me say I am truly sorry for your loss, and I believe your sincerity in that respect, but not otherwise. Your previous invitation for me to ‘quit the debate’ was a bit of a giveaway, I thought.
So when I wrote 'Can (spare me) the fake hysterics', I did not say you were hysterical, but that you were feigning it, that your passion for the cause of innocence of Amanda Knox was false. I would be quite happy to withdraw that if I thought you were genuine in your belief, but I have a hard time believing that for the following reasons:
- Your support for others impersonating the names of well known internet personalities who argue for the 'guilter side' as you call them. I find that dishonest.
- Your cheering on others who use abuse and ad hominem as a form of argument. Don't you think that would actually turn people off? Do you honestly want to say that’s not been a hallmark of those who argue on the ‘innocentsi’ side? Because there are thousands of comments on many forums that prove what I say, and very few that prove it for the other side.
- Your writing style reminds me of people I've debated with before on Huffington Post and seen write on Injustice In Perugia, the 'innocentsi' website. How many internet handles and accounts do you have, when you discuss this case? Again, if you are using multiple accounts, then those are the actions of the many PR agencies and PAC’s that astroturf and set up sock puppet accounts. You can deny it, but that’s what I see. For the record, the majority of my comments have been as Ergon, and occasionally as Naseer Ahmad, because that’s how the browser recognizes me here.
- I have no problem with debating those who genuinely believe in Amanda Knox’s innocence. I have a problem when people step over certain bounds of decency to ‘win’ debating points. I’m sorry, but one of the first things that struck me was the blatant, widespread tactics, on your side. It was the same swarming foul mouthed tactics first used against journalists Barbie Nadeau and John Follain, many of which were traced to Amanda Knox’s step father, then on the James Randi Educational Forum, then Injustice in Perugia, Bruce Fischer’s website. Not that I care to police the Internet for bad manners , just avoid contact, thanks.
- I also wonder why Bruce Fischer’s site makes a point of personal attack, and I ask because I believe you’re one of the posters there. Whatever he wants to say about the principal figures on PMF has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox. Anyone who wants to branch out into starting other innocence projects or write books about the subject will of course come under the same scrutiny. Are they motivated by commercial self-interest? Are the tactics used by the Friends of Amanda, (as judge Heavey admitted, “we set up websites”) impersonation, attacking the victims family, spamming social web sites, abuse of people with opposing views, calling them “haters” and “hate sites” the sort of activities that genuine innocence projects like Dr. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter might want to associate themselves with?
- In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I got to be attacked a few times by your side. No problem. I object to blatant misrepresentation of my stated views, but protesting won’t make a difference to anonymous bullies.
- I have debated the evidence, and not personalities.
- It might well be you that shows hubris, to condescendingly invite me to stop debating before the final verdict is in, or to say on my behalf how I might ‘take it’ if the Supreme Court were to uphold the acquittal. We shall see.
- To those who genuinely believe in the innocence of Amanda Knox: Sorry, you haven’t convinced me, and I really have read and analyzed the evidence on both sides. It is one side I find unconvincing, and I will respect your belief, if you respect mine.

Sincerely,

Naseer Ahmad
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

You know what I'll just talk to myself

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

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

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

I posted this on t'other PMF forum - hope it's ok to do so here:

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Traces of blood and fragments of muscle, tendon, skin and hair found on 2,000-year-old stone knives have given researchers the first conclusive evidence that the obsidian blades were used for human sacrifice so long ago in Mexico.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/artic ... 2.php#next

It's probably only contamination....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

No problem, Daoud. Welcome any time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 1:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

zorba wrote:
You know what I'll just talk to myself


Quite around here, innit? Most of the regulars are hors d'combat :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Apologies - here's the correct link:

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/artic ... 2.php#next
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 6:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi all,
I was just looking at the amazon.com site of John Kercher`s book and I must say, that I feel completely sick after I read what some people wrote in the review section. I`m wondering if you can, in terms of moral and humanity, come to a deeper level than some of those people there who are trying everything to discredit John Kercher (gosh, isn`t this poor man punished enough!?!?) and his book by alleging him to lie about the facts surrounding the case.
Just to clarify, I`m not possesing Mr Kercher`s book and I would just like to check, whether some scumbag over there indeed pointed out some facts, which Mr Kercher got wrong or if he just made up some alleged statements by Mr Kercher to make him look bad and untrustworthy.

It is claimed that Mr Kercher writes:

the defendants bought bleach the morning after the murder

Did Mr Kercher really write that? If true, that would be some kind of a fair point to "critizize" him.

Sollecito left a bloody shoeprint at the crime scene

Well, I`m sure, that Mr Kercher at some point in his book is referring to the bloody bare footprint on the bathmat. So I think, that this person either misquotes (changed bare- with shoe-) Mr Kercher to make him look like a liar or Mr Kercher just made a typo but in the context it becomes clear that Mr Kercher was referring to the "bare math-print" or Mr Kercher indeed presented this as a false fact (which again would be a fair point to "critizize" him).
So, which of these three possibilities is true?

Knox's blood was mixed with the victim's

Well, even if Mr Kercher really presented this as a fact, he has some good reasons for that. As far as I understand it, Knox declared on the stand, that there was no blood in the bathroom, when it was the last time that she left the house on November 1st and she didn`t say that she bled on the infamous morning of the 2nd Novmber when she was showering. The important thing is, that in the bathroom on the front part of the tap of the sink the police found coagulated blood which belonged to Knox, which means, if you combine her statement and the presence of her blood on the tap, that she allegedly must have bled in the time frame between her last leaving of the house and her return back on the morning of November the 2nd. As we know she never claimed to have been at the house during that time (except in her wrong statement, where she accused Lumumba). Another interesting thing is, that her peaks in the mixed DNA profiles were very high, which is another indicator, that her DNA originated from blood (I`m everything but an expert in forensics, but I think this conclusion is correct).
Taking all this into account, Mr Kercher (if he really said this) has some very good reasons to claim this.

Knox was given a criminal conviction prior to coming to Italy for being unruly (it was a noise ticket at a party she was hosting)

Again, I don`t know what Mr Kercher wrote exactly, but can someone maybe clear up, what Knox was really charged for.

Worst, he takes Knox's quotes out of context, paraphrases, and leaves out quotes from her that are exculpatory

If this really is the case, can someone give some sort of an example.

He also presents witnesses for the prosecution as credible even though they made glaring contradictions, or were even dismissed by earlier judges

I can imagine that Mr Kercher just wrote down, what witnesses like Kokomani and Curatolo said on the stand, without pointing out that they were credible. I can also imagine, that he wrote, that Curatolo didn`t get any single fact right.
Is this true?


I would be very pleased, if someone who posesses Mr Kercher`s book could set these things right because I can hardly bear to see those things imputed on him without response.
Thanks

Eta: The person explicitly said in his review, that the claim:
Knox's blood was mixed with the victim's is false!
As pointed out, this claim is anything but proven to be false. There`s a very good possibility, that it is correct.
...Shame on him!
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 15, 2012 7:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I can try to help... and I'm sure Micheal knows for sure.

There was a receipt for bleach... but not bought after the murder. There was the 'smell' of bleach in RS's apt when police arrived and plenty of available bleach there still for 'cleaning'.

No shoeprints... but bare bathmat print and bare prints in the hallway consistant to his feet.

One of the spots of blood in the bathroom contained AK's blood mixed with Meredith's blood.
Common sense tells us that the bathmat boogie story was to try to explain away possible footprints both in the bathroom and in the hallway. Also touching the blood (ewwww) was a way to explain the possibility of their blood being mixed (bad ear piercings).

It is not a criminal 'conviction', though it is a criminal 'citation' for loud noises and rock throwing at cars (& neighbors). Disturbing the Peace would basically be the charge IMO.

Well, Hellmann sure took things out of context and actually MADE UP alibis for the two.
What is credible to Mr.Kercher may not be the same as it is to someone else. I believe he thought the prosecutions 'case' was right on target... as I do.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello everyone. I am finally on the mend, for the moment anyway. But things are looking good, and I'm sure the good wishes helped. I must get to all the posts I've missed, and I will.

I just wanted to post this little snippet. Because it shows, you never know how things will go in ITALY.

This happened yesterday. In a town in Italy, this fellow wanted to be Mayor. The problem was, no-one else was on the Ballot. In order for it to be official, he needed an opponent. So, he asked a friend, FROM ANOTHER town, to put his name down.

Yep. The unknown man from another town....WON :)

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

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 8:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
I can try to help... and I'm sure Micheal knows for sure.

There was a receipt for bleach... but not bought after the murder. There was the 'smell' of bleach in RS's apt when police arrived and plenty of available bleach there still for 'cleaning'.

No shoeprints... but bare bathmat print and bare prints in the hallway consistant to his feet.

One of the spots of blood in the bathroom contained AK's blood mixed with Meredith's blood.
Common sense tells us that the bathmat boogie story was to try to explain away possible footprints both in the bathroom and in the hallway. Also touching the blood (ewwww) was a way to explain the possibility of their blood being mixed (bad ear piercings).

It is not a criminal 'conviction', though it is a criminal 'citation' for loud noises and rock throwing at cars (& neighbors). Disturbing the Peace would basically be the charge IMO.

Well, Hellmann sure took things out of context and actually MADE UP alibis for the two.
What is credible to Mr.Kercher may not be the same as it is to someone else. I believe he thought the prosecutions 'case' was right on target... as I do.


Some corrections...

- No purchase of bleach the morning after (you did have that correct dgfred)
- Hellmann ruled the print on the mat is not Sollecito and is consistent with Guede. The prints in the hall were not made in blood (negative TMB test, no DNA)
- There was no mixed blood. Even Massei got this one correct.

Sneider wrote "As far as I understand it, Knox declared on the stand, that there was no blood in the bathroom, when it was the last time that she left the house on November 1st and she didn`t say that she bled on the infamous morning of the 2nd Novmber when she was showering. The important thing is, that in the bathroom on the front part of the tap of the sink the police found coagulated blood which belonged to Knox, which means, if you combine her statement and the presence of her blood on the tap, that she allegedly must have bled in the time frame between her last leaving of the house and her return back on the morning of November the 2nd. As we know she never claimed to have been at the house during that time (except in her wrong statement, where she accused Lumumba). Another interesting thing is, that her peaks in the mixed DNA profiles were very high, which is another indicator, that her DNA originated from blood (I`m everything but an expert in forensics, but I think this conclusion is correct)." --One unfounded assumption, one error;

* Knox said she did not see any blood when she last used the bathroom but that does not mean it was there and she did not see it. If you've seen photos of the drop of blood it is very small and easily missed. Your conclusion that since she didn't see it so it must not have been there is without merit.
* There are many body fluids that contain higher concentrations of DNA than blood, so assuming the source is blood because of a high RFU value is incorrect.

- It was a citation for noise, nothing more. Throwing rocks was in the original complaint but not part of the citation, and it was not Amanda who was accused of throwing them.
- The Appeals Court threw out virtually all of the witnesses for the prosecution. You can read the logic behind it in Hellmanns motivations report. Your mileage may vary but for what it's worth I think Hellmann got it correct.
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 15, 2012 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Bullshit.

So was Hellmann's ruling on the bathmat. That TMB stuff you all state as it not being blood is so weak it is not worth replying to. Give that one up.

What about throwing rocks at cars do you not find dangerous and reckless???

What the Appeals Court 'threw out' is not finished... as I'm sure you are aware.
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 15, 2012 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Interesting how the blood in the bathroom is small and easily missed by the groupies... but AK admitted to seeing it immediately, made several excuses for why it may have been there, pranced naked throughout the UNLOCKED cottage on a cool dark morning, and never touched the light switch which was covered with blood smears. Bathmat boogied away any noticeable bare footprints, didn't notice her only light source missing, left the bloody shoeprints/poo/and blood smears of RG AND didn't bother to try to call Meredith's phones while outside her door. Yeah, all that seems logical and reasonable.
REALLY???
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
Bullshit.

So was Hellmann's ruling on the bathmat. That TMB stuff you all state as it not being blood is so weak it is not worth replying to. Give that one up.

What about throwing rocks at cars do you not find dangerous and reckless???

What the Appeals Court 'threw out' is not finished... as I'm sure you are aware.


Bullshit? Now there's an indisputable argument.

Why was Hellmanns ruling on the bathmat bullshit? ..cause it wasn't what you believed?

TMB is typically used to verify the presence of blood after a presumptive test, such as Luminol indicates it's possible presence. If TMB, and the results it gives is bullshit then why do forensic teams around the world use it, and did Stefanino use it following her luminol testing. Even more telling.. why did she lie about it? Further, no DNA was found in the prints found in the hall that belong to Knox or Sollecito. Finally, if there was blood and it was just so badly degraded that TMB couldn't detect it, the results of the luminol test would have been a very dim glow but that wasn't the case.. the luminol lit fairly brightly. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Throwing rocks at cars is very dangerous and reckless. I do not disagree with that, nor did I dispute it was part of the original complaint. What I said was it was not mentioned in the citation given to Knox, nor did anyone ever accuse Knox herself with throwing rocks. Further, while the responding officer noted rocks in the road he also noted no evidence of damage. I believe rocks were thrown but is irrelevant as it relates to Knox or this case.

The Kercher murder case is not finished, that is true. The Supreme Court may still find in favor of the prosecutions appeal. But then, that's not what I said. What I said was the Appeals Court threw out virtually all of the prosecution's witnesses. I figured Sneider would like that clarified. Now, if you'd like to debate the merit of why that is, on a per witness basis, and do so on a neutral blog site where I can post beyond the bewitching hour, I'd be happy to. Pick your battleground...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Fransisco, it's only possible to have a good faith debate when you stop making excuses. Otherwise, it's eye rolling time.

Btw, and I KNOW dg is also dying for your response. What about THE MONEY?? Let's go there. Because it's important. Robbery is a motive in many murders.

Hellmann? Poor man. He just paper shoved it to the next level. The SC, I'm sure, will have a comletely different view,

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hello everyone. I am finally on the mend, for the moment anyway. But things are looking good, and I'm sure the good wishes helped. I must get to all the posts I've missed, and I will.

I just wanted to post this little snippet. Because it shows, you never know how things will go in ITALY.

This happened yesterday. In a town in Italy, this fellow wanted to be Mayor. The problem was, no-one else was on the Ballot. In order for it to be official, he needed an opponent. So, he asked a friend, FROM ANOTHER town, to put his name down.

Yep. The unknown man from another town....WON :)


CAPEY!!!!! What has been wrong!??? Why didn't you tell me?! We lost the link - things have been CRAZY for me. Very difficult. And your hunches, as ever, were 100% right. Bad apples and all that. Now GONE.

The excellent news is that whatever was ailing you seems to be on the run. SO TOO FOR MUNGO! He is soooooo much better now. He even managed a little dance of love this morning. This, for the un-rabbited people, is when your bun wakes up, runs round and round his enclosure when you come in the room, making little growling noises. Which is bunny for being happy to see you! Mungo is fine again. Phew! He lives to hop another day.

So, cape. Are you really ok?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Yes cape. I sometimes miss the pitiful, weak debate points by the FOAKERS and wish they would visit more. Then again, it is a waste of time for the most part... like tripping a one-legged man.

Sometimes the truth does hurt fran... but I think you have the positions reversed or it seems so from your weak arguments. What 'neutral' site would you like? Seems debating on Tuesdays doesn't fit your schedule and you need some back-up in the worst way.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
If the FOAKers are making off-topic posts in the review section there, it should be possible to flag their entries and have them removed.


I actually cannot face looking Michael. It might make me puke. Is this very bad? Can we really flag?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hello, my darling Bard....Well, it WAS awful. A tooth infection and so on. However, I'm well on the mend, still swollen. I'm so glad about Mungo...

Let me know what's been going on. E-mail..Funny how those hunches never let me know that I was going to be brought to my knees..and not for a good reason :) WINK.......

Love you........email me.....

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 10:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Indeed dg. But really, I expect nothing else, in the long run. The hard questions, LIKE THE MONEY, just waft away. I understand someone taking a stance, and sticking with it, because there are sometimes underlying reasons.

However, when not able to even admit that Knox is a liar, etc..then everything argued is just so much bum fluff. It's hard to go to more salient facts, when a debaters eyes and mind are so set on.........Knox is as pure as the driven snow. Wouldn't trample a flower without bursting into sobs. Put that image next to the laughing chick with the machine gun, with calling herself The Nazi within, the scoffing * she f***ing bled to death *, the woman laughung, singing and swaying in the trial for the murder of her * friend *, and you have............What's wrong with this picture?

The only thing Hellmann got right, was convicting her of being a liar. A murderer? Yes. Hopefully the SC gets that. Add, remorseless, uncouth, cruel, self absorbed, with lots of emotional problems. Not keeping herself or surroundings clean, as another red flag.

To add insult to injury, we have the groupies, encouraging her, with their worshipping. Parents in denial. How does she have a chance of getting better?

Knox is in for a very tough life. Because she has to live with herself, and what's she's done.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Oh, and thanks so much, Dollycat ( love that username) and Nell. Hey, the good news is that I lost a few pounds )

The paikillers weren't half bad, either. However, I've stopped taking them because.......well, I 'm out of pain :) and I know too many people who now abuse pills. I can see why. They are kind of yummy. However, not for me.

I really should read the posts. I just read Michaels about Jref. It was reported that I got the second most complaints. I was pretty thrilled about that. Means The truth bothered the groupies. I only got one warning, though, so they weren't successful at all. Of course they blamed us. They'll never be able to see the truth. In anything. THEY were the authors of the threads demise. But, they love the blame game. EVERYONE else is to blame. The cops, the prosecutors, the friends, The Kerchers, and lalalalalalalala. Pitiful.

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

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I can try to help... and I'm sure Micheal knows for sure.

There was a receipt for bleach... but not bought after the murder. There was the 'smell' of bleach in RS's apt when police arrived and plenty of available bleach there still for 'cleaning'.

No shoeprints... but bare bathmat print and bare prints in the hallway consistant to his feet.

One of the spots of blood in the bathroom contained AK's blood mixed with Meredith's blood.
Common sense tells us that the bathmat boogie story was to try to explain away possible footprints both in the bathroom and in the hallway. Also touching the blood (ewwww) was a way to explain the possibility of their blood being mixed (bad ear piercings).

It is not a criminal 'conviction', though it is a criminal 'citation' for loud noises and rock throwing at cars (& neighbors). Disturbing the Peace would basically be the charge IMO.

Well, Hellmann sure took things out of context and actually MADE UP alibis for the two.
What is credible to Mr.Kercher may not be the same as it is to someone else. I believe he thought the prosecutions 'case' was right on target... as I do.


Some corrections...

- No purchase of bleach the morning after (you did have that correct dgfred)
- Hellmann ruled the print on the mat is not Sollecito and is consistent with Guede. The prints in the hall were not made in blood (negative TMB test, no DNA)
- There was no mixed blood. Even Massei got this one correct.

Sneider wrote "As far as I understand it, Knox declared on the stand, that there was no blood in the bathroom, when it was the last time that she left the house on November 1st and she didn`t say that she bled on the infamous morning of the 2nd Novmber when she was showering. The important thing is, that in the bathroom on the front part of the tap of the sink the police found coagulated blood which belonged to Knox, which means, if you combine her statement and the presence of her blood on the tap, that she allegedly must have bled in the time frame between her last leaving of the house and her return back on the morning of November the 2nd. As we know she never claimed to have been at the house during that time (except in her wrong statement, where she accused Lumumba). Another interesting thing is, that her peaks in the mixed DNA profiles were very high, which is another indicator, that her DNA originated from blood (I`m everything but an expert in forensics, but I think this conclusion is correct)." --One unfounded assumption, one error;

* Knox said she did not see any blood when she last used the bathroom but that does not mean it was there and she did not see it. If you've seen photos of the drop of blood it is very small and easily missed. Your conclusion that since she didn't see it so it must not have been there is without merit.
* There are many body fluids that contain higher concentrations of DNA than blood, so assuming the source is blood because of a high RFU value is incorrect.

- It was a citation for noise, nothing more. Throwing rocks was in the original complaint but not part of the citation, and it was not Amanda who was accused of throwing them.
- The Appeals Court threw out virtually all of the witnesses for the prosecution. You can read the logic behind it in Hellmanns motivations report. Your mileage may vary but for what it's worth I think Hellmann got it correct.


What you two guys don`t understand is, that I want to find out, whether John Kercher really made these claims or whether this bastard in the review insinuated John Kercher to have made these claims. After we found that out you can again discuss the said pieces of evidence to death.

Quote:
Sneider wrote "As far as I understand it, Knox declared on the stand, that there was no blood in the bathroom, when it was the last time that she left the house on November 1st and she didn`t say that she bled on the infamous morning of the 2nd Novmber when she was showering. The important thing is, that in the bathroom on the front part of the tap of the sink the police found coagulated blood which belonged to Knox, which means, if you combine her statement and the presence of her blood on the tap, that she allegedly must have bled in the time frame between her last leaving of the house and her return back on the morning of November the 2nd. As we know she never claimed to have been at the house during that time (except in her wrong statement, where she accused Lumumba). Another interesting thing is, that her peaks in the mixed DNA profiles were very high, which is another indicator, that her DNA originated from blood (I`m everything but an expert in forensics, but I think this conclusion is correct)." --One unfounded assumption, one error;

* Knox said she did not see any blood when she last used the bathroom but that does not mean it was there and she did not see it. If you've seen photos of the drop of blood it is very small and easily missed. Your conclusion that since she didn't see it so it must not have been there is without merit.
* There are many body fluids that contain higher concentrations of DNA than blood, so assuming the source is blood because of a high RFU value is incorrect.


Ok, here I made an exception, it`s the only time, when I made an assumption what John Kercher actually wrote, because as i have pointed out before there are some good reasons to believe it.
But let`s come back to what you wrote about the deposition of AK`s blood on the tap. Unfortunately your strategy of debate doesnt work: At first I gave reasons to believe, that her blood was indeed deposited in the time frame between her confirmed leaving of the house on November 1st and her alleged shower on November 2nd. I never said it was proven, that she indeed bled during that time. You then posed your alternative scenario, when her blood got there and just because you were able to provide a second scenario, you said, my theory has no merit.
Well sorry, but that`s not the way how you discuss evidence. You must back up all theories with all its surrounding evidence to make them plausible. What we have to back up Mr Kercher`s theory is:

-brutal murder, which involved a lot of blood, mostly from the victim, but because of its brutality, a proceeding fight between the perpetrator/s and the victim and the use of knife/s, there`s also a high probability that there were some blood traces, which originated from the perpetrator/s. Further reasons, why the probability for this is high:
-blood of one of the originally accused persons (Knox) was found alongside with MK`s blood in the bathroom, where the perpetrator/s cleaned up.
-Knox didn`t give an explanation when and how her blood got there and she said that she didn`t see any blood, when she left the house the last time on November 1st
-3 different spots were found in the bathroom, in which MK`s blood was mixed with Knox`s DNA, which could have originated from her blood or from some other body fluid.
-According to Luciano Garofano, who obviously is kind of an expert in crime scene forensics, the profile of the mixed traces gave reasons to assume that Knox`s DNA got in their via her blood

What your theory is backing up so far is:

-Knox could have bled at some time before the crime, got some of the blood on the tap, but can`t remember to have used the tap in connection with her bleeding and can`t quite obviously even remember when and how the bleeding started.
-there are some body fluids, that contain higher concentrations of DNA than blood which cause higher peaks than blood in the graphs, so the probability is higher, that the mixed traces came from an other body fluid than Knox`s blood.

Comparing these two theories, I think Mr Kercher had good reasons to believe in the first one.
But this isn`t my main interest, I want to know what Mr Kercher wrote exactly wrote.

Quote:
But then, that's not what I said. What I said was the Appeals Court threw out virtually all of the prosecution's witnesses. I figured Sneider would like that clarified.


You simply don`t understand it :roll: . I would like to get clarified, if Mr Kercher really wrote, what this amazon reviewer idiot claimed he did. I already know Hellman`s opinion on multiple witnesses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

00Sneider wrote:
Francisco wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I can try to help... and I'm sure Micheal knows for sure.

There was a receipt for bleach... but not bought after the murder. There was the 'smell' of bleach in RS's apt when police arrived and plenty of available bleach there still for 'cleaning'.

No shoeprints... but bare bathmat print and bare prints in the hallway consistant to his feet.

One of the spots of blood in the bathroom contained AK's blood mixed with Meredith's blood.
Common sense tells us that the bathmat boogie story was to try to explain away possible footprints both in the bathroom and in the hallway. Also touching the blood (ewwww) was a way to explain the possibility of their blood being mixed (bad ear piercings).

It is not a criminal 'conviction', though it is a criminal 'citation' for loud noises and rock throwing at cars (& neighbors). Disturbing the Peace would basically be the charge IMO.

Well, Hellmann sure took things out of context and actually MADE UP alibis for the two.
What is credible to Mr.Kercher may not be the same as it is to someone else. I believe he thought the prosecutions 'case' was right on target... as I do.


Some corrections...

- No purchase of bleach the morning after (you did have that correct dgfred)
- Hellmann ruled the print on the mat is not Sollecito and is consistent with Guede. The prints in the hall were not made in blood (negative TMB test, no DNA)
- There was no mixed blood. Even Massei got this one correct.

Sneider wrote "As far as I understand it, Knox declared on the stand, that there was no blood in the bathroom, when it was the last time that she left the house on November 1st and she didn`t say that she bled on the infamous morning of the 2nd Novmber when she was showering. The important thing is, that in the bathroom on the front part of the tap of the sink the police found coagulated blood which belonged to Knox, which means, if you combine her statement and the presence of her blood on the tap, that she allegedly must have bled in the time frame between her last leaving of the house and her return back on the morning of November the 2nd. As we know she never claimed to have been at the house during that time (except in her wrong statement, where she accused Lumumba). Another interesting thing is, that her peaks in the mixed DNA profiles were very high, which is another indicator, that her DNA originated from blood (I`m everything but an expert in forensics, but I think this conclusion is correct)." --One unfounded assumption, one error;

* Knox said she did not see any blood when she last used the bathroom but that does not mean it was there and she did not see it. If you've seen photos of the drop of blood it is very small and easily missed. Your conclusion that since she didn't see it so it must not have been there is without merit.
* There are many body fluids that contain higher concentrations of DNA than blood, so assuming the source is blood because of a high RFU value is incorrect.

- It was a citation for noise, nothing more. Throwing rocks was in the original complaint but not part of the citation, and it was not Amanda who was accused of throwing them.
- The Appeals Court threw out virtually all of the witnesses for the prosecution. You can read the logic behind it in Hellmanns motivations report. Your mileage may vary but for what it's worth I think Hellmann got it correct.


What you two guys don`t understand is, that I want to find out, whether John Kercher really made these claims or whether this bastard in the review insinuated John Kercher to have made these claims. After we found that out you can again discuss the said pieces of evidence to death.

Quote:
Sneider wrote "As far as I understand it, Knox declared on the stand, that there was no blood in the bathroom, when it was the last time that she left the house on November 1st and she didn`t say that she bled on the infamous morning of the 2nd Novmber when she was showering. The important thing is, that in the bathroom on the front part of the tap of the sink the police found coagulated blood which belonged to Knox, which means, if you combine her statement and the presence of her blood on the tap, that she allegedly must have bled in the time frame between her last leaving of the house and her return back on the morning of November the 2nd. As we know she never claimed to have been at the house during that time (except in her wrong statement, where she accused Lumumba). Another interesting thing is, that her peaks in the mixed DNA profiles were very high, which is another indicator, that her DNA originated from blood (I`m everything but an expert in forensics, but I think this conclusion is correct)." --One unfounded assumption, one error;

* Knox said she did not see any blood when she last used the bathroom but that does not mean it was there and she did not see it. If you've seen photos of the drop of blood it is very small and easily missed. Your conclusion that since she didn't see it so it must not have been there is without merit.
* There are many body fluids that contain higher concentrations of DNA than blood, so assuming the source is blood because of a high RFU value is incorrect.


Ok, here I made an exception, it`s the only time, when I made an assumption what John Kercher actually wrote, because as i have pointed out before there are some good reasons to believe it.
But let`s come back to what you wrote about the deposition of AK`s blood on the tap. Unfortunately your strategy of debate doesnt work: At first I gave reasons to believe, that her blood was indeed deposited in the time frame between her confirmed leaving of the house on November 1st and her alleged shower on November 2nd. I never said it was proven, that she indeed bled during that time. You then posed your alternative scenario, when her blood got there and just because you were able to provide a second scenario, you said, my theory has no merit.
Well sorry, but that`s not the way how you discuss evidence. You must back up all theories with all its surrounding evidence to make them plausible. What we have to back up Mr Kercher`s alleged theory is:

-brutal murder, which involved a lot of blood, mostly from the victim, but because of its brutality, a proceeding fight between the perpetrator/s and the victim and the use of knife/s, there`s also a high probability that there were some blood traces, which originated from the perpetrator/s. Further reasons, why the probability for this is high:
-blood of one of the originally accused persons (Knox) was found alongside with MK`s blood in the bathroom, where the perpetrator/s cleaned up.
-Knox didn`t give an explanation when and how her blood got there and she said that she didn`t see any blood, when she left the house the last time on November 1st
-3 different spots were found in the bathroom, in which MK`s blood was mixed with Knox`s DNA, which could have originated from her blood or from some other body fluid.
-According to Luciano Garofano, who obviously is kind of an expert in crime scene forensics, the profile of the mixed traces gave reasons to assume that Knox`s DNA got in their via her blood

What your theory is backing up so far is:

-Knox could have bled at some time before the crime, got some of the blood on the tap, but can`t remember to have used the tap in connection with her bleeding and can`t quite obviously even remember when and how the bleeding started.
-there are some body fluids, that contain higher concentrations of DNA than blood which cause higher peaks than blood in the graphs, so the probability is higher, that the mixed traces came from an other body fluid than Knox`s blood.

Comparing these two theories, I think Mr Kercher had good reasons to believe in the first one.
But this isn`t my main interest, I want to know what Mr Kercher wrote exactly wrote.

Quote:
But then, that's not what I said. What I said was the Appeals Court threw out virtually all of the prosecution's witnesses. I figured Sneider would like that clarified.


You simply don`t understand it :roll: . I would like to get clarified, if Mr Kercher really wrote, what this amazon reviewer idiot claimed he did. I already know Hellman`s opinion on multiple witnesses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Cape,

First, sorry to hear of your health issues and I do hope you are well soon, and I mean that.

As for the money, I assume you are referring to the money Knox had on her. You find this an issue because Charlie Wilkes, who is not an official representative of the Knox family and not part of the investigation, posted banking information for Knox and from this you determined that, taking into account deposits and withdrawls, the money found on Amanda can only be accounted for if she stole from Meredith. Do I have this correct?

As far as I know no one from the Knox family, including Amanda herself, has ever made an effort to address the money. I don’t believe her lawyers have either. I’m also not aware of the police or prosecutors ever making an issue of the money found on her. So this begs the questions;

- With theft of Meredith's money a key aspect to the case why didn’t the prosecution make an issue of this?
- Did Amanda have any money on her before you start calculating deposits and withdrawls? If so, how much and how has this been confirmed?

I’m not trying to answer a question with a question. I’m being honest when I tell you I don’t believe I (or anyone else on these boards) has enough information to conclude with any conviction that the money found on Knox can only be explained if she stole from Meredith. I don’t disagree with you that it’s something that should have been looked at but then, how do you know that it wasn’t and the police were satisfied with what they discovered?

Dgfred, it has nothing to do with whether Tuesdays fit my schedule or not. I will not participate further in debate on a site that limits my ability to post to less than one day. As for my points being weak, what specifically in my last post was ‘weak’. I rarely see you cite any facts or indisputable evidence and seem to think that childish comments are a suitable replacement.

Snieder, my apologies. I misunderstood the context of your question. As to your follow-on, you wrote;

“Unfortunately your strategy of debate doesnt work: At first I gave reasons to believe, that her blood was indeed deposited in the time frame between her confirmed leaving of the house on November 1st and her alleged shower on November 2nd. I never said it was proven, that she indeed bled during that time. You then posed your alternative scenario, when her blood got there and just because you were able to provide a second scenario, you said, my theory has no merit.
Well sorry, but that`s not the way how you discuss evidence. You must back up all theories with all its surrounding evidence to make them plausible.”

I’m fine with exploring theories, but Knox not having seen blood is irrelevant (i.e., proves nothing.. could still have been there or maybe it wasn’t) and so that particular theory is without merit. That’s not the same as saying ‘therefore she did not deposit blood on the faucet the night of the murder’, which could still be true.

As to your bulleted list.. first two bullets are fine. Third not so good.. Knox did theorize the blood came from her ears, which had recently been pierced and became infected (so she says). You also left off bullet 3.5 which is the police examined her and found no sign of injury. Bullet four is fine, bullet fine totally not so fine. I have not only read numerous technical journals on this discussion, but had the opportunity to meet personally with Prof Chris Halkides and am now as certain as I can be that it is not possible to know, with mixed profiles, what the source of the DNA is. Hell, you can’t even know in those samples if it’s Knox’s blood and Meredith’s non-blood DNA. Not likely, but as possible as any other combination. Garofano is just plain wrong on this point. And to be clear, I don’t have a theory. My conclusion at this point is Knox doesn’t know when the blood got there, it can’t be proven when it got there and Knox had no visible injuries that would account for the blood. It’s there, it’s interesting, but in my mind doesn’t contribute to the case at all.

And yes, I get it now. As I said before, my apologies for misunderstanding the context of your question.

Edited to correct a typo combined with miserable English.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Lol..the luminol lit up too brightly. I don't think I have seen that one before (or maybe I forgot). Cuz blood lits up brightly and it is impossible to have been blood because of the TMB test so there is your proof. If it had been blood then the luminol would have lit up dimly because blood lits up brightly and therefore it must have been blood. Wait. What am I saying?

Experts can tell the difference between blood and other reactants based on the speed of the reaction. Testimony given by Stefanoni that she recognized the substance as being blood based on the luminol reaction and her experience was completely ignored by the Hellmann court.
Top Profile 

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Max, sorry about your reading comprehension problems. Try to read slowly and follow along; luminol is more sensitive to blood than TMB, but not significantly. The argument here has been the reason the TMB tests were negative was the blood was degraded and/or deluted and since luminol is more sensitive, it picked up on it when TMB did not. However, the intensity of the luminol reaction is proportional to the concentration of the blood sample. So if the sample was too weak for TMB to detect then the luminol reaction would have been very dim, but it was not.

Testimony given by Stefanoni was that she did not test for blood with TMB, and we all know how truthful that testimony was. Testimony (eventually) was given that the TMB results were negative. Testimony was also given that there was no DNA detected in the samples. This was completely ignored by the Massei court.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

00Sneider, here is what John Kercher wrote:
"He claimed that when he opened up the shop, she entered and went to the section where the cleaning products were kept. Though he testified that he was not certain what it was that she had bought, the police who made a search of Sollecito’s home testified that they had found a receipt for cleaning products from the same shop. After the murder police found several bottles of bleach in Raffaelle’s flat, but his cleaner confirmed that she had never seen bleach there before"

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 2355-2358). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.

First, John Kercher never says the police found receipts for bleach. The confusion arises from his conflating Quintavalle's testimony in court with earlier police testimony about finding a receipt for "cleaning products". The fact is that they also found bottles of bleach in the flat, and Sollecito's maid had told the police she never bought or used bleach, but a cleaning product that Raffaele had insisted be the only product she could use.

It's late now so I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow. good night, every one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 5:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Good Night, Francisco. FOA Tuesday is now over and you have a whole week in which to compose replies, thanks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The Bard wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Hello everyone. I am finally on the mend, for the moment anyway. But things are looking good, and I'm sure the good wishes helped. I must get to all the posts I've missed, and I will.

I just wanted to post this little snippet. Because it shows, you never know how things will go in ITALY.

This happened yesterday. In a town in Italy, this fellow wanted to be Mayor. The problem was, no-one else was on the Ballot. In order for it to be official, he needed an opponent. So, he asked a friend, FROM ANOTHER town, to put his name down.

Yep. The unknown man from another town....WON :)


CAPEY!!!!! What has been wrong!??? Why didn't you tell me?! We lost the link - things have been CRAZY for me. Very difficult. And your hunches, as ever, were 100% right. Bad apples and all that. Now GONE.

The excellent news is that whatever was ailing you seems to be on the run. SO TOO FOR MUNGO! He is soooooo much better now. He even managed a little dance of love this morning. This, for the un-rabbited people, is when your bun wakes up, runs round and round his enclosure when you come in the room, making little growling noises. Which is bunny for being happy to see you! Mungo is fine again. Phew! He lives to hop another day.

So, cape. Are you really ok?



Hey Bard, great to hear from you. And I'm very glad to hear Mungo is back to his old self!!! :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Hello everyone. I am finally on the mend, for the moment anyway. But things are looking good, and I'm sure the good wishes helped. I must get to all the posts I've missed, and I will.

I just wanted to post this little snippet. Because it shows, you never know how things will go in ITALY.

This happened yesterday. In a town in Italy, this fellow wanted to be Mayor. The problem was, no-one else was on the Ballot. In order for it to be official, he needed an opponent. So, he asked a friend, FROM ANOTHER town, to put his name down.

Yep. The unknown man from another town....WON :)



Great to hear you're getting better Cape! :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

00Sneider wrote:
Hi all,
I was just looking at the amazon.com site of John Kercher`s book and I must say, that I feel completely sick after I read what some people wrote in the review section. I`m wondering if you can, in terms of moral and humanity, come to a deeper level than some of those people there who are trying everything to discredit John Kercher (gosh, isn`t this poor man punished enough!?!?) and his book by alleging him to lie about the facts surrounding the case.
Just to clarify, I`m not possesing Mr Kercher`s book and I would just like to check, whether some scumbag over there indeed pointed out some facts, which Mr Kercher got wrong or if he just made up some alleged statements by Mr Kercher to make him look bad and untrustworthy.

It is claimed that Mr Kercher writes:



I'm afraid quite a few people are still waiting on delivery of Mr Kercher's book, so many are not able yet to check exactly what Mr Kercher did or did not say. But, knowing the track record of the FOAKers, one can bet ones life that they have twisted what Mr Kercher did say (if not outright invented it) in order to create straw men to knock down in order to discredit his book...that's how these scumbags operate.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
* Knox said she did not see any blood when she last used the bathroom but that does not mean it was there and she did not see it. If you've seen photos of the drop of blood it is very small and easily missed.


I don't agree that it's very easily missed. It's in a very prominent spot. Much like a great big spot on the end of your nose is not easily missed. The other problem with your blood spot is that whilst it's dry, it's also fresh. It therefore couldn't have arrived there that many hours before the photograph was taken, to the point that it's difficult to see it being any older then from the evening before. Knox herself dating it seals it.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
- Hellmann ruled the print on the mat is not Sollecito and is consistent with Guede. The prints in the hall were not made in blood (negative TMB test, no DNA)


Hellmann didn't rule it out. What he did instead, was whitewash it. What judge Massei did, was provide in his report evidence and well reasoned and considered argument using multiple points, to demonstrate that the print on the mat was indeed a match for Raffaele Sollecito and certainly not a match for Guede. What Hellmann did instead of offering any argument, was simply to spout an opinion...that he didn't think it looked like it was a match for Raffaele. Without argument to support that opinion, Hellmann's opinion carries no weight...certainly not to convince those here or to be used as the basis of an argument to sweep away Raffaele's footprint on forums such as these.

When you also throw into the mix that Hellmann has zero experience in examining crime scene evidence, and it REALLY shows, it is hard to find him credible.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
TMB is typically used to verify the presence of blood after a presumptive test, such as Luminol indicates it's possible presence. If TMB, and the results it gives is bullshit then why do forensic teams around the world use it, and did Stefanino use it following her luminol testing. Even more telling.. why did she lie about it? Further, no DNA was found in the prints found in the hall that belong to Knox or Sollecito. Finally, if there was blood and it was just so badly degraded that TMB couldn't detect it, the results of the luminol test would have been a very dim glow but that wasn't the case.. the luminol lit fairly brightly. Sorry if the truth hurts.


Not the old TMB rubbish! It's about time the FOAKers went away and learned what a presumptive blood test is, what a confirmatory blood test is and what the difference between the two is.

1) A TMB test is NOT used to verify the presence of blood after a presumptive blood test, because a TMB test IS a presumptive blood test! To fully verify the presence of blood, one uses a confirmatory blood test and a TMB blood test is NOT a confirmatory blood test. The only reason a TMB test 'may' be used on top of a luminol test, is because two positive presumptive blood tests are seen as being a better confirmation for blood then one positive presumptive blood test. However, that is not a 'requirement'. What a TMB test certainly CANNOT be used for, is to rule out the presence of blood.

2) TMB presumptive blood tests are used around the World because different types of presumptive blood tests are optimal in different conditions. Luminol, is used for the detection of INVISIBLE blood traces (traces that have been cleaned or are so small they are not visible to the naked eye). TMB tests are used on VISIBLE blood traces. There are good reasons for this, see below.

3) Luminol is many times more sensitive then TMB, to the point that it will reveal invisible blood traces, even blood that has been cleaned. TMB does not have that capeability. The glow in the crime scene photos from the cottage is the standard glow that we see from luminol and since luminol is used only to reveal INVISIBLE blood traces, that is the standard glow we see from trace/invisible blood traces revealed by luminol. TMB is so insensitive in fact, it didn't even return a positive blood verification for Guede's final footprint leading out the cottage and that whilst very faint, was visible to the naked eye! What chance then of it being sensitive enough to return a positive reading on traces that are invisible or have been cleaned? None! All of this together demonstrates why it is a complete nonsense to claim a negative TMB test on invisible blood traces proves or even evidences, the absence of blood.

The only reason TMB was used in the cottage was because a second positive reading from a presumptive blood test would have been nice to have, not because it was required. The second reason, was because it was done in lieu of a confirmatory blood test because the samples being so small, were wanted in totality for DNA testing instead. It was considered more important to determine the 'who', then the 'what', the 'what' being considered to have already been reasonably established. Nearly all tests, by their nature, are destructive of the sample. Therefore, if the sample is rare (small), one has to consider very carefully which test you give it over for.

This of course, you would know, if you had actually bothered to go and research the subject you have come here spouting off about in absolutes and with certainty!

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

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

Hey everyone, Francisco Sforza (aka Frank Sfarzo) goes on trial today for assaulting police officers. That will be worth keeping an eye on :)

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


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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I wonder if its the same Francisco who posts here? Or am I ridiculously slow on the uptake?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

No, Francisco isn't our Frank, Daisy :)

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


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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

What a shame! There is more than one question I'd like to ask old Franky baby. Like how much did the Knox' family pay/what did they promise you in exchange for you swapping sides? I mean, most of the stuff found in Perugia against Knox & Sollecito (other than the stuff in the cottage) originated with Frank back in early Nov 2007. The only thing that would make me flip my principles so completely would be cold hard cash and lots of it. Everyone has a price and it seems Frank's was within the the reach of the FOA.

Thankfully we're not that cheap.
Top Profile 

Offline dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Oh, and thanks so much, Dollycat ( love that username) and Nell. Hey, the good news is that I lost a few pounds )

The paikillers weren't half bad, either. However, I've stopped taking them because.......well, I 'm out of pain :) and I know too many people who now abuse pills. I can see why. They are kind of yummy. However, not for me.

I really should read the posts. I just read Michaels about Jref. It was reported that I got the second most complaints. I was pretty thrilled about that. Means The truth bothered the groupies. I only got one warning, though, so they weren't successful at all. Of course they blamed us. They'll never be able to see the truth. In anything. THEY were the authors of the threads demise. But, they love the blame game. EVERYONE else is to blame. The cops, the prosecutors, the friends, The Kerchers, and lalalalalalalala. Pitiful.



Ha ha Cape - I love your typically female - never mind the soul-destroying pain I lost a few pounds and my typically female reaction of *eyes widening* she lost a few pounds, sign me up for the pain!!! :-)

Speaking of soul-destroying, I have stopped tracking comments on Amazon - I have complete respect for those of you who will argue with the FOAkers because it needs to be done , I wish I wasn't so weedy and pathetic as I just can't stomach them and I suppose, for me, the utter lack of respect for anyone else's opinion is not a good starting point for any discussion - I will try harder in future!

As for the Amazon review comments they claim John Kercher made in his book, as always they will have twisted things to suit them - pitiful indeed...............

RIP Meredith
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dollycat wrote:

Speaking of soul-destroying, I have stopped tracking comments on Amazon - I have complete respect for those of you who will argue with the FOAkers because it needs to be done , I wish I wasn't so weedy and pathetic as I just can't stomach them and I suppose, for me, the utter lack of respect for anyone else's opinion is not a good starting point for any discussion - I will try harder in future!

As for the Amazon review comments they claim John Kercher made in his book, as always they will have twisted things to suit them - pitiful indeed...............

RIP Meredith


Don't feel badly about it, dollycat. There's only so much time each of us have to reply to asinine talking points, argued endlessly. There only are four commenters on Amazon, and all they've done is repeat the same old which has been refuted many times already. I couldn't be bothered replying to dishonest debaters, and I'm one who wrote thousands of comments on Huffington Post about the case.

You can't even flag them because their passive aggressive style and blind assertions repeated mindlessly doesn't even count as abuse, but spam. It's enough to note, as I did, that John Kercher did NOT write about bleach receipts but quoted a police statement about 'cleaning products'. And, there are far more egregious examples of what they did here on PMF. Like a certain stretched photo of Sollecito's bloody footprint, for example.

What anyone CAN do, is just browse the reviews on amazon.com or co.uk, and if you feel a review was helpful, click yes, and if it was not, click no ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Fransisco, and yes, I would love to get into the money issue, which I will next Tuesday. However, for right now, you say Charlie Wilkes was not an OFFICIAL representative of the Knox family. Now, that opens a can of worms. Because.........Fine, it'll wait for next week.

As for the comments on Amazon, Dollycat, I just can't bring myself to read them. The pain I was going through was enough. The slamming of John Kercher would take me over the top. Truly, I'm ashamed to mention physical pain, when I think of the Kercher pain. It surely beggars the question: Just how low these groupies can go? They are the scum of the Earth.

Michael, thanks. Frank on Trial today? I don't know why, but I find a laugh welling up. I find him humorous, in the laugh AT him, not WITH him kind of way :)

And, Daisy, hmmm..I don't think he got a LOT of money, if he did. First, as Jackie has noted, he would've done something with his teeth, no? Secondly, he wouldn't have been begging for donations. Or, maybe he would.

I wonder if we can find out what's happening. I'd love to know the OFFICIAL ( there ya go, Fransisco) version, and not Frank's spin. Something tells me it's going to be WAY different :)

_________________
"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 May 16, 2012 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Btw, Dollycat..I laughed at your * eyes widening* ..recognition that yes, it IS a female kind of thing.

So, OT..scroll on by, those not interested. No offense taken :)

It was Magnum's Double Caramel Ice cream bar that set it off. I'm crazy about them. ( NOT anymore). In fact, there are 2 left in the freezer, and I find myself shaking everytime I catch sight of them.

I love to cook, and enjoy eating. However, I now eat very delicately, after each nibble, waiting to see if the fireworks will be set off. Sigh.

Right. I promise that's it. Just sharing, ya know ? :)

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Cape wrote:
Thanks Fransisco, and yes, I would love to get into the money issue, which I will next Tuesday. However, for right now, you say Charlie Wilkes was not an OFFICIAL representative of the Knox family. Now, that opens a can of worms. Because.........Fine, it'll wait for next week.


Which of course, is more nonsense on the part Francisco. Whilst Wilkes has not claimed to be their 'official spokesman' as an official job description, that is in de-facto exactly what he is. He is close to the Mellas family, a personal friend of Chris Mellas, runs at least one website that campaigns on Knox's behalf and has always claimed to have gotten all of his information and documents directly from the Knox family. He has even commented on their behalf to certain media outlets. Of course, the Melloxes want to have it both ways...the ability to let the public think he has authority to speak on their behalf whenever he is publicly saying things that they perceive as benefitting their cause, whilst at the same time to retain the ability to distance themselves from him when he says things that later backfire or says things that whilst may benefit their cause, not show the Melloxes in a good light if the public consider it to be sanctioned by them (such as the smearing of people or attacks on the Kerchers, for example). Therefore, Charlie Wilkes is best described as the quasi-official spokesman of the Melloxes, just as Anne Bremner was. Quasi-official spokespersons (a term I have coined) is a phenomenon born of and symptomatic of, the modern trend of aggressive PR campaigns that exist for the purpose of spin, propaganda and smear.

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael, you have explained it exactly right. And, may I add, as a close PERSONAL friend, Charlie Wilkes is privvy to much more than an official would be.

I'll be at the dentist on Tuesday, so will respond to Fransisco on Monday. Because, the money is important, imo, as it goes to motive. Not the only motive, but a springboard as to what went down.

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
Max, sorry about your reading comprehension problems. Try to read slowly and follow along; luminol is more sensitive to blood than TMB, but not significantly. The argument here has been the reason the TMB tests were negative was the blood was degraded and/or deluted and since luminol is more sensitive, it picked up on it when TMB did not. However, the intensity of the luminol reaction is proportional to the concentration of the blood sample. So if the sample was too weak for TMB to detect then the luminol reaction would have been very dim, but it was not.

Testimony given by Stefanoni was that she did not test for blood with TMB, and we all know how truthful that testimony was. Testimony (eventually) was given that the TMB results were negative. Testimony was also given that there was no DNA detected in the samples. This was completely ignored by the Massei court.

Complete nonsense. Bright, dim...it is not a traffic light. Luminol is about 10 times more sensitive than TMB. The TMB test was done after the DNA testing and Massei mentioned this as one of the reasons for the negative TMB test. Luminol testing was done before DNA testing. Luminol reacted brightly because that is how blood reacts to it. Now it can't have been blood because it would have been too degraded to react like blood would react? You are just not serious.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
Francisco wrote:
Max, sorry about your reading comprehension problems. Try to read slowly and follow along; luminol is more sensitive to blood than TMB, but not significantly. The argument here has been the reason the TMB tests were negative was the blood was degraded and/or deluted and since luminol is more sensitive, it picked up on it when TMB did not. However, the intensity of the luminol reaction is proportional to the concentration of the blood sample. So if the sample was too weak for TMB to detect then the luminol reaction would have been very dim, but it was not.

Testimony given by Stefanoni was that she did not test for blood with TMB, and we all know how truthful that testimony was. Testimony (eventually) was given that the TMB results were negative. Testimony was also given that there was no DNA detected in the samples. This was completely ignored by the Massei court.


Complete nonsense. Bright, dim...it is not a traffic light. Luminol is about 10 times more sensitive than TMB. The TMB test was done after the DNA testing and Massei mentioned this as one of the reasons for the negative TMB test. Luminol testing was done before DNA testing. Luminol reacted brightly because that is how blood reacts to it. Now it can't have been blood because it would have been too degraded to react like blood would react? You are just not serious.


Right, and since the TMB test was performed after the DNA tests, that would have meant that there would have been even less material in what were already very scarce samples, for the far less sensitive TMB test.

_________________
"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 Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I've been reading the reviews and comments on Amazon.co.uk (and posting the odd comment of my own), and I've noticed something strange in the last coulpe of days. The comments themselves can be judged to be either helpful or unhelpful, and a tally is kept of the number of votes, pro or contra, per comment - obviously you can only give your vote once for any particular comment. But now when I click on the buttons to give my 'vote', the actual numbers are unaffected - as if I'd already commented. Has anyone else noticed this?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

I'm not sure about this, Daoud. It's possible you have to log in each time.

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

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 4:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
I'm not sure about this, Daoud. It's possible you have to log in each time.


Thanks Cape, but I don't think that's the problem as I have been logged in.
Hope you're on the mend and feeling much better by now!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 4:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The Foakers are wheeling out their heavy artillery over on Amazon. co.uk.

The frighteningly intelligent Francis P, who had previously referred to Drs Garofano, Biondi and Stefanoni as 'buffoons' had this to say about RS pricking Meredith Kercher with his kitchen knife:

Josph P said:
"he never stated Meredith came round to his for a meal, nor did he identify Meredith by name as the person who was pricked.

Hampikian has considerably more credibility than any of the buffoons you cite here. "


Hello there Joseph P,
Always good to see one of the convicted criminal's supporters making demonstrably untrue assertions. You guys sure like to hang yourselves with all the rope you're given! You obviously haven't read Sollecito's diary, where he writes:

"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."

Two porkies in one short sentence! Since you're having such trouble understanding something as simple as this, I'll give your second line a miss.

You, and anyone else, can download the excellent translation by Clander at: http://perugiamurderfile.org


Joseph P said:
'at home'? whose home? Could be Amanda's.

Nor is Meredith mentioned by name as the person who was pricked.

The website you mention is a hate site so I won't be going there.


You're very free with your opinions, but not so hot when it comes to reading skills. Just who do you think 'her' and 'she' refer to here:

"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."

Was there some other woman he pricked with a knife, who shared Meredith's DNA profile? And you call highly experienced and qualified Italian forensic experts 'buffoons'!

And the writing is addressed to 'Dear father and big sister...', so unless qualified by another 'her' (or, if you prefer 'Amanda's') he's referring to his own home, where he kept his kitchen knife.

Hate site? Give it a rest mate.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 7:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

max wrote:
I think the delays have more to do with the SC appeal. They seem to be waiting the outcome of that one. Or maybe it is the other way around that they don't want the outcome of the slander cases to have any influence on the SC appeal. I don't know, but I am not really liking it. One shouldn't have any effect on the other. The police is busy and now the judge is busy? Yeah right :roll:



I agree, max - I made a similar comment on .org last week but no one picked up on the subject. Crickets.

I do not know whether the accused have waived any part of the delays in question, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to resist drawing the inference that something is rotten in Denmark.

And speaking of crickets, where is "BMF1950" and his attempt to explain the blunders he's made re defamation law???

Perhaps he really has decided to go back to law school.

If so, I hope "BMF" is able to learn from "anglo's" mistake when choosing a school: If you want a decent legal education, you can't go to to a "law school" that isn't part of an accredited university, that doesn't require an admissions test or an undergraduate degree, and that has cut one full year from the traditional 3 year program.

I see now why "anglo" avoids questions of law.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 8:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
What a shame! There is more than one question I'd like to ask old Franky baby. Like how much did the Knox' family pay/what did they promise you in exchange for you swapping sides? ...


If they paid him, it wasn't much. Why is Frank "The Biter" Sfarzo now effectively standing on the corner with a tin cup in his hand at the age of ~50?

'Donations' via PayPal? Embarrassing.

If, as some of the more demented Groupies contend, "Frank" was somehow instrumental in obtaining the release of the lovebirds, why aren't Knox (a new millionaire) and Sollecito (a long-standing millionaire) tossing a few crumbs to "Frank"?!

Are Knox and Sollecito ungrateful OR do they simply consider "Frank" to be an insignificant piece of fly ****?

I suspect it's the latter, in which case it would seem that the lovebirds have more sense than their Groupies, which haven't even bothered to ascertain the nature of the state's case against Frank before sending him donations.

A willingness to jump to the defense of a complete stranger without first endeavoring to obtain all of the facts... Where have I seen that before?
Top Profile 

Offline dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 8:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Daoud wrote:
I've been reading the reviews and comments on Amazon.co.uk (and posting the odd comment of my own), and I've noticed something strange in the last coulpe of days. The comments themselves can be judged to be either helpful or unhelpful, and a tally is kept of the number of votes, pro or contra, per comment - obviously you can only give your vote once for any particular comment. But now when I click on the buttons to give my 'vote', the actual numbers are unaffected - as if I'd already commented. Has anyone else noticed this?



Hi Daoud - yes I had noticed that as well and was surprised that I could seem to vote again for comments I had voted on before but then, as you say, it didn't affect the figures. I'll have a look at Amazon later - mind you, I might not as the odious little Joseph P has put a comment on my review saying I am an "active member" of an "anti-Knox hate site" - ha ha, I've posted on PMF about 8 times - really "active"!!!! I'm not even going to dignify it with a reply but I will report it - for what it is worth *sigh*
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hi Dollycat,
It seems to be fixed now, but for how long I don't know. Quite right to ignore the twerp and even more so to report him! What I hope is glaringly obvious to those 'neutrals' reading the reviews and comments is that for the most part the Amandii come across as everything they accuse us of being, and then some - hateful, ignorant, lying, vindictive and stupid (they only think we're the first and last of those as far as I can tell :mrgreen: ).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 3:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

"the machine" posts an amazon review

Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 3:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Hello everyone. I am finally on the mend, for the moment anyway. But things are looking good, and I'm sure the good wishes helped. I must get to all the posts I've missed, and I will.

I just wanted to post this little snippet. Because it shows, you never know how things will go in ITALY.

This happened yesterday. In a town in Italy, this fellow wanted to be Mayor. The problem was, no-one else was on the Ballot. In order for it to be official, he needed an opponent. So, he asked a friend, FROM ANOTHER town, to put his name down.

Yep. The unknown man from another town....WON :)


CAPEY!!!!! What has been wrong!??? Why didn't you tell me?! We lost the link - things have been CRAZY for me. Very difficult. And your hunches, as ever, were 100% right. Bad apples and all that. Now GONE.

The excellent news is that whatever was ailing you seems to be on the run. SO TOO FOR MUNGO! He is soooooo much better now. He even managed a little dance of love this morning. This, for the un-rabbited people, is when your bun wakes up, runs round and round his enclosure when you come in the room, making little growling noises. Which is bunny for being happy to see you! Mungo is fine again. Phew! He lives to hop another day.

So, cape. Are you really ok?



Hey Bard, great to hear from you. And I'm very glad to hear Mungo is back to his old self!!! :)


Thanks Michael! I always think of you whenever I do something extra-special for Mungo, because you laughed so much about the FOAKer comments about me being cruel to him. You said he has a higher standard of living than you do, and lived like a Lord. Well, you'd have laughed at me this last week. I have been juicing carrots, and shredding dandelion roots, chopping celery and dicing melon, banana and apple. Just to get his weight up and keep his fluids up. It was really quite enjoyable nursing a little creature. He became so exhausted as he couldn't close his eyes to sleep without the room spinning. I had to sit and gently stroke his head before he could relax enough to sleep, and then I was stuck there as he woke up if I stopped! I won't tell you the price of vet's treatment. You would faint. I nearly did. BUT this is just what we do for those we love, isn't it. Or should do. He's defenceless and has given so much joy to our little family. You have to be there in their hour of need!

I admit the melon was a bit much. But lots of fluid, so medicinally essential. He wasn't drinking anything at all. Normally that much fruit would upset a bun, and it should be an occasional treat. But it worked. He pulled through and has started to put weight back on, having got dangerously thin, poor lamb.

I will try and upload a photo so you can see he's getting better!

Bardo x

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 5:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
"the machine" posts an amazon review



That post needs reporting via their abuse button. Report him as a sock puppet 'paid to post' poster working for Amanda Knox's PR company and point out to Amazon there are a few of those and there will be more.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Hello everyone. I am finally on the mend, for the moment anyway. But things are looking good, and I'm sure the good wishes helped. I must get to all the posts I've missed, and I will.

I just wanted to post this little snippet. Because it shows, you never know how things will go in ITALY.

This happened yesterday. In a town in Italy, this fellow wanted to be Mayor. The problem was, no-one else was on the Ballot. In order for it to be official, he needed an opponent. So, he asked a friend, FROM ANOTHER town, to put his name down.

Yep. The unknown man from another town....WON :)


CAPEY!!!!! What has been wrong!??? Why didn't you tell me?! We lost the link - things have been CRAZY for me. Very difficult. And your hunches, as ever, were 100% right. Bad apples and all that. Now GONE.

The excellent news is that whatever was ailing you seems to be on the run. SO TOO FOR MUNGO! He is soooooo much better now. He even managed a little dance of love this morning. This, for the un-rabbited people, is when your bun wakes up, runs round and round his enclosure when you come in the room, making little growling noises. Which is bunny for being happy to see you! Mungo is fine again. Phew! He lives to hop another day.

So, cape. Are you really ok?



Hey Bard, great to hear from you. And I'm very glad to hear Mungo is back to his old self!!! :)


Thanks Michael! I always think of you whenever I do something extra-special for Mungo, because you laughed so much about the FOAKer comments about me being cruel to him. You said he has a higher standard of living than you do, and lived like a Lord. Well, you'd have laughed at me this last week. I have been juicing carrots, and shredding dandelion roots, chopping celery and dicing melon, banana and apple. Just to get his weight up and keep his fluids up. It was really quite enjoyable nursing a little creature. He became so exhausted as he couldn't close his eyes to sleep without the room spinning. I had to sit and gently stroke his head before he could relax enough to sleep, and then I was stuck there as he woke up if I stopped! I won't tell you the price of vet's treatment. You would faint. I nearly did. BUT this is just what we do for those we love, isn't it. Or should do. He's defenceless and has given so much joy to our little family. You have to be there in their hour of need!

I admit the melon was a bit much. But lots of fluid, so medicinally essential. He wasn't drinking anything at all. Normally that much fruit would upset a bun, and it should be an occasional treat. But it worked. He pulled through and has started to put weight back on, having got dangerously thin, poor lamb.

I will try and upload a photo so you can see he's getting better!

Bardo x



No wonder he's on the mend! It's good to hear he's having a nice time though, even if your poor purse isn't. And I think every rabbit should get to have melon at least once in their lives. You just want to hope he doesn't get too used to his life of extra luxury :)

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


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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Hey Jackie. Frank * the Biter *........ :lol: :lol:

And yes, I wonder what these delays are due to? As for BMF? Away with the fairies.

Daoud, errr, I knew when posting about logging on, that I was prolly WAY off beam. I'm the last one to give advice on anything techie, that's for sure :)

Bardo, Mungo couldn't be in better hands. I'm sending him Fruit Salad wishes..........

_________________
"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 May 17, 2012 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

On, and yes, Jackie. The begging for Donations. Frank even had someone on Jref, begging for him. It was cringeworthy..Halides quick to post that he had already donated. I don't know if Bruce Fischer donated..he might still be a trifle put out, that Frank Sfarzo basically called him stupid, and said he didn't understand the case at all :) :)

That's the thing about the Foakers. They don't care about quality, only quantity. Every nut job is welcomed, as long as they think the Knox is as pure as the driven snow.

Never mind facts. Pfft. Just stick with the program, and you're in, mate. Pitiful.

_________________
"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 May 17, 2012 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Dollycat and Doaud, you're made of sterner stuff than me. I just can't bring myself to read the comments. I'm so glad that you are, so that you can report them.

What kind of people are these Foakers? Putting their worship of Knox to one side, how can they be so devoid of any empathy, to try and hijack Johnk Kercher's tribute to his beloved daughter, who is the victim of an horiffic crime?

They are truly the lowest of the low. I hope their crusade backfires, and by doing this, they are creating interest in people buying the book. Controversy sometimes does this.

_________________
"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 May 17, 2012 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ALRIGHT, Jackie. I need to ask. The White feather in your avatar. It has many meanings, but I think the popular one is..cowardice. A prezzy for BMF et al ?:)

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 8:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Quick answer re: the white feather, capealadin. It's in John Kercher's book. There's a special sign that he takes as a sign from Meredith on 'the other side'. Many times when he was at his lowest, a white feather would show up, in some very magical ways.

It's the pefect moment in that book, and adopted by PMF as an avatar, just like the white rose used to be.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Michael wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
"the machine" posts an amazon review



That post needs reporting via their abuse button. Report him as a sock puppet 'paid to post' poster working for Amanda Knox's PR company and point out to Amazon there are a few of those and there will be more.


Amazon offers two options to report a "review": one is to report it as inappropriate and the other is to report it as defamatory. John Kercher should consider this.

Quote:
Notice and Procedure for Notifying Amazon.co.uk of Defamatory Content

If you believe that any content on, or advertised for sale on, the website contains a defamatory statement, please notify us immediately by copying the Notice to Amazon.co.uk of Defamatory Content below into your word processor program, complete it in accordance with the instructions set out in the Notice and send a printed signed copy to: Defamation Notices, Amazon.co.uk Legal Department, Patriot Court, 1-9 The Grove, Slough, Berks, England SL1 1QP. Please note that this procedure is exclusively for notifying Amazon.co.uk of Defamatory content on or advertised for sale on the Amazon.co.uk website. Please provide your address, telephone number, and e-mail address when sending the notice to us.

Important Warning: giving false, misleading or inaccurate information in the Notice to Amazon.co.uk of Defamatory Content may result in civil and criminal liability.

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

Notice to Amazon.co.uk of Defamatory Content

In the matter of http://www.amazon.co.uk

S T A T E M E N T

I, [please set out your full name] of [please give your postal address], [please state your occupation], say as follows:

1. I refer to the website http://www.amazon.co.uk ("the website"). I make this statement in support of my giving Amazon.co.uk notice that, via the website, it is causing or contributing to the publication of a defamatory statement.

2. The defamatory words (delete whichever paragraph is not applicable):

(a) appear in a book being sold by Amazon.co.uk via the website entitled [please state the book name and its author]. The defamatory words appear on page [please state the page number(s) where you consider there are defamatory words].
OR
(b) appear on the website at [please cut and paste the address of the relevant Web page from the website where the defamatory words appear].

3. The words that I consider to be defamatory are [please repeat the exact words you are complaining about].

4. These words are defamatory because [please state why you consider the words are defamatory].

5. The defamatory words are untrue because [please explain why the words complained of are untrue and what you believe the true position is].

6. I understand that this statement may be used in any court proceedings that may arise out of or relating to the defamatory words which I have complained about.

Statement of Truth

I declare the facts stated above to be true.

Signed:

Dated:
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
ALRIGHT, Jackie. I need to ask. The White feather in your avatar. It has many meanings, but I think the popular one is..cowardice. A prezzy for BMF et al ?:)


Hi cape,

Ergon already answered, but I thought you might want to have a bit more information about it:

Quote:
He is not a religious man, Kercher says. But over the past few years he has taken great comfort in what he calls "the white feather phenomenon".

"I had never heard of it before. But it's meant to represent the deceased person. It first happened when Stephanie and I were sitting in the garden one summer, and an absolutely white feather landed between us. I looked up. There was not a bird in the sky."

It happened again after meeting up with a friend of Meredith's while he was collecting anecdotes for the book.

"We were just saying goodbye in South Kensington when a white feather floated down and landed on her hand. It was really weird. It was so perfect. I actually waited another 10, 12 minutes, after the girl had gone, looking up at the sky." He laughs at himself for being so superstitious.

"I often look at photographs and say to her, 'send me a white feather'."


Death in Perugia: John Kercher is no closer to knowing who killed his daughter Meredith, by Lucy Bannerman
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   


It was Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.
Most probably Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:

It was Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.
Most probably Knox.


Hi ttrroonniicc,

The headline is not to be taken literally, it is a hint that the Italian courts failed to deliver a satisfying result to the family of Meredith Kercher. John Kercher makes it very clear that he is convinced of the couple's guilt as are most who followed the case closely.

Rudy Guede timidly accused Raffaele Sollecito of being responsible for Meredith's death. Raffaele Sollecito accused Amanda Knox and Amanda Knox and her family say Rudy did it.

I believe they all are lying and following the evidence, it suggests that both, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox did the stabbing while Rudy Guede restrained Meredith. If we assume that Raffaele Sollecito used his pocket knife than we have to conclude that he is responsible for the two smaller wounds on Meredith's neck. DNA places the big kitchen knife from Raffaele's apartment in Amanda's hands. That would make her responsible for the fatal stab wound.

Ultimately, they are all to blame. Amanda harboured feelings of resentment against Meredith and her writings indicate that she doesn't feel any remorse and wanted revenge. Her toyboys are weaklings, complete losers. Everyone normal was turned off by Amanda's loud and inappropriate behaviour. She can only attract a certain type of characters. The not so desirable ones, the weirdos.

I don't see Amanda Knox dating a respectable successful guy ever.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Thanks Ergon and Nell. Now, that's a beautiful symbol. ( Please understand, I DID find the other meaning rather apt for certain Foakers, in some instances :)

As to John Kercher being no closer to knowing who killed Meredith, I would think no closer IF KNOX wasn't the killer. It's important to note that John Kercher does not allow that Guede was the sole killer. Guede told us who was there that night with him. 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: Fri May 18, 2012 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Crossed posts, Nell. Raf HIMSELF says Knox hung out with undesirables.

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

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Jackie wrote:
daisysteiner wrote:
What a shame! There is more than one question I'd like to ask old Franky baby. Like how much did the Knox' family pay/what did they promise you in exchange for you swapping sides? ...


If they paid him, it wasn't much. Why is Frank "The Biter" Sfarzo now effectively standing on the corner with a tin cup in his hand at the age of ~50?

'Donations' via PayPal? Embarrassing.

If, as some of the more demented Groupies contend, "Frank" was somehow instrumental in obtaining the release of the lovebirds, why aren't Knox (a new millionaire) and Sollecito (a long-standing millionaire) tossing a few crumbs to "Frank"?!

Are Knox and Sollecito ungrateful OR do they simply consider "Frank" to be an insignificant piece of fly ****?

I suspect it's the latter, in which case it would seem that the lovebirds have more sense than their Groupies, which haven't even bothered to ascertain the nature of the state's case against Frank before sending him donations.

A willingness to jump to the defense of a complete stranger without first endeavoring to obtain all of the facts... Where have I seen that before?


You know, if he was paid, its likely he thought it was the beginning of the gravy train and spent it quickly hence the donation bowl being out. Frank's about face in the early days was so quick it had to be something promised. Whatever was promised though is probably long gone. I def get the sense that Frank's on his own these days and his good friend Chris is no longer. It will be interesting to see what the reaction is in Seattle if Frank is convicted. I wonder if Knox will start a site to spring him from jail...
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
On, and yes, Jackie. The begging for Donations. Frank even had someone on Jref, begging for him. It was cringeworthy..Halides quick to post that he had already donated. I don't know if Bruce Fischer donated..he might still be a trifle put out, that Frank Sfarzo basically called him stupid, and said he didn't understand the case at all :) :)

That's the thing about the Foakers. They don't care about quality, only quantity. Every nut job is welcomed, as long as they think the Knox is as pure as the driven snow.

Never mind facts. Pfft. Just stick with the program, and you're in, mate. Pitiful.


And it's not a small amount of money Frank is after from his donors, either. He's after some 8,000 euros, which is $10,174 US and that's just to cover him for the next four months!

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

daisysteiner wrote:
You know, if he was paid, its likely he thought it was the beginning of the gravy train and spent it quickly hence the donation bowl being out. Frank's about face in the early days was so quick it had to be something promised. Whatever was promised though is probably long gone. I def get the sense that Frank's on his own these days and his good friend Chris is no longer. It will be interesting to see what the reaction is in Seattle if Frank is convicted. I wonder if Knox will start a site to spring him from jail...


I think Frank's ambition was to use the case as a springboard to launch his documentary making dreams, this case being his first documentary (per his plan). This is why Frank always went to court hearings and other places, armed with a video camera. It wasn't only to make short videos for his blog. That is also why he claimed he was a filmmaker (and made up some credentials/qualifications to support that claim) to certain media outlets, back in the day. For some reason, that hasn't worked out for him. My guess is, it's a lack of funding and the ability to raise any, along with a lack of interest from any of the networks and production companies who have no desire to back an unknown amateur who also has financial and legal problems and has lost his flagship blog on the case. I think Frank has also learned, that there's a bit more to documentary making then strolling around with a video camera, having a few documents and lots of loud controversial opinions. He was also going to collaborate with Dempsey on her book, but after vehement criticism from various quarters, he dropped out in a sulk.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Jackie wrote:
If, as some of the more demented Groupies contend, "Frank" was somehow instrumental in obtaining the release of the lovebirds, why aren't Knox (a new millionaire) and Sollecito (a long-standing millionaire) tossing a few crumbs to "Frank"?!

Are Knox and Sollecito ungrateful OR do they simply consider "Frank" to be an insignificant piece of fly ****?

I suspect it's the latter, in which case it would seem that the lovebirds have more sense than their Groupies, which haven't even bothered to ascertain the nature of the state's case against Frank before sending him donations.

A willingness to jump to the defense of a complete stranger without first endeavoring to obtain all of the facts... Where have I seen that before?


Well, I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but ANY form of public support for FOA members or senior Groupies from the two protagonists or their families has been completely lacking, as it always has. Any contact between them has been behind the scenes in private or in non-public internet back rooms. I'm sure, many of the Groupies imagined they'd get their 15 minutes of fame, kudos and official recognition/appreciation by being filmed sitting on the sofa with a grateful smiling Amanda Knox, or Edda Mellas or Curt Knox, for some drippy triumphant news installment, once Amanda's release had been won and she'd been back home long enough to settle in. Yet, that has NEVER happened and it was never GOING to happen. The Groupies are being kept at arms length publicly as they always will be, by the major strategists and tacticians such as David Marriott and now also the Mellox's agents. Marriott has always been very careful not only to prevent 'negative' (objective) elements of the media gaining access to the Melloxes, but also the negative elements from his astroturfed PR campaign and the Chris Mellas sponsored FOA campaign. That means the Groupies, even the high priests. Not even those senior Groupies who claim to be personal friends of the family, such as Michael Heavey, are granted public access. If you're running a vindictive and aggressive smear and propaganda campaign on behalf of your clients, the last thing you want is your clients whose public persona you've worked very hard to fabricate, to be on the 9 O'Clock News hugging and shaking hands with any of the menagerie of scumbags, self-publicists or weirdos you have recruited to publicly take part in that campaign. Keep your clients publicly separated from those doing the dirty work so they are not tainted by all that shit shovelling and retain plausible deniability when your thugs go too far....which is rather often. And of course, it's not lost on the Melloxes what sort of 'people' many of the Groupies are and so are I imagine, only too happy to have them kept at arms length. Of course, whilst the Melloxes don't publicly support their activities, privately they obviously do (and indeed, behind the scenes, have been instrumental in much of it) since they have never once publicly condemned any of the Groupies actions. One only has to look now to the latest example of the Groupies openly making malicious attacks on John Kercher and his book, whilst the Melloxes stand by and say not a word! A single word from them would put a halt to it and they know it, yet they stand by and say nothing! Anyway, don't expect the media to be announcing the Melloxes or Sollecitos are writing out any cheques for Frank Sfarzo. Won't happen, certainly not publicly. Any help he gets will be left to the Groupies to provide.

And as for the Groupies and their fawning support of Frank Sfarzo and declaring him a hero...it's disgusting. Really, they want to rush to morally and financially support a man who tried to secretly sell for profit to elements of the media, naked photos of their 'Christess' Amanda Knox???

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


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

Offline Daoud


User avatar


Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

On Amazon.co.uk a comment by Joseph P in response to a quote from RS's diary is priceles (IMHO):

"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."

"Joseph P says:
Indeed. I don't really wish to engage with D Smith if this monomania continues.

The knife pricking issue isn't worth discussing. Could Raffaele have meant Meredith as opposed to Amanda? Maybe. Or did he mean that he pricked Amanda and Amanda had some of Meredith's DNA on her at the time? I tend to think that's what he meant. Throwing around accusations that I am 'lying' isn't very civil.

It doesn't really matter what he did or didn't mean. The knife was not just ruled out for having no scientifically valid DNA result. It also was incompatible with the wounds as the Hellmann judgement says. So there's an end to it."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 5:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

A while back I thought there would be some major news out of Italy after May 20th to coincide with the solar eclipse. So we have the Supreme Court giving Berlusconi a victory by not sending him to trial (there still are others outstanding) the bombing of a school in Puglia, and now, a 6.0 magnitude earthquake in Bologna http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18140543

Seven dead, and thousands of people are homeless. I am so sorry for the people of Italy. I also believe there is a spiritual connection to all of this, sorry.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 10:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Daoud wrote:
On Amazon.co.uk a comment by Joseph P in response to a quote from RS's diary is priceles (IMHO):

"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."

"Joseph P says:
Indeed. I don't really wish to engage with D Smith if this monomania continues.

The knife pricking issue isn't worth discussing. Could Raffaele have meant Meredith as opposed to Amanda? Maybe. Or did he mean that he pricked Amanda and Amanda had some of Meredith's DNA on her at the time? I tend to think that's what he meant. Throwing around accusations that I am 'lying' isn't very civil.

It doesn't really matter what he did or didn't mean. The knife was not just ruled out for having no scientifically valid DNA result. It also was incompatible with the wounds as the Hellmann judgement says. So there's an end to it."


This is the same person who has also said in the comments section "The Kercher family themselves authorised the display of dozens of graphic photos of their daughter's naked violated body in front of the world's media in public court." - utterly sickening - this made me so angry!

And their refusal to answer the question re the knife prick speaks volumes............

Ps. where is Zorba - we miss you

RIP Meredith
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 2:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Ergon wrote:
00Sneider, here is what John Kercher wrote:
"He claimed that when he opened up the shop, she entered and went to the section where the cleaning products were kept. Though he testified that he was not certain what it was that she had bought, the police who made a search of Sollecito’s home testified that they had found a receipt for cleaning products from the same shop. After the murder police found several bottles of bleach in Raffaelle’s flat, but his cleaner confirmed that she had never seen bleach there before"

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 2355-2358). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.

First, John Kercher never says the police found receipts for bleach. The confusion arises from his conflating Quintavalle's testimony in court with earlier police testimony about finding a receipt for "cleaning products". The fact is that they also found bottles of bleach in the flat, and Sollecito's maid had told the police she never bought or used bleach, but a cleaning product that Raffaele had insisted be the only product she could use.

It's late now so I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow. good night, every one.


Hi Ergon,
I don`t want to come across as impatient, but what happened, you made this promise almost a week ago and you weren`t inactive after that :( .
But thanks so far for clarifying, what Mr Kercher really said about the purchase of the bleach receipt.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

00Sneider wrote:
Ergon wrote:
00Sneider, here is what John Kercher wrote:
"He claimed that when he opened up the shop, she entered and went to the section where the cleaning products were kept. Though he testified that he was not certain what it was that she had bought, the police who made a search of Sollecito’s home testified that they had found a receipt for cleaning products from the same shop. After the murder police found several bottles of bleach in Raffaelle’s flat, but his cleaner confirmed that she had never seen bleach there before"

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 2355-2358). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.

First, John Kercher never says the police found receipts for bleach. The confusion arises from his conflating Quintavalle's testimony in court with earlier police testimony about finding a receipt for "cleaning products". The fact is that they also found bottles of bleach in the flat, and Sollecito's maid had told the police she never bought or used bleach, but a cleaning product that Raffaele had insisted be the only product she could use.

It's late now so I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow. good night, every one.


Hi Ergon,
I don`t want to come across as impatient, but what happened, you made this promise almost a week ago and you weren't inactive after that :( .
But thanks so far for clarifying, what Mr Kercher really said about the purchase of the bleach receipt.


Apologies, 00Sneider. It sorta slipped my mind, in part because I thought Michael had answered after me, but, may be not :)

I think the rest of your question had to do with the mixed blood stain. If not, please remind me. One of the things that struck me, way back when. Amanda was bleeding The question is, why? I'm one of those who firmly believe there was a fight, in the process of which she got hit on the nose. As someone who has oft been hit there, I can tell you how easily noses bleed, and how quickly they stop, without a bruise the next day.

I think the scrape along her neck was one indicator of a struggle. I also think she may have lost one of her piercings in the murder room, which is why she brought her lamp over to search for it. All things the groupies argue against, because it's all opinion and logic, which they can't effectively argue.

Another way they muddy everything: the luminol enhanced foot prints (Amanda's) Using a combination of wonky science and wonky judicial reasoning (Hellman's) they hand wave away the clearest proof Amanda stepped in Meredith's blood at some point (probably after the clean up) and walked along the corridor and into Filomena's room. They make idiot reasonings about how it never existed, and if it did, it must have been Guede's.

Oh phooey to that I say. They want to have so much cake and eat it too, they are circular, like their arguments.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 9:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Any news about Frank's Trial? If I see Fransisco today, I will gladly respond to any money questions. At this moment, I'm rather sorry to see the end of the Sherlock Holmes Series. Damn. It was NOT the ending I wanted to see. To be honest, I LOVED his way of deducing.

Still having dental surgery. Pain........but bearable. Thanks to painkillers. Still a few weeks to go. Aaaargh. I keep thinking about what they did in the old days.

I miss Napia and Zorba. Daisy? Give me news. And, where's the Justice wagon? Is John Kercher's book doing well? I'm so hoping it is.

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

Hi, Cape. I'm out here. Not to worry. Had my own bout of medical issues this past week. A bit humiliated to admit that issues developed over years of denial about the hazards of smoking. Spent a few days in the hospital, and now, without the crutch, am as miserable and self-pitying as I have ever been in my life.
I read a few of the reviews of Mr.Kercher's book since I have been home, and I must say, I am currently experiencing such a bout of anger over them, it's difficult to formulate a complete, rational sentence to answer them. This will pass, I hope, otherwise I will have richly deserved the title 'nasty old lady' that has currently befallen me.
Back to the money. This is one of the biggies for me.
And, of course, Sollecito's lie about the pricking with the knife. Daoud brings it up here. Can't make this stuff up.
Of course, Ergon, there is a bit part of me that wonders if the eclipse has had a bit to do with the current mood.
I feel like I am sloughing in cement to get my focus back onto the board. Almost like hitting a wall.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

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

That same feeling was what I had right after the Appeal fiasco-verdict. Get better soon.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

capealadin wrote:
Any news about Frank's Trial? If I see Fransisco today, I will gladly respond to any money questions. At this moment, I'm rather sorry to see the end of the Sherlock Holmes Series. Damn. It was NOT the ending I wanted to see. To be honest, I LOVED his way of deducing.

Still having dental surgery. Pain........but bearable. Thanks to painkillers. Still a few weeks to go. Aaaargh. I keep thinking about what they did in the old days.

I miss Napia and Zorba. Daisy? Give me news. And, where's the Justice wagon? Is John Kercher's book doing well? I'm so hoping it is.


Hi Cape, sorry to hear you're still having dental pain. I've had my share and it's no fun.

As for the money, I'd ask the following;

1. Why did Massei find them not guilty of stealing Meredith's money?
2. Why was there no testimony given at any of the trials that even attempted to link Knox/Sollecito to Meredith's money? Even if it was uncertain if money was even missing I would have expected the prosecution to make an issue of unaccounted for money if that's what it was.
3. How much money did Amanda have on her prior to the start of these transactions? How much money did she have for their trip they had planned, if any?
4. Has it been confirmed that this one account was her only source of funds available to her?
5. Does it really make sense to you that someone with $4500 in the bank would have motive to steal but someone with no money would not?

My position on the money is not that she didn't steal it, only that there is no evidence of that. Conjecture is fine, but unless it can be proven that you have all of the facts and that Knox was asked but could not provide an acceptable explanation, it remains nothing more. And given that the prosecution, which attacked just about anything that was even remotely possible, never made an issue of this should be suggesting to you that there is more evidence that you are not aware of that does not support this theory.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Well, dgfred, I sympathize with anyone who struggled through such as this. I think it shows a real devotion to the truth that you would continue to seek to present the facts through the haze of the non-sensical latest ruling.
One advantage to being away has become apparent to me. I can see afresh how active the Foaker vortex is. Sort of like a relentless rip-tide. Attempting to pull all away from the facts in evidence, pushing the spin, the agenda, the total nonsense of the phony persona that they want the world to buy. Even after more than 4 years.
This becomes so evident when I step back into the narrative.
For example: Sollecito's lie about pricking Meredith with the knife.
I ask one question: Why is it necessary for Joseph P. on Amazon, or, even myself to give an opinion to the reader about what Sollecito meant when he wrote his description of what happened here in his diary?
No one out there has to depend on Joseph's interpretation, or mine, either, for that matter.This is simple. And this is where SPIN comes in.
Anyone with a reading comprehension level of second grade or better can read Sollecito's OWN WORDS.
You don't need me to spoon feed you. You don't need Joseph to explain what he thinks Sollecito meant.
Use a brain cell or two and read the words yourself.
To me, this lie damns Sollecito as sure as Guede as a guilty party. And I challenge anyone to explain differently.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Having read somewhat the short translation of the Hellman (was it?) report
I can't recall seeing anything at all as to how exactly a footprint set in blood
supposedly of Guede got onto the bathmat - when there was a cleanup of the
bathroom because there were no other surrounding footprints in the bathroom

If the footprint was of Guede A: he'd have been unshod - possibly had showered
(scenario) -- he'd also have CLEANED UP THE CRIME SCENE

........

ok -- what is the distance from the bathmat footprint and the clear floor to the
door?

Possibly Guede stood on one bloodied foot on the bathmat and washed himself
in the sink / bidet or bath? - hence being clean enough to proceed out of the
room without leaving any traces


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue May 22, 2012 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

Francisco wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Any news about Frank's Trial? If I see Fransisco today, I will gladly respond to any money questions. At this moment, I'm rather sorry to see the end of the Sherlock Holmes Series. Damn. It was NOT the ending I wanted to see. To be honest, I LOVED his way of deducing.

Still having dental surgery. Pain........but bearable. Thanks to painkillers. Still a few weeks to go. Aaaargh. I keep thinking about what they did in the old days.

I miss Napia and Zorba. Daisy? Give me news. And, where's the Justice wagon? Is John Kercher's book doing well? I'm so hoping it is.


Hi Cape, sorry to hear you're still having dental pain. I've had my share and it's no fun.

As for the money, I'd ask the following;

1. Why did Massei find them not guilty of stealing Meredith's money?
2. Why was there no testimony given at any of the trials that even attempted to link Knox/Sollecito to Meredith's money? Even if it was uncertain if money was even missing I would have expected the prosecution to make an issue of unaccounted for money if that's what it was.
3. How much money did Amanda have on her prior to the start of these transactions? How much money did she have for their trip they had planned, if any?
4. Has it been confirmed that this one account was her only source of funds available to her?
5. Does it really make sense to you that someone with $4500 in the bank would have motive to steal but someone with no money would not?

My position on the money is not that she didn't steal it, only that there is no evidence of that. Conjecture is fine, but unless it can be proven that you have all of the facts and that Knox was asked but could not provide an acceptable explanation, it remains nothing more. And given that the prosecution, which attacked just about anything that was even remotely possible, never made an issue of this should be suggesting to you that there is more evidence that you are not aware of that does not support this theory.


1- Because there is no way to prove which of the three took the money.

2- The only way to link it is with bank statements before and after the murder... but then it still could not be proven where the money (215E) that AK had on her at arrest came from.

3- Well, not sure exactly what money she had on her just before the murder... but obviously it wasn't enough for her part of the rent. She stated 'Patrick had not paid her' when the other flatmates were speaking of rent collection. Why would she state that if she had the money at that time?

4- It is not so much if there were other sources of money for AK... just no reports/statements of parents or others sending/giving her extra money at that time.

5- 'Stealing' the money may have only been part of the original prank... or just to set RG up as the fall-guy for taking the money when Meredith noticed it missing. She may even have planned to return it over the next couple of days before Meredith noticed it missing.

IMO it is not that the money is not an important part of what happened... it is just we can not know what part unless one of the three tells.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Having read somewhat the short translation of the Micheli (was it?) report
I can't recall seeing anything at all as to how exactly a footprint set in blood
supposedly of Guede got onto the bathmat - when there was a cleanup of the
bathroom because there were no other surrounding footprints in the bathroom

If the footprint was of Guede A: he'd have been unshod - possibly had showered
(scenario) -- he'd also have CLEANED UP THE CRIME SCENE

........

ok -- what is the distance from the bathmat footprint and the clear floor to the
door?

Possibly Guede stood on one bloodied foot on the bathmat and washed himself
in the sink / bidet or bath? - hence being clean enough to proceed out of the
room without leaving any traces



Oh troon... don't ya know AK took care of all that stuff with her Bathmat Boogie b-(( , on accident of course.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Having read somewhat the short translation of the Micheli (was it?) report
I can't recall seeing anything at all as to how exactly a footprint set in blood
supposedly of Guede got onto the bathmat - when there was a cleanup of the
bathroom because there were no other surrounding footprints in the bathroom

If the footprint was of Guede A: he'd have been unshod - possibly had showered
(scenario) -- he'd also have CLEANED UP THE CRIME SCENE

........

ok -- what is the distance from the bathmat footprint and the clear floor to the
door?

Possibly Guede stood on one bloodied foot on the bathmat and washed himself
in the sink / bidet or bath? - hence being clean enough to proceed out of the
room without leaving any traces



Oh troon... don't ya know AK took care of all that stuff with her Bathmat Boogie b-(( , on accident of course.


so its AK's footprint on the bathmat?
now I'm confused again
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

No... RG must have done the one-legged hop to and back from the bathroom, accidently stepping on the mat after washing his one bare foot. Then he put his shoe back on, grabbed some towels to help Meredith, and went back to her room getting more blood on his freshly cleaned foot/shoe and his other clean sneaker. Then he left straight out of the cottage.

I believe they might have been cleaning off in the shower the night of the murder and RS stepped on the mat with a watery/bloody foot.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

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

Offline Francisco

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:58 pm

Posts: 119

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

dgfred wrote:
Francisco wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Any news about Frank's Trial? If I see Fransisco today, I will gladly respond to any money questions. At this moment, I'm rather sorry to see the end of the Sherlock Holmes Series. Damn. It was NOT the ending I wanted to see. To be honest, I LOVED his way of deducing.

Still having dental surgery. Pain........but bearable. Thanks to painkillers. Still a few weeks to go. Aaaargh. I keep thinking about what they did in the old days.

I miss Napia and Zorba. Daisy? Give me news. And, where's the Justice wagon? Is John Kercher's book doing well? I'm so hoping it is.


Hi Cape, sorry to hear you're still having dental pain. I've had my share and it's no fun.

As for the money, I'd ask the following;

1. Why did Massei find them not guilty of stealing Meredith's money?
2. Why was there no testimony given at any of the trials that even attempted to link Knox/Sollecito to Meredith's money? Even if it was uncertain if money was even missing I would have expected the prosecution to make an issue of unaccounted for money if that's what it was.
3. How much money did Amanda have on her prior to the start of these transactions? How much money did she have for their trip they had planned, if any?
4. Has it been confirmed that this one account was her only source of funds available to her?
5. Does it really make sense to you that someone with $4500 in the bank would have motive to steal but someone with no money would not?

My position on the money is not that she didn't steal it, only that there is no evidence of that. Conjecture is fine, but unless it can be proven that you have all of the facts and that Knox was asked but could not provide an acceptable explanation, it remains nothing more. And given that the prosecution, which attacked just about anything that was even remotely possible, never made an issue of this should be suggesting to you that there is more evidence that you are not aware of that does not support this theory.


1- Because there is no way to prove which of the three took the money.
** OK, fair enough. So there is no evidence that links her to the money.

2- The only way to link it is with bank statements before and after the murder... but then it still could not be proven where the money (215E) that AK had on her at arrest came from.
** Agreed. But the point is the prosecution never even tried to pursue this (as far as I know) which seems a bit odd. Make her at least explain the money, and if it's a weak excuse then try to pin that on her as well. That this prosecution went no where with this is, IMO, telling.

3- Well, not sure exactly what money she had on her just before the murder... but obviously it wasn't enough for her part of the rent. She stated 'Patrick had not paid her' when the other flatmates were speaking of rent collection. Why would she state that if she had the money at that time?
** It is entirely possible she had trip money on her but not rent money. She then goes to the ATM and withdraws the rent money. It still comes down to the fact that it is unknown how much money she had on her to begin with, and that means the best this can be is conjecture.

4- It is not so much if there were other sources of money for AK... just no reports/statements of parents or others sending/giving her extra money at that time.
** Agreed, but again, if there were additional funds available to her as has been rumored, then this even further lessens the likelihood of her stealing money.

5- 'Stealing' the money may have only been part of the original prank... or just to set RG up as the fall-guy for taking the money when Meredith noticed it missing. She may even have planned to return it over the next couple of days before Meredith noticed it missing.
** Anything is possible, but common sense motive for stealing money is not having any and that seems to apply to Guede. And with Guede being forensically linked to Meredith's handbag, which -could- have been where her money was kept, this theory gets a little stronger. He also did go out and party for two days, something that takes money. Of course, no one was convicted of stealing money so this too is just theory but this one doesn't require a significant leap of logic and faith.

IMO it is not that the money is not an important part of what happened... it is just we can not know what part unless one of the three tells.


I don't necessarily disagree but ask yourself why, if it was an important clue, why wasn't Knox asked about the money found on her and why wasn't Guede asked about the money he spent partying for two days? It would appear the prosecution wasn't nearly as concerned with it as you are. ..or they were but came up empty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXIV. MAIN DISCUSSION, FEB 21, 12 -   

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

We do not know what, or how much the police questioned the money angle. Since it is so difficult to prove which one actually stole the money... why clutter the case even more?
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 11 of 12 [ 2981 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,421,436 Views