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 1:39 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:39 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 - OCT 31, 12

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 11 of 12 [ 2830 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Priceless, Jackie, absolutely priceless.


They've got a real winner in Anglo, Napia. I tell ya.

The only thing keeping Sollecito from taking the stand, if that is, in fact, what he wished to do, was his learned counsel (all whom would, unlike Anglo, be well aware of the fact that Sollecito's right to silence was his greatest weapon against the prosecution).


P.S. I'm thinking about removing BMF from the Pantheon of Hacks and Fakes. He/ she made an embarrassing mistake re criminal defamation laws in the US, but I'm willing to give him/her a second chance. In retrospect, my initial reaction may have been a little harsh on account of the fact that we've had so many (obviously) fake "lawyers" wander in from the FOA camp over the years. The truth is that I would genuinely love to discuss the legal aspects of this case with 'learned friends' and I hope I haven't scared one off. I think BMF's reaction (if any) to Anglo's blunders will help me to decide whether I was too quick to judge.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Sadly, you can't use the words 'learned' and Foaker in the same sentence. But, if you're interested in sharing an opinion from a legal standpoint, I'd like your opinion about Sollecito's claim that his legal team wanted him to lie to save himself. Any idea exactly what lie would have saved him?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Sadly, you can't use the words 'learned' and Foaker in the same sentence. But, if you're interested in sharing an opinion from a legal standpoint, I'd like your opinion about Sollecito's claim that his legal team wanted him to lie to save himself. Any idea exactly what lie would have saved him?


Sadly, many people believe that lawyers help their clients to craft exculpatory lies but an ethical lawyer wouldn't dream of doing so. As members of a learned, self-regulating profession, they are to be doing their level best to 'wear two hats': that of the zealous advocate and that of an 'officer of the court', duty bound to never perpetrate a fraud upon the court.

I do not know whether the Italian bar has adopted anything akin to the American Bar Association 'Model Rules of Professional Conduct'.

If they have, the alleged conduct could be construed as grounds for disbarment.

Here are some of the (American) Rules that might apply in a scenario of this kind:

Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous...

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; ...

Rule 3.4 Fairness To Opposing Party And Counsel
A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party' s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

...

(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or
Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession


Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

...


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks so much, Jackie. It helps to see it in print.
So, basically what Sollecito has done is accuse his legal team of serious, possibly illegal conduct, put Mignini in a position of bringing a lawsuit against him, royally piss off his father, level serious charges against the police who interrogated him, and we are barely beyond the dust jacket of his book. And he's back in Italy?

What's the Italian word for moron?

After all of his lies, and changing alibis, I can't conceive the lie that he could have told that would have helped him.
Telling the court that Amanda left, that he was sure she left, pulls his alibi too. I believe that the prosecution would have seen this as an attempt to save his own skin. They had the goods on him with the knife and clasp, and I believe any further lies on his part would have been transparent.
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 Oct 03, 2012 1:00 pm   Post subject: WAS KNOX INTERROGATED FOR 53 HOURS IN 5 DAYS?   

In the interests of fairness and discussion, here's the dates and times she was at the questura. Source: FOA.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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 Oct 03, 2012 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Funny how we have one instance of FOA plagiarising after the other, Gumbel from Candace Dempsey, Doug Preston/Mario Spezi from the late Madalen Nabb, lawyers coming here and "anglolawyer" making physical threats against Michael; BMF 1950 and "anglolawyer" AKA Clive Wismayer making legal threats to moi yet having rather large skeletons in THEIR closets :) ; "Friends Of Meredith Kercher" Lyn Duncan being obfusactory and Raffaele "Pinnochio" Sollecito telling one whopper after another; they post everyone's personal information including a doctor who was disciplined for his mental health issues yet another professional on their side who ALSO was disciplined and suspended and he claimed mental health issues, and they are ALL rather thick and dumb as are the bravi they admire so much.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thank you for posting the list of Knox's interviews. Does the interview on the 4th state that she was interviewed ABOUT her phone for 5 hours, or does it say she was interviewed BY telephone?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

By the way, today is Oct 3; it's been exactly one year since Knox and Sollecito were acquitted by a panel of 2 professional and 6 lay judges, and of course the local media in Seattle keeps reminding their viewers/readers of that:

One year since Amanda Knox's acquittal

KING5 NEWS

Yesterday, I was wondering, was there going to be a proper celebration where fans could get together and get autographs from their favorite murderers (just kidding), but, as we know, Knox has become somewhat of a recluse, and Sollecito is back in Italy. So, all that remains of them are memories and pictures, and all the groupies can do is raise a virtual glass of champagne and light a virtual candle I guess ... and then sit and wait in fear for the next hearing and the Supreme Court ruling.
Top Profile 

Offline Freedomfries

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:11 pm

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cheer up you miserable fucks, it's the one year anniversary of Amanda's freedom woohoo!



Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: Amanda Knox heard from. Yeah, a year in which Seattle's murder rate went UP, and Perugia's went DOWN
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 Oct 03, 2012 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Thank you for posting the list of Knox's interviews. Does the interview on the 4th state that she was interviewed ABOUT her phone for 5 hours, or does it say she was interviewed BY telephone?


You're welcome, Napia5. The document comes from the 212 page Ghirga Vedova Appeal to the Perugia Appellate Court (Hellmann) pdf dated March 2011. So I have the original from the Justice Ministry website, and a quick translation indicates it is a summary of her alleged times of interrogation. This is not based on an official police report but hearsay evidence from various witnesses. So the one you have for Sunday November 4 gives the approximate time it started, and the total time spent in the station. The telephone call is Amanda's to her aunt saying she was interrogated for 5 hours that day.

I'll post the original shortly. The rough translation is very interesting, giving an idea of the defense's thinking. Will post anything interesting I come across.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Freedomfries, your time would have been better spent lighting a candle in Meredith's memory.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

In the last 24 hours we have been called 'little bitches', and 'miserable f#ucks'
Can't you just feel the love pouring out of them?
Wonder what they would be saying if they were actually 'haters'?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Happy Anniversary, Amanda Knox! (2 pages)
By Winston Ross and Barbie Latza Nadeau

A year ago today, she was released from an Italian prison after her murder conviction was overturned. Today, she's living in a seedy part of Seattle, writing her book, and hanging out with her grandmother. Winston Ross and Barbie Latza Nadeau on Foxy Knoxy's next act.


THE DAILY BEAST

Lots of comments already.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

From the Daily Beast article:

Quote:
But he also struggles with memories of life inside a solitary confinement cell in that Italian prison, of the guards pressuring him daily to turn on his former lover, to “throw Amanda under the bus,” that “nightmare.”


Whaaat? Now he is saying that not only his family and lawyers, but also the prison guards were pressuring him to accuse Amanda Knox of .... what exactly? If he was completely innocent of committing a murder and extraneous to the crime, how could he have accused her at all? There is no way he as an innocent person would have known what she is being accused of having done, that is, the details of the crime. Only someone involved in the crime would throw others under the bus in the hope of getting a lighter sentence. A classic example: Karla Homolka struck a deal with prosecutors to serve 12 years in prison and testified against Paul Bernardo, helping them convict Bernardo.

So, enough of this "hero" nonsense already! Sollecito sure likes the expression "to throw Amanda under the bus" and repeats it constantly. Just a little bit more variety, Raf, please!
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks guermantes. I have been wondering about that also. I think the 'bus' thing is meant for AK herself and not so much for the general public. Repeating over and over that he didn't throw her under the bus? Honor bound? Sounds like he is proud he didn't tell on her. So what was there to tell Raf? Maybe the whole book was meant for AK. Never tell on me and I will never tell on you.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
louiehaha wrote:
Here, Sollecito explains why they staged the break-in in Filomena's room:

In the upstairs apartment, Filomena took responsibility for gathering everyone’s cash and handing it over to the landlady. And it was Filomena’s bedroom window that would soon be smashed with a large rock—

Guede would know this? No. But he and Knox would.

If someone could explain to me, why a burglar would believe there to be CASH lying around because it was the first of the month and rent was due, I'd appreciate it. If rent were due on the first, the expectation would be that rent had already been paid. I think I read that their rent was due on the fifth, and that doesn't explain why a burglar would break in on the first for the rent money either. thanks.

There ya go. They both knew about the rent money collection (which AK hadn't put in her part yet) and they BOTH likely knew of RG's prior problems with the law. News like that spreads like wildfire around a group of students/people. The argument with groupies about a burglar knowing that the rent would have been laying around an empty cottage is hilarious... but they WILL try it on occasion. Interesting too is RG mentioning immediately a 'money' issue as the cause of a confrontation between AK and Meredith. His 'drugged up tart' comment certainly may be spot on too.

I believe this is a bingo, and shows that they sobered up really quickly after the murder. On the other hand, I also believe that they did take some kind of drug/alcohol cocktail which made them overly aggressive and their memory 'foggy'. I am pretty sure they remember killing Meredith, but also believe there is some truth in the 'foggy memory' stories. In a weird way, I think this saved Amanda. Had her memory been more clearly she would have given more precise details of how 'Patrick' killed Meredith. I am not sure if Rudy participated in the drug/alcohol business.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
Sounds like he is proud he didn't tell on her ... Maybe the whole book was meant for AK. Never tell on me and I will never tell on you.


That's probably it. Something like that, yes. He "wrote" a book to maybe beef up his self-esteem (he is an "author" now) and make a little bit of money along the way.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmksollecitosbook
TMJK has a great section listing a whole bunch of inconsistencies in Raf's book. I found this quote quite telling:
Quote:
Had we any prior knowledge of the murder, I imagine we would have had our stories straight and practices responses at the ready.

Guilty people would tell straight stories :roll: Or maybe he just didn't think of the inconsistencies?
Quote:
In my last statement I told you a lot of crap because she [Amanda] talked me into her version of events, and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:16 am   Post subject: IT'S AN ANNIVERSARY!   

Note to Freedomfries: And guess who else was released on this day, October 3rd? (And shares Amanda Knox's Birthday?)


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

And how's he making out these days? Karma. Sooner or later.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I told a story here a few weeks ago about my two grandkids and the missing cookies. I explained my method of finding the guilty party by having them stick out their tongues, as the lie is 'on the tongue'. It was a pretty simple exercise in finding the guilty party. The lies, the evasions, the reluctance to stick out her tongue. All of the evidence was a flashing red arrow right at the guilty.

What I didn't share at the time was the fact that, not long after, I ran into my next-door neighbor. She shared with me the fact that she had bought her young son a brand-new bicycle. She told me how cute it was that he was reluctant to share his ride with my granddaughter (the cookie thief), until she bribed him with a handful of chocolate chip cookies.

Point of the story is: The evidence pointed right to the guilty party. As it does, clearly in the murder of Meredith.
The motive? Never in a million years would I have figured out that there was an ulterior motive in the theft of the cookies. The motive was unimportant, really, as the crime remained the same.

I know it's a simple story. But the fact is, we may speculate forever, and never come to understand the true motive.
The evidence, the lies, the inconsistencies, all point to the fact that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, IMO.
The motive? Won't change a thing.
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 Oct 04, 2012 3:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Anyone else notice that Sollecito thanks everyone and their mother in his acknowledgments, including Chris and Edda Mellas, and Cassandra and Deanna Knox, but NOT Curt Knox? Who didn't show up for his birthday reunion with Amanda either?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 904

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Thanks so much, Jackie. It helps to see it in print.
So, basically what Sollecito has done is accuse his legal team of serious, possibly illegal conduct, put Mignini in a position of bringing a lawsuit against him, royally piss off his father, level serious charges against the police who interrogated him, and we are barely beyond the dust jacket of his book. And he's back in Italy?

What's the Italian word for moron?

After all of his lies, and changing alibis, I can't conceive the lie that he could have told that would have helped him.
Telling the court that Amanda left, that he was sure she left, pulls his alibi too. I believe that the prosecution would have seen this as an attempt to save his own skin. They had the goods on him with the knife and clasp, and I believe any further lies on his part would have been transparent.


Hi Napia,

Was he saying his lawyers were pressuring him to lie or pressuring him to come clean about Amanda? Crucial difference.

As for his father being upset, I doubt a single move has been made without papa's approval.

The thing I don't fully understand is why the (relatively wealthy) Sollecitos would bother with this entire exercise. it's pretty clear at this point that the book is not going to make millions. Far from it (I'll bet the book earns Sollecito less than 100K by the time its run is done). I suppose they've decided that the legal risks are offset by the PR benefits.


PS On the subject of book sales, I came across an interesting article on "Fake Amazon Reviews" (inexplicably, no mention of Team Knox):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 54713.html

PPS Seems Jose Baez has been busted putting up a Fake Amazon Review for his ghost written dud - here's the vid (watch closely):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zikwL7jLyA


Last edited by Jackie on Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The link to the man at Sollecito's personal book advertising, I followed it, he wasn't helpful.

Not that it really matters, because what matters, is the courtrooms of Italy, but the man in the YouTube video doing that achieved nothing.

I could not look around there long,
but he seems like someone who just like Knox's supporters,
latches onto a thing,
him shouting fascist at Sollecito,
isn't helpful,
because this is not about politics,
though in a way,
it may be what Sollecito is the product of,
fascism, however; the case is plainly and simply about murder.

Where Meredith came to the end of her life through violence,
no exercise ought to be similar to what killed her,
namely violent; that man went off his head.

I think he is there on YouTube getting on another case, with videos, expounding theories about Kurt Cobain having been murdered.
I may be wrong,
because as I said,
I couldn't stomach looking any longer there on YouTube.

Just like all of the other links to Sollecito,
me,
I never check them out
and mostly only know about them through repeated advertising by them on this site
or by people on this site
who are not in support of Knox & Sollecito
but forever go on about those supporters on this site.

I may take the piss out of Knox's supporters but I've never ever gone to Mr Bruce's website, nor to any of the others; helping them with their Google Ratings is not my idea of helping to get Meredith's killers put behind bars.

Looked once or twice at the site Knox's family put up with her childhood photos, etc, but never once been to the injustice in peru' site.

What interests me, is news on the case from Italy. News about Mignini and any of the judges, the forensics, anything from the Italian police.

I don't know that continually arguing and pretending to yourself that you can enter into discussion with Knox's supporters and her lateral supporters (those supporting Sollecito just because Sollecito cannot be separated from Knox) is helpful at all.

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


Last edited by zorba on Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Thanks so much, Jackie. It helps to see it in print.
So, basically what Sollecito has done is accuse his legal team of serious, possibly illegal conduct, put Mignini in a position of bringing a lawsuit against him, royally piss off his father, level serious charges against the police who interrogated him, and we are barely beyond the dust jacket of his book. And he's back in Italy?

What's the Italian word for moron?

After all of his lies, and changing alibis, I can't conceive the lie that he could have told that would have helped him.
Telling the court that Amanda left, that he was sure she left, pulls his alibi too. I believe that the prosecution would have seen this as an attempt to save his own skin. They had the goods on him with the knife and clasp, and I believe any further lies on his part would have been transparent.


Hi Napia,

Was he saying his lawyers were pressuring him to lie or pressuring him to come clean about Amanda? Crucial difference.

As for his father being upset, I doubt a single move has been made without papa's approval.

The thing I don't fully understand is why the (relatively wealthy) Sollecitos would bother with this entire exercise. it's pretty clear at this point that the book is not going to make millions. Far from it (I'll bet the book earns Sollecito less than 100K by the time its run is done). I suppose they've decided that the legal risks are offset by the PR benefits.



PS On the subject of book sales, I came across an interesting article on "Fake Amazon Reviews" (inexplicably, no mention of Team Knox):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 54713.html

PPS Seems Jose Baez has been busted putting up a Fake Amazon Review for his ghost written dud - here's the vid (watch closely):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zikwL7jLyA


I see what you are saying, Jackie. There is a bit of wiggle room in his statement about being pressured to distance himself. He refused to lie. The statements string together as if to imply they were asking to out and out lie, but he could wiggle out of it by playing with it a bit. Easy wiggle for a snake..

I too, believe that Papa knew full what was going into the book. But then, why lie about it? His initial statement to the press, when questioned earlier was that he had not read the book. Didn't know what was said. And then, on Porta a Porta, he admits he read it. Why lie in the first place? He could have said "No comment" when approached about it.
Makes no sense to purposly catch himself up like that. The man doesn't strike me as a fool.

As far as Amazon reviews are concerned, that was a slick video. How dumb was that to lead right back to your own name? Seems too stupid to be real.

As far as his reasons for writing the book? I figured he was the opening act for the star of the show. Advance advertising for her. Although, thinking about it, I don't think this idea would have passed the Papa test. It's really hard to say what they're up to. None of them behave like normal people.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
The link to the man at Sollecito's personal book advertising, I followed it, he wasn't helpful.

Not that it really matters, because what matters, is the courtrooms of Italy, but the man in the YouTube video doing that achieved nothing.

I could not look around there long,
but he seems like someone who just like Knox's supporters,
latches onto a thing,
him shouting fascist at Sollecito,
isn't helpful,
because this is not about politics,
though in a way,
it may be what Sollecito is the product of,
fascism, however; the case is plainly and simply about murder.

Where Meredith came to the end of her life through violence,
no exercise ought to be similar to what killed her,
namely violent; that man went off his head.

I think he is there on YouTube getting on another case, with videos, expounding theories about Kurt Cobain having been murdered.
I may be wrong,
because as I said,
I couldn't stomach looking any longer there on YouTube.

Just like all of the other links to Sollecito,
me,
I never check them out
and mostly only know about them through repeated advertising by them on this site
or by people on this site
who are not in support of Knox & Sollecito
but forever go on about those supporters on this site.

I may take he piss out of Knox's supporters but I've never ever gone to Mr Bruce's website, nor to any of the others; helping them with their Google Ratings is not my idea of helping to get Meredith's killers put behind bars.

Looked once or twice at the site Knox's family put up with her childhood photos, etc, but never once been to the injustice in peru' site.

What interests me, is news on the case from Italy. News about Mignini and any of the judges, the forensics, anything from the Italian police.

I don't know that continually arguing and pretending to yourself that you can enter into discussion with Knox's supporters and her lateral supporters (those supporting Sollecito just because Sollecito cannot be separated from Knox) is helpful at all.


Hi, Zorba. I posted the link to the YouTube video about the heckler in order to help keep a record of what took place at the book signing. I have no idea who the guy is, or what his agenda is, either. He had his facts wrong, as he believed the picture of Raff wrapped in toilet paper was posted by Sollecito after the murder. But he WAS there, and it DID happen, so there you have it.

When I first started following this story, I was a frequent reader on PMF, IIP, TJMK, Huffington Post and Jref.
Reading all of the sites helped me compare what was being said, what was being discussed about the evidence. None of FoA arguments made a logical case for innocence to me. That's how I eventually ended up here. IIP's posting of Hendry's reconstruction was a big fail, IMO. I had to go there to read it, and it didn't add up at all to me. and it drove me to more questions, and here I am.

I don't believe that anyone here thinks that they will convince any of the FoA they are wrong. Posting the facts, and arguing about their comments is simply a way to ensure that the truth is presented to new or casual readers, people who are reading and looking for the truth. Posters from this site, .org and TMJK who are willing to expose them for the frauds they are, really helped me learn the truth of sad case.

The story is about Meredith. Justice for her and her beautiful family. And you can't get to the truth unless you expose the lies and liars for what they are.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
The link to the man at Sollecito's personal book advertising, I followed it, he wasn't helpful.

Not that it really matters, because what matters, is the courtrooms of Italy, but the man in the YouTube video doing that achieved nothing.

I could not look around there long,
but he seems like someone who just like Knox's supporters,
latches onto a thing,
him shouting fascist at Sollecito,
isn't helpful,
because this is not about politics,
though in a way,
it may be what Sollecito is the product of,
fascism, however; the case is plainly and simply about murder.

Where Meredith came to the end of her life through violence,
no exercise ought to be similar to what killed her,
namely violent; that man went off his head.

I think he is there on YouTube getting on another case, with videos, expounding theories about Kurt Cobain having been murdered.
I may be wrong,
because as I said,
I couldn't stomach looking any longer there on YouTube.

Just like all of the other links to Sollecito,
me,
I never check them out
and mostly only know about them through repeated advertising by them on this site
or by people on this site
who are not in support of Knox & Sollecito
but forever go on about those supporters on this site.

I may take the piss out of Knox's supporters but I've never ever gone to Mr Bruce's website, nor to any of the others; helping them with their Google Ratings is not my idea of helping to get Meredith's killers put behind bars.

Looked once or twice at the site Knox's family put up with her childhood photos, etc, but never once been to the injustice in peru' site.

What interests me, is news on the case from Italy. News about Mignini and any of the judges, the forensics, anything from the Italian police.

I don't know that continually arguing and pretending to yourself that you can enter into discussion with Knox's supporters and her lateral supporters (those supporting Sollecito just because Sollecito cannot be separated from Knox) is helpful at all.


Hi, Zorba. I posted the link to the YouTube video about the heckler in order to help keep a record of what took place at the book signing. I have no idea who the guy is, or what his agenda is, either. He had his facts wrong, as he believed the picture of Raff wrapped in toilet paper was posted by Sollecito after the murder. But he WAS there, and it DID happen, so there you have it.

When I first started following this story, I was a frequent reader on PMF, IIP, TJMK, Huffington Post and Jref.
Reading all of the sites helped me compare what was being said, what was being discussed about the evidence. None of FoA arguments made a logical case for innocence to me. That's how I eventually ended up here. IIP's posting of Hendry's reconstruction was a big fail, IMO. I had to go there to read it, and it didn't add up at all to me. and it drove me to more questions, and here I am.

I don't believe that anyone here thinks that they will convince any of the FoA they are wrong. Posting the facts, and arguing about their comments is simply a way to ensure that the truth is presented to new or casual readers, people who are reading and looking for the truth. Posters from this site, .org and TMJK who are willing to expose them for the frauds they are, really helped me learn the truth of sad case.

The story is about Meredith. Justice for her and her beautiful family. And you can't get to the truth unless you expose the lies and liars for what they are.



Hello Napia,

Yes, well, I didn't look at who posted what, it's just the constant barrage of the links to those things, kind of disturbs me, or not kind of, actually really does, if I go there and read anything, as it is the same old story, with those people, it's not the links that upset me but what I read/am exposed to when I follow them and read or listen to people who support Knox or Sollecito.

So my choice is to refrain from following any links, like that, as it upsets me, others are more thick-skinned and can sit and listen to Sollecito, my position is, I find that of no value whatsoever and I do not want his shit voice in my mind.

However, I forgot to think about how others came to be here, or came to feel that Knox and Sollecito are guilty; me, I saw the news right after the murder, saw the images of Knox and Sollecito, read what they were saying and instantly felt, intuitively, and through my life experience and first-hand knowledge of people, that nothing they were saying was true, rang true, could be right.

So I landed up on Dempsey's site around the time Michael had too. When I realised she herself was a shithead, I started to satirise things she was saying and pointing out how ridiculous her theories were, then, I suddenly realised that she was being intellectually dishonest, in fact, I found, no matter what she was pretending, her intellect seemed to be pretty much absent, as the things she said did not add up.

So, my reaction was to start confronting her, but as that went along she started removing everyone's posts, everyone that said things that didn't comply with her scenario that she was inventing. Then I said a few more things and she banned me.

That was okay as I in no way wanted to have anything to do with her or anyone like her.
Her blog, unread up until she started writing about Meredith, suddenly had a few hundred visitors a day, but not because of her, because of Meredith, she happened to become an outlet, a platform for a week or two, she was like a school-going child running home to mother: Mother mother, I got an A (hundreds of people from all around the world visit MY blog, yes, because of Meredith not because of you, you fool).
It didn't take long before Dempsey-like characters started showing up and talking crap.

Then Michael posted a couple of long posts, in graphics detail, she aid that also was'nt allowed, pretty soon after that, I believe she banned him too. But how could anyone stay posting once they'd seen her censoring everything anyhow.

In the end I realised what her game was; it was to dictate a line, a scenario, that fitted her agenda. Later on, we all discovered she'd been out to write a book before Meredith was murdered, had a book deal, but no subject, Meredith's death, to Dempsey's mind, presented her with an opportunity to turn the reality of Meredith's murder into a work of fiction. I was or had been thinking that she was doing what she did because of knowing the Knox gang, but later on I realised she was in it purely for financial gain, and because of her personal frustrations, like having studied journalism but never having gotten anywhere with it at all.

Seeing her inability to reason in a straight way, taking in all of the facts, I realised she was not a clever woman, and on top of that, was also a dishonest one too, with a lot of hang-ups, that explained to me why it was she had never managed to get anywhere and kept trying to present herself as some kind of top writer, like some anonymous person putting a website together, warding Dempsey the prize for crime writing and Dempsey thereafter mentioning it ALL the time as though that website was some kind of recognised authority, on writing, but it was a site that anyone could put up within an hour.

For all of the above reasons, I stopped even looking in at the crap she was writing, most I could manage was to write ridiculous scenarios belittling her, an showing her as the fool she is.

After her, I didn't need long to pick up on the rest of the shitheads that latched onto the case or their own strange reasons, like by the time Moore came along there had been a dozen of them, so someone like him, I never read thoroughly, just skim over it if I bother looking at it at all, and that's it, done, do not want people like that in my head.

Lately though, with so many links to Sollecito, which I could easily find myself without needing help from here, could find by simply typing his name and searching, I found myself getting more and more uptight, as it is just bad news and plenty of advertising for him. Whereas very few people would have even seen those things/people, I feel that mentioning them here, acts like advertising; people reading here go and look for them, and so give their unknown outlets traffic, which I do not like the idea of.

I do not ever call Raffaele Raff, nor do I ever refer to Knox as Amanda, this is also why I did not write the proper name of this injustice site here above, I'm not advertising these scum.
I could never bring myself to refer to someone, who I think is a murderer, by their nickname, like man, that's way too cosy, accommodating and friendly, I have no intention of being accommodating towards him, Knox or anyone like them,

It makes me feel a lot of anger and I do not want to be feeling that way.

Anyhow, people will do whatever they want and that's their right as long as they do not hurt others, but me, I will continue to skim the posts about people supporting Sollecito, such people can't help me to work out anything and cost way too much time & energy.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Totally understand how you feel, Zorba. There's only so much time in the world, to be angry at people all the time. We'll record their activities as proof of their PR efforts and also, their very interesting psychology. Funny how they keep responding? I object to their hypocrisies and double standards, but really, can I respond to everything they say or do? No, but I also keep in mind our purpose here is to help bring justice for Meredith Kercher.

As one of the Amanda groupies said, "Meredith would have been forgotten a long time ago if it were not for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's 'wrongful imprisonment' ". Well, the world forgets about millions of people killed, but I think it is important to understand why it happened, and to remember the victims.
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 Oct 04, 2012 4:22 pm   Post subject: BRUCE FIS(C)HER JUMPING THE GUN AGAIN.   

Here's Bruce Fisher, owner of one of the PR front Amanda Knox websites, issuing a challenge on Friday, then on Saturday saying I'm 'avoiding' answering it because I haven't replied yet. Sorry, but that's a game you've played far too often. First of all, I barely skim through your pages now, because your arguments are redundant, and when pressed, your answers are evasive. Here's your challenge:

Quote:
Bruce Fischer Post subject: Re: Today over at PMFPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:46 pm
Site Admin

Quote:
Ergon wrote:
- Since E-Book sales are depressed anyways, you can be # 25 at the NY Times list and still sell only ten units. Big whoopie doo. My argument is with Bruce Fischer, who says the Novel Rank figures aren't correct. Here's a challenge, Bruce. Tell us your book sales (since you're the only one outside of your publisher that would know) and we'll match them against the Novel Rank figures. Till then, we'll say your book's a flop.
-Likewise, a challenge to Sharlene Martin. Do tell us how many actual books and e-books Raffaele Sollecito sold....


Here is Ergon being dishonest once again. Why don't they plug in other titles to check the accuracy of the site they are posting as factual?

Does Ergon honestly think I care if he thinks my books were flops? I did not write the books for financial gain. I wrote them because it was another way of spreading the word about the case. The emails I received letting me know the book changed their opinion on the case made the time and effort well worth it.

Ergon is playing games. If I post exact book sales, he will then jump out stating that I am profiting off of Meredith's death. What's the point? I will tell you that their totals are nowhere near accurate. Jackie now estimates that Raffaele has sold around 800 books. This would put Raffaele in roughly the same boat as "Injustice in Perugia" when in the first couple of months it was available on Amazon. That's complete BS. Raffaele's book is selling a hell of a lot more than that.

Self published books average sales of about 100 copies total. It is hard to call any of them flops because there is absolutely no overhead other than time. I was grateful that my books far exceeded the average, because that meant more people were reading the message. It is very difficult to make money self publishing books. Paperback books will earn you about $2.00 a copy, Kindle about $5.00 a copy, all depending on how you choose to price them. Do the math. If you sell a few thousand copies it looks like you are doing okay, but don't forget to calculate your time. I have dedicated a great deal of time to this case. Most accountants would look at the effort as a financial failure when considering all variables. If you are advocating for innocent people you don't care how it looks financially on paper, all you care about are positive results for your cause. We achieved the results we were looking for. I could not be more happy with the outcome of my "flops."

I am now happy to be working on other cases. One of the cases Injustice Anywhere is currently working on is the Jeffrey Havard case: http://www.freejeffreyhavard.org. I can only hope to have similar success in our current and future projects. I am currently working on another "flop" detailing the death penalty in this country and I have a lot of work already in on a project detailing the epidemic of wrongful convictions. I wonder if I will sell "3 copies" of those titles as well. :)


Once again, this wasn't about you, Bruce, but Raffaele Sollecito's book and whether the website Novel Rank was a good place to check on a book's sales figures.

So, even though I did say several times that the Novel Rank figures were not accurate (but a good indicator whether a book was selling well or not) you choose to disregard that.

Then when I helpfully suggest one way of measuring accuracy would be to compare actual sales figures versus Novel Rank figures would be to ask the author (who would be most likely to know) or the agent, Sharlene Martin, for the figures, your group's response was to demand we check the sales figures for Meredith, written by her father John Kercher, ignoring the fact that Novel Rank only records sales from the time someone enters the Amazon ISBN into their website and that his book was published many months ago. Not that we would ever bother John Kercher for anything.

The original series of posts had to do with Raffaele Sollecito's book, and no one else's We checked his Novel Rank figures from August on, a month before publishing. Based on their figures, we claim it is a flop. Based on publishing industry standards, I estimated the initial hardcover run would be 10,000 copies. Even by my generous calculations, I doubted he would ever sell that much. I doubt the e-pub sales will be very much either. Hint: according to Barnes and Noble combined sales rank figures-there's a separate algorithm for that-I doubt he sold more than 200 copies the first week in combined hard cover and e-book sales in the entire U.S.- a flop. And your trumpeting the book is # 25 on the New York Times e-book list means what, in terms of actual sales? As I pointed out, only a few copies could help you get on that list, especially since their lists are not measured transparently. So, for the purposes of Simon and Schuster's bottom line, a flop.

We already have seen with our own eyes that Sollecito's appearances were a public relations disaster and will only work against him (and Amanda Knox) in Italy.

Now, speaking about you, since it seems that you must reply to every thing said, even factually and with references, with personal invective, then yes, I helpfully suggested you tell us how many copies of your books you sold in the months of August and September? If they match Novel Rank's figures, it's a good resource, and if not, we can take it with er, a pinch of salt.

I can respect that you might personally believe in the cause of innocence, but feel you are misguided in promoting Knox and Sollecito. The evidence against them is far too strong, and your hand waving all that away is duly noted as partisan and emotional in nature. I fail to see how you might have achieved 'positive results' for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. You didn't spring them out of prison, and you failed to get Katie Couric to drink the Kool-Aid. Your group's whining after the fact revealed much.

You really are thin-skinned, Bruce. Over and over again you react to something I said, but then, you're the man who maintains private members only forums whose sole purpose is to make and encourage personal attacks on the people who post on Perugia Murder Files and True Justice For Meredith Kercher..The forums are called "Today Over At PMF" and "Today Over At TJMK" and they have accumulated almost 10,000 negatory comments. (Who's obsessed now? Everything I write about you, your group and the Amanda Knox PR efforts is open for anyone to read and judge for themselves. You on the other hand make it difficult for people to find such posts which would, as someone on your own side said, "damage your brand". I can see why you hide them, and get so angry when I post them publicly. At least I can be judged, since all my actions have been open. People can see how hard I've worked to keep this site fair, but that you, try to avoid being judged. So, either open your private forums, or close them down. They don't paint you, or your cause, in a positive light. Cheers!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Haha... poor Bruiser.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Excellent post, Ergon. And I agree, dgfred. Poor Bruce. I'll light a candle for him.

I could use a bit of help. I have been trying to remember where exactly saw a picture, taken at night, from the highway, with automobile lights shining on the cottage wall. I believe I saw it in one of Kermit's Powerpoint Presentations, but I can't be sure, it's been awhile. I'd like to see it again. Thanks in advance.
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 Oct 05, 2012 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Several night time shots here on dot ORG, Napia5. http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/galler ... lbum_id=13 Hope that helps.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
Several night time shots here on dot ORG, Napia5. http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/galler ... lbum_id=13 Hope that helps.



Thanks. The particular picture I'm looking for wasn't among these, but they are interesting, just the same. Some I don't recall seeing before.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Must say though Nap,

The look on Sollecito's face when confronted with someone not bought up, I mean, it exposed him, because what I caught in his expression(s) was the calculated nature of his every behaviour, what struck me is how he acts, and how, if he were to be confronted and nobody was there to witness it, he'd be then, how he'd turn violent, I saw that in him, in his eyes; a truly wicked bastard playing this game that of being Mr Innocent.

About Mr Bruce, from what I now saw, this person is apparently someone parading around as though some saviour of the wrongly convicted, I now wonder how long this person has been fooling around like this, or and if the other cases were added to the Knox case in order to try to lend some credibility as to what he is supposedly doing.

I still think, though have not looked into it, that somehow he is trying to cut out a living by inventing something, like this Mr Get the Innocents Released.

He has all kinds of baby killers and what not and is saying they are all innocent.

No disrespect from me to the decent and nice Americans who do have brains, but this actual phenomenon - everything that has made the whole thing worse for Meredith's loved ones - I cannot actually see it taking place as it has, with this pile of nasty, weird people jumping on the bandwagon, in any other place than America, probably because of the power of the media, but also because as well as having some of the most brilliant people, America has some of the most mentally redundant types in the world, with no idea of anything, so it seems anyhow.

Is it the result of economic hardships, where Mice of Men such as Bruce have to get up to really strange things to earn a living?
Or rather, choose to get up to very twisted things.

How could anyone make endless lists of people and then declare them all innocent, is Mr B such an expert on everything that he can dictate to people and pronounce what is what?


I bet he has a real skeleton in the closet and through it a huge chip on the shoulder, probably trouble with the law in the past, in fact I can't help feeling that many like him have something like this, it's just abnormal what they get up to.

Basically, either people rushed to allow manipulation of their viewpoints or were goaded into it with plays on their sense of country, patriotism, etc.

That playing on such sensibilitoes, by individuals like B or The Cook, is a crime in itself.

_________________
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: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Zorba, I made the exact observation about the 'list of innocents' mysef a few weeks ago. How in the world did Bruce, or anyone, for that matter, read through all of the cases posted in the IIP site and come to the conclusion that all of those people are innocent? Or, did they just all hop on the Project Innocence bandwagon? I have no complaint, none whatsoever against an organization whose goal is to protect the innocent. I would have expected that this group started small, investigated a case at a time, and slowly, added personnel to handle their expanded caseload.

Did Bruce and his minions sit down with thousands upon thousands of pages of testimony and evidence and personally draw the conclusion on each of these cases that an injustice was done to these accused? Tall order, IMO. Can't see how it was done. When I think of the victims of these crimes, their loving families, I pray that the fight for innocence is a knowledgable one. The victims deserve justice, and their families deserve to know what happened to their loved ones, and to be able to put some form of closure on the wounds. Before I would say "innocent", or "guilty" for that matter, I'd want all of the fact. I'd want to read them, just to be sure. Who knows what the groupies did in these cases?
If the Meredith Kercher case is any example how the operate, I wouldn't want them attached to my own case, I wouldn't want them fighting the fight for me. If the norm is taking potshots at the victim, insulting their families, No thanks.

I made the statement that Bruce probably permitted the creation of the Today at PMF and Today at TJMK private sites to keep his groupies happy, but in the stable. God forbid, some poor soul should come to his website, looking for support for his own case. I can't see how anyone would proceed with this group with any confidence whatsoever.
But, that's just me.

As far as this debacle happening only in the States, I don't know about that. I'd like to believe that there are enough sensible, concerned people here, that, eventually, the truth will be known. But, I will admit, we have our share of nuts in this country. And more than enough people willing to exploit them for a buck.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Yes, to start in the middle Nap, probably not handy of me, to generalise, better take that back, because in every country there are some very twisted people/indiviguals, inclufing in the UK, I think it's just American media and influence is so powerful that makes it seem unique.

The real story to all of this apart from the murder, is this phenomenon, of Marriot manipulating the media.
That is going to be an interesting book, when it gets written exposing things.

Anyway, today I ended up on a blog or site, can't remember what it is called, maybe GR (yes, I think so, & no ads from me), and this individual Mr B, had a thread (several, it's where I found out about his shopping list of so-called innocents), and then all those with an opposing viewpoint (opposing the Knox & Sollecito are inocent stance) were removed, a few left in for effect, but most removed, yet one of Mr B's own breed is going under Mr Kercher's very own name and said awful things about Mr Kercher, yet Mr B high n mighty saviour of the downtrodden (whatevva) leaves that in there, and this Mr B wants decent people to be convinced that he has credibility; it's pathetic!

_________________
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: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Sadly, the trouble with the media today seems to be the hiring of actors and actresses who look good in front of a camera, and dont have much clue as to what they are reporting. I had never seen Jane Velez Mitchell prior to her interview with Sollecito, but, I can guarantee, I won't be watching any of her interviews. Imagine what a laugh it would be if she co-anchored someone like Cronkite. The order of the day seems to be put on a show, parrot what is on your teleprompter, and, if you are Peter van Sant, sigh and give a compassionate glance occasionally to show your viewers that you really 'get' the story you are reporting. It's pitiful.
And most of the artices on the internet are a cut and paste of someone else, and it's obvious because the same mis-information and typos will follow an article for days.

I have a problem with the Groupies. I think its their dishonesty that gets me the most. We had a prime example of it the other day when one of the potpourri-pack flew in. Her attitude is one of hearts and smilies and candles and potpourri and chamomile tea, and you're a plain son of a bitch if you don't believe her. Charming, and oh, so full of shit.

So, in keeping with the spirit, I will light a candle for them. With the exact amount of sincerity they feel.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Sadly, the trouble with the media today seems to be the hiring of actors and actresses who look good in front of a camera, and dont have much clue as to what they are reporting. I had never seen Jane Velez Mitchell prior to her interview with Sollecito, but, I can guarantee, I won't be watching any of her interviews. Imagine what a laugh it would be if she co-anchored someone like Cronkite. The order of the day seems to be put on a show, parrot what is on your teleprompter, and, if you are Peter van Sant, sigh and give a compassionate glance occasionally to show your viewers that you really 'get' the story you are reporting. It's pitiful.
And most of the artices on the internet are a cut and paste of someone else, and it's obvious because the same mis-information and typos will follow an article for days.

I have a problem with the Groupies. I think its their dishonesty that gets me the most. We had a prime example of it the other day when one of the potpourri-pack flew in. Her attitude is one of hearts and smilies and candles and potpourri and chamomile tea, and you're a plain son of a bitch if you don't believe her. Charming, and oh, so full of shit.

So, in keeping with the spirit, I will light a candle for them. With the exact amount of sincerity they feel.



Right Nap,

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-<><><><><><><>>>.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Jane M was one of the worst I'd seen, the other types, always remind me of characters in some movie, where aliens from another planet have taken over the identities of people, doubling up, and so nobody knows which one is the real one, until what looked like flesh, gets torn open, to reveal a network of wires and circuits, or a different description; some monster reptilian-esque entity emerges snake-like out of an egg from what looked like a human form, how else can I describe it; those people look like robots to me, and by all accounts that is exactly what they are, they are definitely not in possession of an own mind.

Most often what comes to mind when trying to understand what could make people willing to be dictated to and willing to shut up and just do what they are told, is that the present economic climate, makes people afraid to fall out of the boat, so they play safe and just go through the motions, that means they have absolutely nothing valuable to say.

One only need list up all of those that took it up, so-called, for Knox, to see that not one of them uses the power of reasoning, that mind-facility must have been switched off, or simply, in their cases; it had never been turned on, ever, in life.

This is nothing new, so many human beings have been prone to this mental disease, where just going along with things is the easiest option, least dangerous, such persons through the history of mankind never created anything, but, they have always helped destroy so much.

At the base of conflict as experienced by the human race, has always been the willingness to switch off the own mind, and to form the group, the group gives people a (false) sense of security, and as we are all physical beings, dependent for identity in the physical form, on an earthly sense of identity, it means that all that surrounds people and all they experience and manage to possess, becomes what they imagine they are.

To conceive of identity being composed of the material goods one can accumulate through life, is a shallow interpretation of us, as individuals or even as a group, the human race, in this universe, this lack of a real knowing, a true sense of identity, has always led humans into trouble, forming groups, one opposed to the other, the group providing a feeling of belonging, the group providing back-up, by agreeing on theories and interpretations as to the meaning of existence.

Therefore, unevolved individuals, totally brainwashed from birth onwards to be good little people, basically just doing what someone else says to do, or someone said somewhere down the line, said as to what society/life means - not questioning things that have been laid down dogmatically not questioning what has become doctrine(s) of a so-called (man-made) truth, those caught in it, which is a large volume of people, can amount at most to the status of being called rational thinkers (please note: rational within this famework is in its negative sense, where it does not mean depth in understanding but robotic-like behaviour with an inability to conceive of a greater persepective, so much so that even ordinary reasoning is not illuminating, thorough or even correct, where the rich flood of life and what actually exists in the universe is filtered down to become a mere comfortable/sleepy trickle getting through, thus the rationalist in this sense uses rationality as blinkers much like a horse does to shut off what is too much). Rational thinkers just existing (through fear of the unknown and through fear that withholds them from examining anything at a profoundly deep level), dare not step away from the mould, they do not have the luxury of objective thought, they just exist enjoying things (encouraged by societies today promoting hedonism), or suffering from not being able to enjoy things through their failure to acquire the possessions they need, yet whether rich or poor, the positioning behind this form of existence and sense of identity, means both are the same, and both fail as individuals within the whole (human race), to reach any enlightenment. The individual dies, ultimately, not having found out who he/she really is, and certainly, through not knowing the self to start with, the individual in turn also cannot know anyone else properly.

Therefore, even if a person becomes incredibly wealthy, such an individual dies a failure, having failed to succeed in gaining enlightenment on earth, which is the ultimate test, a hard task being hampered as we all are by the illusion of physical existence being eternal (physicality in human terms, having blossomed within the universe in order to serve us as a vehicle towards enlightenment where the physicality makes things exceedingly tough on us, as it makes us think life is physical, existence is physical, intelligence is physical, everything is thus physical, this notwithstanding, physicality does however allow for suffering, suffering being a thing no human can ever escape), physical existence a temporal beast, at the very best of times, at most only that, temporary, yet the lost human individual, clamps onto whatever he or she can in life, in order to try to self-delude (and avoid the pain that seeing brings) and pretend that this physical existence is somehow eternal, when all of us will indeed die sooner or later, and hiding in darkness does not help or change that.

There you have it then, a thoughtless bunch of robots, working in the media, not presenting or representing anything but what some part of the machine-of-nonsense & total-lack-of-insight (industrial vacuum cleaner sucking up all real thought and throwing it into the trash like dirt) is feeding them, however, all of this added up and calculated together means that our world is overpowered by a force that is not too far away from people like Sollecito, after all the planet revolves in a constant state of flux defined by never ending troubles, humans unable to work together in truth, rather club together in their hatred and so death through murder is not an exercise unique to these two killers, they just adopted it as their own, they are now members of the walking dead, dead on their feet, they never lived, because they left their crosses there, and went for the money, they could not follow the light of love, and instead chose self-centredness and illusion, they chose the temporary fix of instant pleasures, hiding, as so many do, behind the fake niceties of a surrogate identity.

This state of mind of being is latched onto by all others who are deeply lost in their lives.

Therefore it is absolutely no surprise at all that a bunch of reptilian, robot monsters are reading the news and helping murderers to get away with what they did wrong, no surprise at all, it would in fact be surprising if the world suddenly woke up and if news readers actually had discerning minds.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

That's it, Zorba. Nail on head. The basic dishonesty, the sneaky sense of entitlement that oozes through the cracks of their arguments.We are haters, because we call out this dishonesty, this whitewashing, the total lack of mature discernment in the attempt to maintain a platform of innocence.

We are judgemental, we aim to hate, I personally am considered a hysterical old grandma, because I call out this dangerous, destructive behavior, I don't buy into the adorable, sweet, entitled actions, and refused to call this harmless.

I wonder why some of these people can't see what they are doing. These supposedly well-adjusted adults, educated, parents, some of them, and religious, too, keeping the focus on the behavior of those of us who believe in guilt. We are crazy, judgemental, have dirty minds, and it is our comments that are questionble, over the edge.

I wonder, I sincerely do, what the attitude of these people would be toward the two, if Knox had been a high-school drop-out, working at the local Walmart, picking up strange men, getting stoned to the point of amnesia with a virtual stranger, and then being accused of being involved in a murder.

When did the goalpost move to calling this behavior harmless. acceptable, everybody's doing it, as long as you are registered in an accceptable form of higher education?

Do these adults, these parents plop their kids in front of the TV, turn on The Jersey Shore, and tell their children that it OK to behave like this, to get dressed up, smoked up, liquored up, or stoned senseless, pick up the hunk du jour, wake up, unsure of the name of the person you're with, this is OK, kids, because we drive an SUV, we have the right address, know the right people, and you, after all, are seeking a degree in Early Childhood Education?

Jesus loves you, honey, because we know, at heart, you are good people, and we will destroy anyone who says different. Go on Spring Break, dear. Lift your shirt for the cameras, we will defend you. Everything you do is acceptable, because YOU are acceptable. After all, you were doing all this while you were in COLLEGE. You are the 'right' people.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
That's it, Zorba. Nail on head. The basic dishonesty, the sneaky sense of entitlement that oozes through the cracks of their arguments.We are haters, because we call out this dishonesty, this whitewashing, the total lack of mature discernment in the attempt to maintain a platform of innocence.

We are judgemental, we aim to hate, I personally am considered a hysterical old grandma, because I call out this dangerous, destructive behavior, I don't buy into the adorable, sweet, entitled actions, and refused to call this harmless.

I wonder why some of these people can't see what they are doing. These supposedly well-adjusted adults, educated, parents, some of them, and religious, too, keeping the focus on the behavior of those of us who believe in guilt. We are crazy, judgemental, have dirty minds, and it is our comments that are questionable, over the edge.

I wonder, I sincerely do, what the attitude of these people would be toward the two, if Knox had been a high-school drop-out, working at the local Walmart, picking up strange men, getting stoned to the point of amnesia with a virtual stranger, and then being accused of being involved in a murder.

When did the goalpost move to calling this behavior harmless. acceptable, everybody's doing it, as long as you are registered in an acceptable form of higher education?

Do these adults, these parents plop their kids in front of the TV, turn on The Jersey Shore, and tell their children that it OK to behave like this, to get dressed up, smoked up, liquored up, or stoned senseless, pick up the hunk du jour, wake up, unsure of the name of the person you're with, this is OK, kids, because we drive an SUV, we have the right address, know the right people, and you, after all, are seeking a degree in Early Childhood Education?

Jesus loves you, honey, because we know, at heart, you are good people, and we will destroy anyone who says different. Go on Spring Break, dear. Lift your shirt for the cameras, we will defend you. Everything you do is acceptable, because YOU are acceptable. After all, you were doing all this while you were in COLLEGE. You are the 'right' people.



Hi Nap and Good People,

Think too that in this case, it was not matter of those against Knox thinking anything at all about her looks, but in the case of those supporting her, it had everything to do with her looks, on a very basic level,seems they thought somehow that as she is pretty, she just cannot be punished.
A beautiful girl cannot be locked away for all those years.. let's forget what she did, it's just too horrific this putting a beautiful girl behind bars, isn't she pretty, isn't she cute, wasn't she cute too, look at her here cuddling a dog and her nephew, look at her here aged 5, pretty eh, sweet eh.

Goodness, the mentality attached to this, to the exercise of trying to market her as a person she had been as a child.

On this basis we could make a page for Hitler, Manson, Bundy, all dressed in little short trousers, Hitler in his wee leather Austrian pants; wasn't any child cute?

What people were is of no relevance when trying to determine what they became and are now.

Mr Sollecito groomed for American TV, looked uncannily unreal, just like all of those groomed for TV do not look real, but on him they made sure they took care of his hair and the rest, and his face anno his TV shows, looked like a totally different person to anno the morning he was discovered outside the murder scene stood there kissing Knox, both of them looked that unhealthy colour, oh yeah, I remember now, pale, pale is the colour, actually not really a colour but a look people get when they are unhealthy, also very often when not taking care of themselves.

Sollecito made a point of how they got into all of this cooking, but I do not think it was a whole lot, his face looked almost skeletal, his strained features, I see him grinding his teeth making his jawline protrude, both faces appeared to be enormously strained not through the vents, but as a result of what they'd been up to, thus not as a result of shock upon hearing about Meredith but just the ordinary results of not taking care of yourself somehow or another, to look quite that thin-faced, Sollecito must have been leaving the food out for quite a while, place his faces (from murder scene and then TV shows) beside one another and they look like two different people.

Nice then, to present him as Mr Wholesome Good Guy, now, but now is irrelevant, then, right after the murder is relevant, and had he been on TV dressed as he was, unkempt and strain-faced as then, I think a lot of people would have been scared at the sight of him. In fact whenever I see those images from the murder scene, his strained, jaw-locked face makes me imagine him sticking a knife into Meredith, I can easily imagine him doing it, in fact his face in those pictures makes him look as if he is still busy doing that to Meredith, he has a terrible look about him.

However, we know more than what some brainless TV appearance is showing, we have Sollecito pictured at the relevant moment, showing how they really were, this how they were pointing sharply as to what they were up to and into at that relevant moment.

I think to promote his book, he indeed should have dressed himself in toilet rolls from head to feet and been interviewed holding a meat cleaver (axe).

Me, I do not believe his dad was up on all his son was going to say in America, I imagine his dad would have said you be very careful what you say and I also imagine that his father has been very angry at him, rather than all of this niceness, that niceness is all an act. But the wayward son is that f-ed up that he cannot stop what he started, this appearing on TV and saying what he has in the book, is an extension of the terrible behaviour that killed Meredith. Knox is hiding away, and I doubt she agrees with Sollecito's ideas, his ideas about how to try to convince everyone he (they) did nothing. Dad cannot read English.


I doubt Knox & Sollecito could ever be in one another's company for more than an hour or two and then on a single occasion as being together takes them back to that night and they are trying to convince themselves that it was not real, never happened.

Of course appearance is not the same as circumstantial or DNA evidence, but one cannot say that appearance has nothing at all to do with things, the way someone looks may not mean they are guilty but it sure does help clarify the way they were at any given point, to be saying you slept all night, ate breakfast and was therefore well-groomed, meaning mostly, people do brush their hair too, at least women do, means that in Knox and Sollecito's case their appearance at a very relevant moment does not tally with what they said they'd done, this then makes appearance significant.

Presenting Mr Sollecito as Mr Nice Little Innocent Guy, by highly grooming him, to look like he could be a TV presenter himself, is making use of appearance and whether one likes it or not, people 'are' judged on their appearance and this is the very reason that now when appearing on TV, those producing things have made sure he fits into their scheme, but what he appears to be is not the real him. Look at him at the Burning Man, and then on TV, at the Burning Man thing, he may say he is drug-free but to me, he looks right at home, where in his case, such things would serve his narcissism and his liking of the hedonistic and pleasure seeking, that again points to his lies, where he tried to paint Knox one way or another, as the pleasure seeker, when he himself was into it too, there's nothing wrong with pleasure if one mainains control, however in his case there is something wrong with it as they failed to hold control, in their case there was failure, as they have something wrong with them, not something that all other pleasure seekers have as matter of standard, it is them, and the more I think about it, it is Sollecito, I really can't help thinking it may have been this heroic weakling that actually finished Meredith off, Knox having messed about and terrorised Meredith, pricking her in the neck and Sollecito deciding he had to finish it off. This would be why Knox said if it had been up to her Meredith would not have died, because Sollecito took the heroic role, heroic towards Knox, to help her out of her problem, by taking care of things, for her, but for him too, as he was with her, so it was a self-serving exercise by Sollecito, his act was an act of mercy towards Knox and an act of execution to Meredith, I think he executed Meredith, in this context.

And I think this is what makes him even creepier than Knox, because she could do nothing, as it was her that started things and went off her head, he got involved and because of his connection to Knox, was able to overcome his ordinary mind-braking system, so that he was able to simply execute Meredith, his mind told him it was the solution to the problem Knox had created, and if she had a problem the problem would become his, so he thought he could avoid the problem by freeing Knox from it, his taking charge made Knox appear the way she was.

I reckon Knox might have become afraid of him, because even though she did great wrong, I really do not think she ever entertained killing people, not before this, and even though she was aggressive and nasty in the heat of the moments there in the cottage, it took an even creepier mind to decide to execute someone.

Yes, I truly believe Sollecito took charge, but Knox could never know what he'd come out with.
Either way, both are very capable, their mental make-ups make it so, of freaking out and killing someone, I believe this to be true.

What I mean is although it looks like Knox did the actual killing, Sollecito is a sly person, and he is equally capable of murder, after all he knows no shame and is overjoyed to be blessed by Americans as they heap their ignorant praises upon his stained, guilty character, he takes delight in all of that, this is telling, even if he had been innocent, it takes quite a certain type of person that would do what he has done smiling as he goes on TV, but he just laps it all up sat there at a pseudo shrine to Meredith; this is the same as digging Meredith up and stabbing her again.
In this light, I hope that they end up with life to mean life, this would be the proper punishment.

Afterwards, the photos of them stood there outside the cottage seem to depict this primary scenario, the murder, where he had supported her, so Knox was unable to say anything more, knowing it was her goading and egging him on, and how her own aggression had caused this, and this is why he said, so early on, that if he is in this it is her (Knox's fault).

Knox clever enough to deduce that in no way would she ever be able to convince anyone that it had not been her that actually murdered/finished Meredith off, seeing as how she too had stabbed Meredith, had to go with the flow, but it was hardly as though she was a gentle little nice kitten, a nice little 3-year-old cuddling the dog; she was an adult, a sexual animal, just like all of us are once we reach puberty (pretending we are virgin-like angels doesn't cut it), and somehow, she and Sollecito, off their nuts, did what they did and bad went swiftly to worse. That's what I think.


Foxo: If it had been up to me (Meredith would not have died:- even though I stabbed her!)
This is comforting to a person, heavily guilty but trying to make sense of it and it is an exercise in self-alleviation from the position of guilt, it is comforting to the self, to explain to the self, well, you did bad but it is not all your fault, it is not how you really wanted it to be, so actually, you are not really guilty = convenient way to think)

Mr No More Nice Guy: If I am involved in all this, (and he was and knew he was, so was blaming Knox for what he himself had done wrong) then it was all her fault (goes on to explain exactly why) she lived only for pleasure and was disconnected from reality.I do not know if he was at home.

Now, 5 years later, he suddenly has a perfect memory and knows most definitely, yes, she was with me all night.


I smoked so much I don't know sir what happened last night, I don't know if she was with me.


Five years after: yes, I would remember if the bell had rung and it did not

Yes, I remember, I wore blue socks that day.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The deliberate attempts to muddy the waters began almost immediately. The smearing of the police, their almost immediate interest in Knox, is always presented in ways made to look as if the police singled her out as a person of interest, because of her looks, her quirkiness, her cartwheels, and whatever else you want to add to the list.
The groupies always try to make light of the fundamental fact that, in this case, common sense would have made her a person of interest, more than the other housemates. Not only was Knox first at the scene after the murder, by her own admission, she was the LAST to leave the cottage before the murder. She and Sollecito. Her timeline of events would have been doubly important to the police.

Would she have noticed anything strange at any time before the murder? What time did she and Sollecito leave? Did Meredith have any conversation with her prior to leaving? All of this information would have had to come from Knox and Knox alone. She was last out of there and first in the next day. Her statement would have been crucial as far as the appearance of the cottage was concerned. Were there glasses in the sink? Could have indicated that Meredith had company. None of the other flatmates had this information. So, as far as interviewing is concerned, she is the logical choice for the most intense questionning. She had the most information.

The Groupies try to paint this as a witch-hunt. That the prosecution zeroed in on them from the beginning. I'd like to know who better to ask questions of? She logically knew the most. The fact that they lied and couldn't get their stories straight from one day to the next isn't the fault of the prosecution. The police followed the logical line of evidence.
Pretty simple.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Yes and if you cared a damn about someone, the last thing you'd do is complain about spending time at a police station trying to help. You'd do it gladly, and to the police, that was what they assumed someone reporting to be a friend, of Meredith, was doing, however, Knox turned weird on them as she simply could not keep the act up, even at that early stage, of course you would not be able to, if you had in fact done the killing and were indeed the very person the police needed to find.
All as you'd want to do in that case, would be to have it over and done with, and Knox's behaviour reflects this very position, her unkindness and all the rest of it.

I expect any one of Meredith's friends would not have complained even if they'd been kept there for a week, if it helped the police.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Let's face it, if they get put back in jail then there will be no Knox sorry tale, a la Sollecito, on TV, put on by Knox & Co, but, in the sad event they remain free, I imagine Knox's glorification of the murderer's position will be even worse than Sollecito's 'look at me the little good boy' crap.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:

Would she have noticed anything strange at any time before the murder?

What time did she and Sollecito leave?

Did Meredith have any conversation with her prior to leaving?


All of this information would have had to come from Knox and Knox alone.

She was last out of there and first in the next day.

Her statement would have been crucial as far as the appearance of the cottage was concerned.

Were there glasses in the sink?

Could have indicated that Meredith had company.

None of the other flatmates had this information.

So, as far as interviewing is concerned, she is the logical choice for the most intense questioning.

She had the most information.


<><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Indeed, experienced police are also very swift to pick up on when a person they are dealing with - not even suspecting them, or counting them out one way or the other, thus neutrally yet with a keen eye and an open mind to possibilities - is too helpful in all of the wrong ways (as was Sonny Boy Sollecito) being too keen to try to convince the police by coming up with theories that nobody in a real circumstance where there is no guilt, would think of coming up with / would even be capable of coming up with, yet a guilty person does come up with such overly helpful things.

Unlike the police who do have experience, those inexperienced in crime as these two were, not knowing that the police pick up on these very behavioural patterns, make all of the wrong moves by being too helpful, and if the police had suspected nothing, they would at the moment someone started being too helpful in all the wrong ways, start wondering what is going on; they are trained to do so and learn to do so through experience too.

However, they do not allow themselves to see things that are simply not there, unless they are entirely corrupt and intent on committing crime themselves, yet on the scale Knox's family would have us believe the entirety of the institutions in Rome and Perugia work, would be even beyond the imagination of the most extreme fantasist, it's simply unrealistic, whenever there is corruption it can never embrace an entire national force and all institutions, that is simply ridiculous to think such a thing, it'd be impossible to accomplish; who would go around monitoring all of these criminal employees in a country's establishments?

Those within a nation's institutions that do become corrupt do it (usually) locally (and if more far-reaching then only between a few very well-selected members of a crime sindicate, most will not know who the others are, so they all protect their own names), and in a controlled way, among only a certain amount of people, usually as few as possible, the more there are the more chance there is of getting caught, nobody is as stupid as to get involved in anything untoward on that basis.

Seems to me that Seattle is actually corrupt or run by idiots if they allow a man, as they have with Heavey, to sit in a court of law judging people, when this man is a criminal himself, having committed crime in order to bend the case in Knox's favour.

Napoleoni picked up on them in no time at all. That's why she peered at them directly while they looked skywards.

Even at that moment, such a moment as them not maintaining eye contact with her, Napoleoni would have been drawn even more to looking even closer into their eyes, the more they dilly dallied and talked niceties, Sollecito coming up with complete theories explaining everything very nice and tidily, the more her alarm bells would have gone off.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Yes, Meredith's friends were inconsolable. Follain's interview with Sophie was truly heartbreaking. Nell referenced some of the dialog earlier in this thread. The absolute panic she felt, before she knew, yet she knew it truly was Meredith.
Those moments before Sophie arrived at the station, with her friends, when they knew there was a murder, but, they had not yet been officially told it was Meredith, broke my heart. It rang so true, those words, the atmosphere that surrounded those first moments, and made the stretching and kissing so much more odd.

How, in the midst of such shock and pain, and total grief, can anyone act such a fool? I think this interview made things clearer for me than any one other thing. I have often said that would love to read a book by Sophie. I believe she will carry the pain of Meredith's death for a lifetime.
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 Oct 06, 2012 5:49 pm   Post subject: THE FATAL PRICE OF UGLINESS   

zorba wrote:
Hi Nap and Good People,

Think too that in this case, it was not matter of those against Knox thinking anything at all about her looks, but in the case of those supporting her, it had everything to do with her looks, on a very basic level,seems they thought somehow that as she is pretty, she just cannot be punished.
A beautiful girl cannot be locked away for all those years.. let's forget what she did, it's just too horrific this putting a beautiful girl behind bars, isn't she pretty, isn't she cute, wasn't she cute too, look at her here cuddling a dog and her nephew, look at her here aged 5, pretty eh, sweet eh....



The Fatal Price of Ugliness


Agree with your post, zorba, except the part about looks. What struck me about the narrative was how many described Knox as attractive, pretty, beautiful. Whoopi Glodberg contrasted that by looking at Meredith's Halloween picture and saying 'she isn't that attractive is she' thus doubly victimising her, and Nina Burleigh got on that bandwagon too, by writing The Fatal Gift Of Beauty with the one of the very few good pictures of Knox on the cover. The other good one is the soft focus medium distance shot of her in court on the cover of Barbie Nadeau's Angel Face which unfortunately perpetuates the Amero-centric tendency to categorize what is beautiful or not.

Not wanting to do that, but only because this meme of Knox being victimised because she was 'young and beautiful' was started by her fans, I'd only say that Knox is neither conventionally beautiful nor ugly. What is inside her, in fact Sollecito as well, shows all too abundantly in the picture of the two of them together in his book.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: THE FATAL PRICE OF UGLINESS   

Ergon wrote:
zorba wrote:
Hi Nap and Good People,

Think too that in this case, it was not matter of those against Knox thinking anything at all about her looks, but in the case of those supporting her, it had everything to do with her looks, on a very basic level,seems they thought somehow that as she is pretty, she just cannot be punished.
A beautiful girl cannot be locked away for all those years.. let's forget what she did, it's just too horrific this putting a beautiful girl behind bars, isn't she pretty, isn't she cute, wasn't she cute too, look at her here cuddling a dog and her nephew, look at her here aged 5, pretty eh, sweet eh....



The Fatal Price of Ugliness

Agree with your post, zorba, except the part about looks. What struck me about the narrative was how many described Knox as attractive, pretty, beautiful. Whoopi Glodberg contrasted that by looking at Meredith's Halloween picture and saying 'she isn't that attractive is she' thus doubly victimising her, and Nina Burleigh got on that bandwagon too, by writing The Fatal Gift Of Beauty with the one of the very few good pictures of Knox on the cover. The other good one is the soft focus medium distance shot of her in court on the cover of Barbie Nadeau's Angel Face which unfortunately perpetuates the Amero-centric tendency to categorize what is beautiful or not.

Not wanting to do that, but only because this meme of Knox being victimised because she was 'young and beautiful' was started by her fans, I'd only say that Knox is neither conventionally beautiful nor ugly. What is [/i]inside[/i] her, in fact Sollecito as well, shows all too abundantly in the picture of the two of them together in his book.


I know what you mean but that is NOT what I meant or mean, me saying that others thought this of her does not make her that, and certainly not to me (help), because beauty is defined by more than skin-deep attributes.
So I think I agree with you.

This nothwithtanding, Knox is viewed by some people as being attractive, however, in truth she is no more than a Plain Jane and if one wishes to compare, Meredith had exotic looks, additionally, her inner beauty accentuated her exterior beauty, a true beauty in my eyes, nevertheless, I am not writing here for or about issues concerning uglinesss or beauty of faces and bodies, I am writing here trying to get to the ugliness that killed Meredith, seeing as how I perceive that ugliness as being housed in Knox, she could never be in the slightest way attractive to me.
If Knox ever did possess inner beauty it has been vacant, I see a real ugliness in her expressions, I mean, seeing as how I view her as guilty of murder, how else could she be, where would inner beauty come from, no, no way, if she had it, it got lost, was killed along with Meredith.

Appearances are used though and people do judge according to them.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Yes, Meredith's friends were inconsolable. Follain's interview with Sophie was truly heartbreaking. Nell referenced some of the dialog earlier in this thread. The absolute panic she felt, before she knew, yet she knew it truly was Meredith.
Those moments before Sophie arrived at the station, with her friends, when they knew there was a murder, but, they had not yet been officially told it was Meredith, broke my heart. It rang so true, those words, the atmosphere that surrounded those first moments, and made the stretching and kissing so much more odd.

How, in the midst of such shock and pain, and total grief, can anyone act such a fool? I think this interview made things clearer for me than any one other thing. I have often said that would love to read a book by Sophie. I believe she will carry the pain of Meredith's death for a lifetime.



I will have to read up on Follian, did you buy the book?

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I bought it twice, and I am now absent all copies. One, I donated to the library at my local cancer center. The other,
well, it made an unplanned slip into the tub. It is no longer an easy-reference book. Such is life.
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 Oct 06, 2012 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I understood what you meant, zorba, because I did not say you said she (Knox) was beautiful, but some people, being blind and all, :) said so.

I even hesitated to say Meredith was beautiful in this post, because even those who are not are victims when so foully murdr'd.

But yes, Meredith had a shining beauty which shows in every picture of her. And yet, even then, someone on the other side said (true story) "well of course YOU would think that, because your own children are half-Asian". Charming.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I bought it twice, and I am now absent all copies. One, I donated to the library at my local cancer center. The other,
well, it made an unplanned slip into the tub. It is no longer an easy-reference book. Such is life.


Ah, disastrous,

I wanted to be a singer so my dad said, well practice in the bath son; my brother wanted to be an electrician and dad's advice wasn't good....

Anyway on a serious note, is his book better than most others?

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
I understood what you meant, zorba, because I did not say you said she (Knox) was beautiful, but some people, being blind and all, :) said so.

I even hesitated to say Meredith was beautiful in this post, because even those who are not are victims when so foully murdr'd.

But yes, Meredith had a shining beauty which shows in every picture of her. And yet, even then, someone on the other side said (true story) "well of course YOU would think that, because your own children are half-Asian". Charming.


Oh, sorry, thought we misunderstood one another.
I think to many, it had nothing to do with the actual case, their support was more like some war they conceived of in their own heads, like between us and them, all extremely simplistic; they got our girl.

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I bought it twice, and I am now absent all copies. One, I donated to the library at my local cancer center. The other,
well, it made an unplanned slip into the tub. It is no longer an easy-reference book. Such is life.


Ah, disastrous,

I wanted to be a singer so my dad said, well practic in the bath son; my brother wanted to be an electrician and dad's advice wasn't good....

Anyway on a serious note, is his book better than most others?


HAHA!

I can't speak for many of the other books, as the only other that I read was Will Savive's. But, I believe that Follain's book has the most information, and contains quite a few facts that weren't known. I believe he interviewed Sophie for 3 hours before he wrote about their evening. I have not read anyone else's interviews with the friends.
I should mention here, that I also read John Kercher's book, Meredith. but I don't put this in the same category.
For obvious reasons.

But, for all of the information contained in Follain's book, what stayed with me was his interview with Sophie.
I can still see it in my mind. Similar in a way, to the picture of Stephanie, Meredith's sister, leaving the memorial service.
Some pictures, some chapters in books, take my breath away, they are so raw, so true. The picture and that interview have that effect on me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I wonder where Sollecito is now staying, his studying, and that allowing him to be away, from dad, is convenient, as like Knox, I doubt his dad feels comfortable with him.

Christmas draws near and no sooner than it has passed, Sollecito will be back in court, or his case will be, so where will he reside, in Italy, or conveniently undertake some journey, so that should it go wrong, he is unavailable for the taking. Can't see him taking the risk of getting hauled back in and I cannot imagine he has not thought about the possibility and decided what course to take, having gotten out, to go back in would cause him to crack, definitely, after tasting freedom again, then having no hope of getting out, I doubt he'll be so resilient, at that point should it occur, there are going to be some different tales emerging.

Knox is not going to go any place near Italy, and if found guilty in absence, one way or the other, then she again, is never going to go to any place that she can be extradited from, and if she remains in the states, the states will not hand her over, at that point, Sollecito will talk.

She and her family know this.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I bought it twice, and I am now absent all copies. One, I donated to the library at my local cancer center. The other,
well, it made an unplanned slip into the tub. It is no longer an easy-reference book. Such is life.


Ah, disastrous,

I wanted to be a singer so my dad said, well practic in the bath son; my brother wanted to be an electrician and dad's advice wasn't good....

Anyway on a serious note, is his book better than most others?


HAHA!

I can't speak for many of the other books, as the only other that I read was Will Savive's. But, I believe that Follain's book has the most information, and contains quite a few facts that weren't known. I believe he interviewed Sophie for 3 hours before he wrote about their evening. I have not read anyone else's interviews with the friends.
I should mention here, that I also read John Kercher's book, Meredith. but I don't put this in the same category.
For obvious reasons.

But, for all of the information contained in Follain's book, what stayed with me was his interview with Sophie.
I can still see it in my mind. Similar in a way, to the picture of Stephanie, Meredith's sister, leaving the memorial service.
Some pictures, some chapters in books, take my breath away, they are so raw, so true. The picture and that interview have that effect on me.



Thanks Nap, will go look for his book.

_________________
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: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I bought it twice, and I am now absent all copies. One, I donated to the library at my local cancer center. The other,
well, it made an unplanned slip into the tub. It is no longer an easy-reference book. Such is life.


Ah, disastrous,

I wanted to be a singer so my dad said, well practic in the bath son; my brother wanted to be an electrician and dad's advice wasn't good....

Anyway on a serious note, is his book better than most others?


I have his earlier paperback edition, zorba, that goes up to the acquittal, and it is very good, of all the reporters who were there. It gives the events in chronological order, so I need to get the new kindle version so I can quote from it.

I also recommend Angel Face because it gives a feel for the case but also shows how much it had been compromised by some police work, and is prescient in warning us that might lead to an acquittal. Darkness Descending for the forensics but also how it clearly explains the evidence while admitting there were errors made, not enough to lead to reasonable doubt. It is these three books that will always stand as the definitive versions of the trial. Meredith I got not for the view of the case but because it was a true memorial to John Kercher's daughter.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I bought it twice, and I am now absent all copies. One, I donated to the library at my local cancer center. The other,
well, it made an unplanned slip into the tub. It is no longer an easy-reference book. Such is life.


Ah, disastrous,

I wanted to be a singer so my dad said, well practic in the bath son; my brother wanted to be an electrician and dad's advice wasn't good....

Anyway on a serious note, is his book better than most others?


HAHA!

I can't speak for many of the other books, as the only other that I read was Will Savive's. But, I believe that Follain's book has the most information, and contains quite a few facts that weren't known. I believe he interviewed Sophie for 3 hours before he wrote about their evening. I have not read anyone else's interviews with the friends.
I should mention here, that I also read John Kercher's book, Meredith. but I don't put this in the same category.
For obvious reasons.

But, for all of the information contained in Follain's book, what stayed with me was his interview with Sophie.
I can still see it in my mind. Similar in a way, to the picture of Stephanie, Meredith's sister, leaving the memorial service.
Some pictures, some chapters in books, take my breath away, they are so raw, so true. The picture and that interview have that effect on me.



Thanks Nap, will go look for his book.


Follain wrote two books about the murder of Meredith. The first, Death in Perugia, is the one I read. The second, A Death in Italy, came out recently. I haven't read that one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at- ... -1-4921947

Found this link courtesy of .org. Check out the picture of Meredith. I've never seen this one before.

Edit: Yes, I did see it. I just checked the pictures in John Kercher's book. It's in there. My age is showing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hi just a couple of random points.

There are still groupies who deny that Knox authored the Marie Pace letter. So I thought I'd post what Ms Burleigh had to say about it:
"In a February 2010 letter to me, Amanda denied that the one-page story was “a confession,” adding, “Granted, I reread it afterward and I felt….kinda stupid really for having never thought that it could have been taken the wrong way.” (Burleigh, kindle location 4746) She goes on to explain how she fused the memory of receiving a Valentines Day letter from Raffaele with taking care of a sick drunk friend who was puking in a fish bowl -- who she found "sprawled and passed out". She remembers being "really worried".
If anyone is interested I'll put up the full quote. Passed out AND puking, oh my, truth is so elusive to some!
Note: She was under no pressure from the police or Mignini or anyone else when she got those two memories "mixed up", was she? I wonder what her "honor bound" ex-boyfriend thinks of this explanation.
(I favor Tronic's explanation, the letter was written to keep Sollecito under control.)

Has anyone seen a translation of Knox's appeal?

Is Lumumba's testimony available?


Last edited by louiehaha on Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
This overjoyed, because Knox didn't need to go in to work for Patrick means the opposite, Knox was pissed off and interpreted it as Meredith muscling in on her job.

That's why Sollecito mentions it that way, I mean, how/why would you be overjoyed about such a thing, by all accounts all as she did was talk & flirt and not work.


Hey, has Knox ever confirmed the account of Lumumba regarding Meredith's fabulous mojitos? John Kercher says he knew of it (but not specifically the invitation Lumumba says he extended to Meredith for November 2).

Quote:
Lumumba told the police that he had never been to the house where Meredith and Amanda lived. ‘I only saw Meredith about four times, of which the final time was when she was dressed as a vampire for Halloween. I had told her to come to the bar on the Friday where we could make her special mojitos, that she had previously told me she was good at doing.’

This, at least, seemed to make sense. In one of our evening phone calls, Meredith had told us that she had been to a bar and told the owner that, with her previous bar experience, she could make wonderful mojitos. In fact, she knew how to make about twenty different cocktails.

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 1283-1288). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.


Quote:
One day Meredith, Amanda, and a group of their girlfriends stopped by Le Chic as customers. Amanda introduced Meredith to her new boss and he immediately took a liking to her. Meredith‘s Italian was poor, but she smiled and commented on the special make of vodka that Patrick kept behind the bar, adding that she used to use it instead of rum when she was a barmaid making Mojitos back in Britain; Patrick was impressed.

Savive, Will (2011-03-12). The Study Abroad Murder: Trial of the Century (p. 16). Del-Grande Publishing Inc.. Kindle Edition.


Any idea when Meredith was introduced to Lumumba by Knox?
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

On Amanda’s prison treatment:

Quote:
Contrary to what was happening then, it was incredible the attraction she exercised over the prison guards, regardless of sex. That is why, by watching the TV for a few months, whenever they brought her to court, you had the feeling that she was being taken out on a trip. She was never handcuffed, unlike other prisoners, and unlike also Rudi, who apparently had two pairs of handcuffs instead of one. Rudi, moreover, he walked willy-nilly and gave the impression of being dragged; it was like seeing a donkey being pulled by its owner after digging its heels into the ground because it stubbornly refuses to follow him. Amanda, instead, was habitually taken arm-in-arm by the guards, as if going for a walk, while taking the opportunity to keep close to her in the hope of being photographed by the media or recorded by all sorts of national and international TV news that in those days were always following her; images that would have certainly gone around the world. In this way, they would have leapt up the ranking, have their moment of glory and casted from the crime news to a place in history. In that case it does not matter if the inmate is guilty or not: it is an honor to take him arm-in-arm, regardless of his present standing.

de Jesus, Florisbela Inocencio (2010-11-13). Walking with Amanda (Kindle Locations 314-323). ReD Press. Kindle Edition.


That’s certainly less salacious than Frank Sfarza’s headline: Soon to be famous: Jail Inspector Argirò grabbing Amanda for the last time
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
louiehaha wrote:
Gumbel/Sollecito say:
“Only when we were close to finishing our cereal did she finally tell me what was on her mind. “I saw some strange things over at the house. Well, the front door was open when I arrived, but nobody seemed to be home. At first, I just assumed someone had taken out the garbage or gone to the corner store.”

The corner store wasn't mentioned by Knox in her email:

"i assumed someone in the house was doing
exactly what i just said, taking out the trash or talking really
uickley to the neighbors downstairs. so i closed the door behind me
but i didnt lock it, assuming that the person who left the door open
would like to come back in." ~Knox's email Nov 4, 2007

It made it to her testimony in 2009 though:

I thought
maybe someone had gone out very quickly, or just downstairs to
get something, or to take out the trash, or something. When I
went in, I called out "Is anybody there?" and no one answered, so
I closed the door, but I didn't lock it, because I thought maybe
someone would come, maybe they had just gone out to get
cigarettes
or whatever.

Doesn't the corner store theory suffer the same flaw as the taking out the trash theory, that is their paths would have crossed on her walk home.


Are there several differnt paths one could take?

The bigger problem I have with those statements is her taking a shower, and prancing thru the cottage naked with the front door still unlocked. Still not knowing if that 'someone' might come back in.

nw)


I've researched this a bit and yes there are.
Quote:
We can imagine the murderer wandering through the town, with the adrenaline in a circle, with the blood on his clothes, wet with cold sweat. Wandering in the town, wandering out of the town, out of the world, through via della Pergola, via del Bulagaio, via Andrea da Perugia, via Sperandio, roads not streets, where nobody walks, where only a fugitive runs in the night with death in his heart. Afraid to be recognized by someone passing by with a car, the murderer is thinking what to do with those cell phones. His mind is in confusion, his hands are shaking and the panic makes him unable even to realize how to turn off the cell phones. Then maybe before entering back into the town, into Corso Garibaldi, he gets rid of them by throwing them into what looks like wild nature, but which is instead the well groomed garden of Elisabetta Lana.

Dempsey, Candace (2010-04-27). Murder in Italy: The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and anInternational Scandal (p. 89). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.



Most likely more than one alt route. So let me say that perhaps the cigarette story was added two years after the fact to account for the flaw in her original stories - taking out the trash or visiting the neighbors.

That there were alt routes really makes Sollecito's point about being denied access to the surveillance tapes (that yielded no evidence) moot!

Yeah, it's just not believable at all to find your front door wide open, leave it open, and jump in the shower. I would think the draft created by the broken window in Filomena's room and the open front door would have been hard to miss too, regardless if the door was open, closed, or "ajar".
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

louiehaha wrote:
dgfred wrote:
louiehaha wrote:
Gumbel/Sollecito say:
“Only when we were close to finishing our cereal did she finally tell me what was on her mind. “I saw some strange things over at the house. Well, the front door was open when I arrived, but nobody seemed to be home. At first, I just assumed someone had taken out the garbage or gone to the corner store.”

The corner store wasn't mentioned by Knox in her email:

"i assumed someone in the house was doing
exactly what i just said, taking out the trash or talking really
uickley to the neighbors downstairs. so i closed the door behind me
but i didnt lock it, assuming that the person who left the door open
would like to come back in." ~Knox's email Nov 4, 2007

It made it to her testimony in 2009 though:

I thought
maybe someone had gone out very quickly, or just downstairs to
get something, or to take out the trash, or something. When I
went in, I called out "Is anybody there?" and no one answered, so
I closed the door, but I didn't lock it, because I thought maybe
someone would come, maybe they had just gone out to get
cigarettes
or whatever.

Doesn't the corner store theory suffer the same flaw as the taking out the trash theory, that is their paths would have crossed on her walk home.


Are there several differnt paths one could take?

The bigger problem I have with those statements is her taking a shower, and prancing thru the cottage naked with the front door still unlocked. Still not knowing if that 'someone' might come back in.

nw)


I've researched this a bit and yes there are.
Quote:
We can imagine the murderer wandering through the town, with the adrenaline in a circle, with the blood on his clothes, wet with cold sweat. Wandering in the town, wandering out of the town, out of the world, through via della Pergola, via del Bulagaio, via Andrea da Perugia, via Sperandio, roads not streets, where nobody walks, where only a fugitive runs in the night with death in his heart. Afraid to be recognized by someone passing by with a car, the murderer is thinking what to do with those cell phones. His mind is in confusion, his hands are shaking and the panic makes him unable even to realize how to turn off the cell phones. Then maybe before entering back into the town, into Corso Garibaldi, he gets rid of them by throwing them into what looks like wild nature, but which is instead the well groomed garden of Elisabetta Lana.

Dempsey, Candace (2010-04-27). Murder in Italy: The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and anInternational Scandal (p. 89). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition.



Most likely more than one alt route. So let me say that perhaps the cigarette story was added two years after the fact to account for the flaw in her original stories - taking out the trash or visiting the neighbors.

That there were alt routes really makes Sollecito's point about being denied access to the surveillance tapes (that yielded no evidence) moot!

Yeah, it's just not believable at all to find your front door wide open, leave it open, and jump in the shower. I would think the draft created by the broken window in Filomena's room and the open front door would have been hard to miss too, regardless if the door was open, closed, or "ajar".


Even with the addition of someone going for cigarettes, her story is still unbelievable. She stated that, when she left to return to Sollecito's apartment, she locked the door. So, what happened to the idea that someone had gone out quickly?
No matter how many touch-up they add, the story is still not a believable one. Didn't Knox know the boys downstairs were gone for the holiday? Do we know who in the cottage smoked? Did Meredith? Who would have gone for cigarettes?
Just more smoke and mirrors.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

What is the corner store? Is that Mr Quintavalle's Conad store?
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
What is the corner store? Is that Mr Quintavalle's Conad store?


There were two Max, one right next door, almost, to Sollecito's upstairs flat (which you can still get a view of anno or year 2008 on google maps, street view, where a flat in the building is for sale, which I always thought, I bet ya that's Sollecito's one, as they were not permitted to sell it immediately) then there is another of those stores, at the end of the street, right at the end, and if you exit the street you approach the university of foreigners, at a lateral or side angle. Right there (the Margherita store is located in what has an arched facade, there are serveral arches one after the other and the store is then the third from last arch in the street and you can see the university clearly from that point).

His flat was on the same side of the street as the store, if you are coming up from the university you pass Sollecito's house then after half a min you can turn right into Guede's street

The store with Quinatville in it, I think it was the one at the end of the street.

By going into street view and strolling around that way up and down the streets you get a great idea of the short distances involved, seeing as there are no other little shops so close by, then unless Guede didn't eat at all, it's highly unlikely that none of them bumped into one another, getting some bread or milk/coffee, because those shops sell all of those things.

Sollecito lived 30 seconds away from the one store and Guede 1 minute.

The streets are very narrow, a car can drive through it but then anyone walking would need to stop walking and pin oneself against the wall, there is hardly any traffic in those streets
and therefore too, you could hardly walk on the other side of the street and make out you'd not noticed someone coming towards you, the sreet is on a hill yoo and leading down to it, you go downhill, you go uphill from the university to Sollecio's flat/apartment.

Just after Sollecito's flat, like 30 secomds, turn right, there you get Guede's place = that close, Guede lived on Via del Canerino 26 and Sollecito lived in the building numbered 90 on Corso Guiseppe Garibaldi

The shops have in large letters Margherita and Conrad below that in small letters.


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&saf ... a=N&tab=wl

The university was on their doorstep and Guiseppe Garibaldi was 2 streets away, on returning to his place they made a detour so as not to be seen, they took the slightly round-about way/route and that took them in sideways, sideways into Guiseppe Garibaldi, where nobody would see them and the spot where they threw the phones away would be exactly where they turned in to go up to Garibaldi, through what are bits of fields, but easily walkable.
They did not want to be seen in town, so they avoided going back that way.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:29 am, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks Zorba. I thought it is weird they mention that because as we know it was AK herself who showed up at a store that early morning. I think it shows how they try to mix truths with lies so they can remember better.

I am still wondering if AK did not go to the cottage the night of the murder to get the mop (and maybe some clothes for their trip). The spill did happen as it was already mentioned in the 8:42pm phone call and letting the water lay on the floor till the next morning is a ridiculous story. Then when the Polish student cancelled, AK was able to go out and quickly return. She did not have a key (according to RS) but now this was not a problem since RS was no longer going out and he could let her back in. It is amazing how many little truths RS gives away in his book.

The walk between RS's apartment and the cottage has been described as under 4 minutes only. Going back and forth would not take very long. Lets say as long as 3 songs on an Ipod ;)
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks all for book info, hadn't realised Follain brought two books out.

I used to follow what he was writing about the case on the Times website, then he stopped writing about it there.

His work was far better than anything the good old BBC put out, in fact I argued with one BBC reporter about the awful quality of their own reporting.


Hey Max, yes, as a far as I'm concerned, the relevant bits are those said or written right when the crimes took place, these people trying to explain things away after 5 years is only adding to their lack of transparency and credibility.

The ex-Knox co-prisoner, with the name containing the word innocent and Jesus too in Spanish, as mentioned by Lou, I think is a fictitious name. The book was self-published and I mean, she may be Brazilian but the coincidental nature of things - when you have been locked away for drug related crimes and are talking about persons accused & convicted of murder - being called Beautiful Blossom of Innocence of Jesus or some such strange over-sweet arrangement, I mean, what a name, sounds as fake as hell to me, just like Will Savive, what the hell is that?
Also a self-published.

I will write a book by Oreally OReilly called I Wonder why Iwill Notreadyaboooook.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

louiehaha wrote:
Hi just a couple of random points.
There are still groupies who deny that Knox authored the Marie Pace letter. So I thought I'd post what Ms Burleigh had to say about it:
"In a February 2010 letter to me, Amanda denied that the one-page story was “a confession,” adding, “Granted, I reread it afterward and I felt….kinda stupid really for having never thought that it could have been taken the wrong way.”

new.

not only an admission by K that the story is by her - also an admission that it "could be taken the wrong way"
she feels stupid about it (worried)

the FOAs stance on this as far as I have been aware up until reading about this letter from Knox to Burleigh
was complete denial - the "marie pace" letter was not by Knox

this is apart from the fact that the charity Caritas (which by the way is highly respectable and huge - they are feeding a great deal of people in europe during the financial crisis) stated that the Knox "marie pace" letter was a published "prize winning story" (by Knox).

louiehaha wrote:
(Burleigh, kindle location 4746) She goes on to explain how she fused the memory of receiving a Valentines Day letter from Raffaele with taking care of a sick drunk friend who was puking in a fish bowl -- who she found "sprawled and passed out". She remembers being "really worried".

the admission, then scrabbling to explain (but digging herself further in it) ..

Can you link to where Burleigh relates this please Louiehaha.

Not just the drunk person passed out (speculation Guede). the house the door the party the smoke the scenario of somebody injured - it's all been covered - SEVERAL strong points of the story correspond with the house, the night of the murder

now Knox, in her own writing confirms the story is by her and tries to explain it away

louiehaha wrote:
(I favor Tronic's explanation, the letter was written to keep Sollecito under control.)

Valentines Letter/story along with a poem, sent to Sollecito (confirmed by the Daily Mail (fragrant pink paper)). An attempt by Knox to control Sollecito @ a crucial stage in the trial. Threatening what she would reveal. Sollecito would automatically know the allegorical "story" describes the night they murdered.

The letter arose the week when Knox turned up at trial with "ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE" T shirt - an overture to the malleable Sollecito

thanks for that Louiehaha

things progress - marie pace confirmed - more analysis of the "story" / context needed
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
Thanks Zorba. I thought it is weird they mention that because as we know it was AK herself who showed up at a store that early morning. I think it shows how they try to mix truths with lies so they can remember better.

I am still wondering if AK did not go to the cottage the night of the murder to get the mop (and maybe some clothes for their trip). The spill did happen as it was already mentioned in the 8:42pm phone call and letting the water lay on the floor till the next morning is a ridiculous story. Then when the Polish student cancelled, AK was able to go out and quickly return. She did not have a key (according to RS) but now this was not a problem since RS was no longer going out and he could let her back in. It is amazing how many little truths RS gives away in his book.

The walk between RS's apartment and the cottage has been described as under 4 minutes only. Going back and forth would not take very long. Lets say as long as 3 songs on an Ipod ;)



Yes, we cannot find this out, whether she did or not, by wht we know, but, we can suspect, and it may well be that she troddled off to the cottage then stayed away, got stoned off her nut, who knows, she may have got up to devious no goods, with Guede and Sollecito got drawn into later on, we cannot know, unless some evidence is still discovered, I ca'nt think where, only I think the area should have been searched inch for inch like is done when searching for missing someone or when someone has been found murdered in a field and then the police form a chain and search everywhere within a certain radius for the smallest of clues.
This would not have been easy to perform at that location, however, in my view attempts should have been made because what happened to Meredith's keys, and if the phones were thrown so carelessly, why not the same with the keys, they may still be there. I doubt that Sollecito could engage anyone to go fish them out, the risk of that person getting caught or telling on him, would be more worrying than leaving them there in the wild growth, surrounding the home where the phones were recovered, they may have tossed the keys away earlier along the same route.

All as I can work out is that at the point they had to turn left, to get up to Corsa Guiseppe Garibaldi, along the road they took which would not be the usual or shortest route to take but a route to walk if wanting exercise, or a nice country view, they turned left, and knew they had to get rid of the phones, seeing as how it was so overgrown around there they imagined the phones would not be found, because when you've just murdered someone in cold blood, you simply cannot think all of these angles and possibilities through in a safe way, you are going to make mistakes, if you didn't want the phones found, though, you'd think the person throwing them would at least remove the batteries and Sim card.

So maybe their plan was to have them found, and maybe the reason for that was because in their fast planning they thought, hey we can phone to Meredith's phone later just as though we too were looking for her, that will make us look innocent.

Yes, I think this last idea makes sense seeing as how neither Sim card nor batteries were removed, both would have been easy to hide, a Sim card easy to destroy, batteries unidentifiable, hardly likely to be discovered somewhere in an ordinary trashcan.

It could be possible that the keys are there waiting to be found, in the undergrowth, complete with DNA traces, perhaps after this is published, scouts from Seattle will be on the plane tp Perugia, so if anyone does happen upon a crew of strange looking fellows looking for their contact lenses (that's what they will tell you) and they don't look local with their Hawaiian shirts on and baseball caps on back to front; call the police.

The other way, real info is going to emerge, is in the event the situation really does change, so one of them gets locked up, as I said, there's no way Mr Selfisho Smugo Sollecito is going to remain in jail for 20-odd years while Knox remains free, he will get very pissed off.

That will be such a fine day. Sollecito would be in danger, with time, staying in the states, I reckon his life wouldn't be safe, as without him, Knox's position cannot be questioned, not through anything Sollecito comes out with, so I dare say, the actual position of the most ardent Knox fans is, it would be very convenient if Sollecito got cancer and dies, or otherwise died in a car accident.

Guede is never going to venture out to America and get on the this is my story thing, after all, by means of his blackness, this American Knox team all found him guilty by default, it's very convenient to ignore all other evidence and blame him for the lot, however, he too holds the key, and this is why Knox is still royally shizening her pants at the thought of something going wrong in future, even if they get away with it, one of the three may at some point in time go potty and reveal all, so to Knox's mind, until both Guede and Sollecito are no more, are dead, she will never fully be able to relax, and in my opinion, that is all she deserves too. Even if both do die, I doubt she is ever going to be really happy, and that jolly guitar guy fella lying next to her in bed when she is having her little nightmares shouting out in a profoundly nasty sweat: Here have this! (reliving killing Meredith perhaps).

Guitar Guy comforting her, here here there there, it was just a bad dream, you didn't kill nobody.
Knox: Yes, are you right?

Guitar Chops: Yes, yeah, I'm sure, at least I think I am, no, yes, you didn't believe me but I'm sure, it was not you
Knox: Okay, I'll believe you, thank you too, for that.

Knox calls Sollecito at 3am

Sollecito: Who da fick is calling at this time of the night?

Knox: Only me, listen, we didn't do it, Guitar Guy told me.

Sollecito: Okay, oh great to hear this, your family said the same, I believe them you know
Knox: It makes sense, I believe them all too, they should know, they wasn't there after all.
Sollecito: Yes yes, but neither were we, re-mem-buh????

Knox: Oh yeah, I remember, well, I don't remembuh everything but I remember now that I was never in Perugia, Guitar Guy tells me this, it wasn't me, it was a Russian double, spying.

Sollecito: Yes, yessa, it makes sense, I don't think I was there really, I never lived in Perugia, who is this again
CLUNG brrrrrrrrrr

Sollecito? the self-proclaimed hero?
Give us a break, he is being held hostage by the other two as well and he holds them hostage too, it's a collaboration, a conspiracy, if he wasn't unable to speak he'd have said way more about Guede than he has, he acted as Mister Gentleman, like, I cannot speak of him as I know nothing.

But the truth is he could say something, after all, all of the Knox and Sollecito supporters said enough about Guede, so the only reason Mr I'm-So-Shy-and-Nice-Sollecito said nothing, is because he cannot, not about Guede; Guede holds the keys to the solutions needed here in this case.

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

RS says a few things about RG. In the preface he says:
Quote:
Guede did not call the police, as Amanda and I did, or volunteer information, or agree to hours of questioning whenever asked.

In other words, my partner in crime had it much easier than us...boohooo... :cry:
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
RS says a few things about RG. In the preface he says:
Quote:
Guede did not call the police, as Amanda and I did, or volunteer information, or agree to hours of questioning whenever asked.

In other words, my partner in crime had it much easier than us...boohooo... :cry:



Very carefully composed eh, just as long as he didn't actually accuse Guede, this is identical to the way he worded the things he said about Knox.

And I bet the one thing he made sure of, was that his ghostwriter didn't slip in anything that went too far, neither he nor Knox have ever said: Well, I thnik he must be the guy that did this! t

Their families though are a different story, they said more than enough.

So these words you reproduced, were dictated this way, to the ghostwriter.


There is a world of difference between the Knox family accusing Guede and Knox & the others actually accusing one another.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:

things progress - marie pace confirmed - more analysis of the "story" / context needed


Burleigh writes:

Quote:
“You remember that night, suddenly hot…//…I didn’t understand, you must believe me.”

She wrote that story in Italian sometime prior to her conviction, and Don Saulo entered it into a Catholic Charities prison writing completion, which eventually published it under the name Marie Pace. Someone leaked it to the Italian press a day after her conviction for murder. The story looked like another confused confession. Who else was the topless, passed-out body supposed to belong to? What people were doing the “piercing”? And was that “suddenly hot” November night not certainly the murder night? And: “My madness doesn’t know surrender”?

Italian reporters who were disposed to view the prosecution case with some skepticism rolled their eyes when they saw this literary exercise in the local newspaper. It appeared that the American girl simply couldn’t control the urge to confess, no matter how dubious the material evidence against her.

In a February 2010 letter to me, Amanda denied that the one-page story was “a confession,” adding, “Granted, I reread it afterward and I felt….kinda stupid really for having never thought that it could have been taken the wrong way.” She said the inspiration for it came from several events, including a Valentine’s Day letter from Raffaele musing on “what could have been” and her own memories of a party in which she had helped a sick, drunk friend. “I mixed that feeling of “what if” with my experience taking care of drunk friends at parties, and specifically one friend I once had to take care of while she sobbed and threw up into a fish bowl. I had found her sprawled and passed out, covered in sweat and tears. It was a party experience that has always remained really negative in my mind because I remember feeling both really worried about the sick, delirious state my friend was in, but also having felt sick of It myself. I remember feeling like all I wanted to do was to pick her up on my back and tromp on out, but there was no way I could.”

Amanda, and her family and friends, often fielded questions about her shifty, strange way of expressing herself. She seemed to flirt with ideas about her own guilt. Edda would repeatedly say, “That’s Amanda!” as if that explained everything.

Burleigh, Nina (2011-08-02). The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox (p. 286-287; 4737-4762). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.


What talented friends she claims to have.
One who could pull herself up from being sprawled and passed out, covered in sweat and tears, at a party, from alcohol, to begin sobbing and puking in a fish bowl.

My friends could never do that!
Once they pass out, they are out, for hours, half a day, or more.
Anyway, we know that in “My Love” her “friend” doesn’t come to either.
She still hasn't explained the inspiration for that.

That’s Amanda!
I get the feeling Edda has always found her lies amusing.
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:

Even with the addition of someone going for cigarettes, her story is still unbelievable. She stated that, when she left to return to Sollecito's apartment, she locked the door. So, what happened to the idea that someone had gone out quickly?
No matter how many touch-up they add, the story is still not a believable one. Didn't Knox know the boys downstairs were gone for the holiday? Do we know who in the cottage smoked? Did Meredith? Who would have gone for cigarettes?
Just more smoke and mirrors.


Of course it's unbelievable. But the "cigarette" story is only intended to explain how "normal" it was to find the front door wide open, so we can get a glimpse into the comfort she had in taking a shower the cold, blood-splattered bathroom.

She had what, at least two hours at the cottage (that they admit to)?
Sollecito says he walked her to the door and kissed her good-bye after the three calls - 9:24, 9:29, 9:30 - from his father (papa couldn't have been happy that his nightly check up call wasn't answered).
Knox didn't remember these calls - could she have already been at the cottage when they came in? Likely.
She returned with the mop, he mopped the floor, she poured coffee, they ate cereal and she told him about the door, blood, poo..so she "gets worried" about Meredith and calls Meredith's British phone (12:07), Filomena (12:08), Meredith's Italian phone (12:11) again her British phone (12:11)...

So she had quite a lot of time at the cottage and she would progressively come to understand the falsity of the cigarette run assumption (nevermind that it took her two years to come up with this - *her* people are gullible) by the time she left.

I don't think Meredith smoked cigarettes. From Follian:
"Stephanie thought little of it: she knew that Meredith wasn’t into drugs and didn’t even smoke cigarettes."
Follain, John (2012-08-21). A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case (Kindle Locations 396-397). Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

Laura - in Rome. Filomena - at boyfriend's. Boys downstairs - out of town. Sollecito confirmed that Knox knew all this.
from Honor Bound, describing the afternoon of November 1 (before the murder):
Quote:
When Amanda headed back home midmorning to take a shower and change— she did not like the shower at my apartment, saying it was too cramped— she learned that Laura had already left for her hometown north of Rome, and Filomena was making plans to spend the weekend with her boyfriend at his place on the other side of Perugia. The boys in the downstairs apartment were all gone as well.

Pure lies.
Gullible fans.
Quote:
Amanda Knox stayed sleeping at Raffaele Sollecito’s house until a late hour. As for the
plan of taking a trip to Gubbio, this did not imply the necessity of getting up really early,
since Gubbio can be reached from Perugia in about 45 minutes, and the two young people
presumably intended to make a trip of a few hours and certainly not an in‐depth study of
the city from the historical and cultural point of view, so that they could easily have left as
late as 11 AM.
And also, it is not at all unlikely that Amanda Knox, before leaving for Gubbio, would
have first thought of going to have a shower in the house at via della Pergola; not only
because – as she asserted – the shower in via della Pergola worked better, but also to
change before leaving for Gubbio, since her underwear and clothing were there.
The fact of Amanda Knox’s not mentioning the telephone call of Raffaele Sollecito’s father
at 9:30 PM (I think this should read AM) does not necessarily imply the falsity of the alibi, as it can be explained by the fact that Amanda Knox did not attribute any importance to that phone call, or that she did not
realize it even happened, maybe because she was still sleeping or was in the bathroom, or,
finally, because she made a mistake about the time when she left Raffaele Sollecito’s house
to go to via della Pergola, perhaps earlier than that phone call.
-Hellman p 85


Hellman liked the bathmat surfing story at 50 degree F, another late addition, as well:
Quote:
Even neglecting to consider that, as it has been seen, the footprint on the mat was
attributed to Raffaele Sollecito and not to Amanda, the explanation for the inconsistency
highlighted by the [first‐level] Court can be found in the statements of Amanda herself,
who said that she took a shower the [104] following morning and that she went back to
her room dragging the bathmat with her bare wet feet, which was then put back in its
place.
A confirmation of the above has been given by Professor Vinci, who examined and
photographed the mat, highlighting that it showed bloodstains on the bottom side, which
did not correspond to those on the top side (page 37 of his report).
-Hellman p 68


So this isn't evidence of a cleanup to Hellman -- she was innocently surfing!


Last edited by louiehaha on Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Yeah it isn't that hard to talk in a code, a code you never agreed on before, you do it like his.

You mention things that are familiar/known to the person you are writing to.

So if I want to talk code to someone, mention names but then disguised.
So say the name of a person's dog but do not say it is a dog, call it a restaurant by that name, You say: Hey, do you remember the owner of that restaurant called Felix!

Or else use names that cannot be mistaken.
I connect them in a way so that the receiver gets that I am talking about someone we both knew, so if the name of the dog is unusual, that's a good one to use for the restaurant or any other thing, like a restaurant.
So do you remember the owner of that restaurant Felix.

If Felix was someone or something really well-known to us both, the other one is going to realise fast that he/she is being told something about the dog's owner, because he/she will realise it has nothing to do with a restaurant but is about the person they both knew, the owners of that dog with the unusual name, and seeing as how the other is not exactly expecting someone to talk openly about the things that must remain hidden, he/she is also going to be able to get what is really meant, fast.

So, you know the owner of that restaurant Felix, well, it was him that got me to go there to that party on that night. So by naming the dog, but calling it a restaurant and saying it was the restaurant's owner, then the person reading will already know who is meant but nobody else will have a clue.

Knox's strange writing seems to remind me of this strange coded writing.

As who in their right mind, up on murder charges, would start writing horrid little stories?

These stories written by Knox come way too close to real things, and that is because in them, there are real clues, ones that she knew Sollecito would be able to make sense of/pick up on, as she was unable to communicate with him any longer, this was her way of getting around that, as up until capture, they'd been together, so she would have felt a burning need to speak to him, and she could not, not even in court, only with eyes, and that is not enough. So they did these things, in their own secret world. Coded writing.

Even the sarcastically awful note on the university door looking for a new preferably British housemate, is kind of like this.

This note alone shows just how wicked they were, I really believe the note was from them, it's just too much of a coincidence for it to have nothing to do with them.

Imagine you've just gone over a threshold, crossed a line, as never before, by murdering someone, what, do you suddenly revert to complete normality, after the horrific acts you just committed, no way, there's no way you could, your bad behaviour will continue, as does Sollecito's even now, where he is a shameless, arrogant individual. He is lapping up the after effects, the notoriety, the extras, even now he cannot and does not get it.

He showed pure and plain contempt for the police by calling them dumb cops for not finding his knife, who after all were there to try to find Meredith's killer(s); if he believed in them trying to help Meredith's family, then how could he have ever been so unkind and where does this hook up with him saying in his book how helpful he was, when all as he does is accuse the police?
He never tried to help anyone.

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

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:

These stories written by Knox come way too close to real things, and that is because in them, there are real clues, ones that she knew Sollecito would be able to make sense of/pick up on, as she was unable to communicate with him any longer, this was her way of getting around that, as up until capture, they'd been together, so she would have felt a burning need to speak to him, and she could not, not even in court, only with eyes, and that is not enough. So they did these things, in their own secret world. Coded writing.

Even the sarcastically awful note on the university door looking for a new preferably British housemate, is kind of like this.

This note alone shows just how wicked they were, I really believe the note was from them, it's just too much of a coincidence for it to have nothing to do with them.



I agree with you about the secret coding. Note that Burleigh fails to mention the pink scented paper, or that the story was a Valentine's letter addressed to Sollecito after some grueling days for Knox during the trial. She left that context out.



http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... opsia.html


Was Sollecito's handwriting excluded as the source?
I read a very convincing discussion on org the penmanship was that of a native Italian.
Very sick. They seemed to have been the only two people in Perugia who could find humor in Meredith's death.
(I could kill for a pizza.)
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

louiehaha wrote:
Napia5 wrote:

Even with the addition of someone going for cigarettes, her story is still unbelievable. She stated that, when she left to return to Sollecito's apartment, she locked the door. So, what happened to the idea that someone had gone out quickly?
No matter how many touch-up they add, the story is still not a believable one. Didn't Knox know the boys downstairs were gone for the holiday? Do we know who in the cottage smoked? Did Meredith? Who would have gone for cigarettes?
Just more smoke and mirrors.


Of course it's unbelievable. But the "cigarette" story is only intended to explain how "normal" it was to find the front door wide open, so we can get a glimpse into the comfort she had in taking a shower the cold, blood-splattered bathroom.

She had what, at least two hours at the cottage (that they admit to)?
Sollecito says he walked her to the door and kissed her good-bye after the three calls - 9:24, 9:29, 9:30 - from his father (papa couldn't have been happy that his nightly check up call wasn't answered).
Knox didn't remember these calls - could she have already been at the cottage when they came in? Likely.
She returned with the mop, he mopped the floor, she poured coffee, they ate cereal and she told him about the door, blood, poo..so she "gets worried" about Meredith and calls Meredith's British phone (12:07), Filomena (12:08), Meredith's Italian phone (12:11) again her British phone (12:11)...

So she had quite a lot of time at the cottage and she would progressively come to understand the falsity of the cigarette run assumption (nevermind that it took her two years to come up with this - *her* people are gullible) by the time she left.

I don't think Meredith smoked cigarettes. From Follian:
"Stephanie thought little of it: she knew that Meredith wasn’t into drugs and didn’t even smoke cigarettes."
Follain, John (2012-08-21). A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case (Kindle Locations 396-397). Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

Laura - in Rome. Filomena - at boyfriend's. Boys downstairs - out of town. Sollecito confirmed that Knox knew all this.
from Honor Bound, describing the afternoon of November 1 (before the murder):
Quote:
When Amanda headed back home midmorning to take a shower and change— she did not like the shower at my apartment, saying it was too cramped— she learned that Laura had already left for her hometown north of Rome, and Filomena was making plans to spend the weekend with her boyfriend at his place on the other side of Perugia. The boys in the downstairs apartment were all gone as well.

Pure lies.
Gullible fans.
Quote:
Amanda Knox stayed sleeping at Raffaele Sollecito’s house until a late hour. As for the
plan of taking a trip to Gubbio, this did not imply the necessity of getting up really early,
since Gubbio can be reached from Perugia in about 45 minutes, and the two young people
presumably intended to make a trip of a few hours and certainly not an in‐depth study of
the city from the historical and cultural point of view, so that they could easily have left as
late as 11 AM.
And also, it is not at all unlikely that Amanda Knox, before leaving for Gubbio, would
have first thought of going to have a shower in the house at via della Pergola; not only
because – as she asserted – the shower in via della Pergola worked better, but also to
change before leaving for Gubbio, since her underwear and clothing were there.
The fact of Amanda Knox’s not mentioning the telephone call of Raffaele Sollecito’s father
at 9:30 PM (I think this should read AM) does not necessarily imply the falsity of the alibi, as it can be explained by the fact that Amanda Knox did not attribute any importance to that phone call, or that she did not
realize it even happened, maybe because she was still sleeping or was in the bathroom, or,
finally, because she made a mistake about the time when she left Raffaele Sollecito’s house
to go to via della Pergola, perhaps earlier than that phone call.
-Hellman p 85



Hellman liked the bathmat surfing story at 50 degree F, another late addition, as well:
Quote:
Even neglecting to consider that, as it has been seen, the footprint on the mat was
attributed to Raffaele Sollecito and not to Amanda, the explanation for the inconsistency
highlighted by the [first‐level] Court can be found in the statements of Amanda herself,
who said that she took a shower the [104] following morning and that she went back to
her room dragging the bathmat with her bare wet feet, which was then put back in its
place.
A confirmation of the above has been given by Professor Vinci, who examined and
photographed the mat, highlighting that it showed bloodstains on the bottom side, which
did not correspond to those on the top side (page 37 of his report).
-Hellman p 68


So this isn't evidence of a cleanup to Hellman -- she was innocently surfing!


Golden post, louiehaha.

Readership on the sites is up, from what I have been seeing lately. Perhaps it is renewed interest due to the book.
For whatever reason, people are taking an interest in facts and information being posted. We know, from years of seeing it, that all the attempts at embellishment turn into more and more muddy water. Statements that confuse, rather than enlighten or clarify innocence. But, the new reader, and I hope the Couric crew is included, can easily see here, how nothing adds up, nothing makes sense, in terms of innocence. There is an abundance of information here, particularly the "In Their Own Words" Section. But a quick stop-by surely gives the reader an eyeful of the type of pure BS that has defined this case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Sollecito Blooper!

Honor Bound editor caught sleeping on page 4!!
Solleciito/Gumbel can’t even get the simple facts extraneous to the case straight!!!
Sollecito SLAMS the gentle Rotarians who quietly tolerate Judge Heavey’s tired presentations!!!!

Quote:
That night, a musician friend invited me to a classical-music concert at the Università per Stranieri, the University for Foreigners, which attracted tens of thousands of young people from all over the world.

Most of the audience were Rotary Club members my father’s age.

At intermission, as the audience dispersed in search of refreshments, I glanced across the room and spotted, looking in my direction, the only other person under fifty years old.





There is no minimum age to join Rotary. You may be invited to join at any age after you become established in a career and have the time and financial resources to meet all Rotary club membership requirements. If you’re interested in joining a Rotary club, ask members about the time and financial commitments necessary to fulfill membership requirements, and consider whether you can make those commitments.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Anyone have the photos or was it video of Knox & Sollecito at that classical concert they attended, it is the place they met? I cannot find it just now, but there were people in attendance of every age, young & old.

Knox writes the letter z with lines through it, and so did the person that wrote the note and left it on the university door.

We don't write a Z that way in Britain, in fact, I'd never really noticed it anywhere else either, I'm not sure it is an Italian habit either.

_________________
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: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Posting You Tube of perennial mayoral candidate for Seattle Richard Lee at the book signing, for the comments. My favourite: "withnail 1969" assailing harry rag for being an 'anonymous coward', when this anonymous videomaker posted videos showing Peggy Ganong and other PMF'ers as Nazis and Peter Quennell as a pervert.
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 Oct 08, 2012 3:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Will post the Appeal docs on the legal subforum soon, louiehaha.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Oh can we, can we mommy, oh please, can we?

Mommy: Can you what for crying out loud?

Children: Go see aunt Amanda, she tells us such lovely scary bedtime stories

_________________
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: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Another short interview with Andrew Gumbel:

Local Man Co-Authors Memoir About Amanda Knox Case With Her Ex-Boyfriend (video)
CBS 2 / KCAL 9 Los Angeles

It's been nearly a year since Italian courts exonerated American student, Amanda Knox, of murder charges. Her Italian boyfriend, who stood by her through the tabloids and trial, has written a book about what happened. KCAL9's Serene Branson talked to the co-author of that memoir.


YAHOO NEWS

This was originally posted HERE.

Andrew Gumbel: "Knowing him now...he is the last person who could hurt anyone, much less commit murder. There's something almost perverse about the way they pinned responsibility for this crime on him."
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

This Grumbel, on his twitter, announced, proudly, that he'd got the job

the cat has no idea of anything

all as I know, surely he couldn't be quite so thick as to actually be proud of what his book contains; he was proud of getting the job because he loves da money


what's new

_________________
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: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Here's the permanent link, guermantes: http://news.yahoo.com/video/losangelesc ... 57612.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

New York Times Best Seller List for October 14. Sollecito's book has disappeared.

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html

Last week, it squeaked in at #25 on the e-book list.

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks Ergon. I've fixed the link. Agree with Zorba; nothing new is to be learned or heard from this man. I think it's a waste having him interviewed; dull interview and poorly presented too.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
Thanks Ergon. I've fixed the link. Agree with Zorba; nothing new is to be learned or heard from this man. I think it's a waste having him interviewed; dull interview and poorly presented too.


One can hardly wait for Knox's book to follow the same trajectory into obscurity :)
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 Oct 08, 2012 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Sollecito's closing his fan, er, fun page at facebook http://www.facebook.com/raffa.sollecito as he moves back to Italy. The only one remaining is his Honor Bound page set up by the publisher. And his private Italian page.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Reporter: What you wanna do now Mr Solopsycho?

Solopsycho: I will return to Italy where I am much loved, there I will embark upon a series of children's books, like How to Murder your Grandmother and Nobody Will Ever (need) Know, How to Fool Those Dumb Cops, How to Fool Those Dumb Cops 2, As You Offer Your Support, NOT

Reporter with IQ -2: Oh, that sounds lovely, unique titles

Solopsycho: Unique, that's a great word!

Reporter IQ -3 (readers note IQ decreasing as the conversation continues) Oh yes, I learned these words at my fantastic school

Solopyscho: I know, I know, I love your schools, your foods, your events, your money, your supporters who are clever like you are, I love the Americani, I do

Reporter guy with IQ -4: Ah that's so nice ta say psychoguy, I just wanted to ask, to spice my report up, did ya kill anyone here, are there bodies waiting to be found?

Solopyscho: Ah nar, ya nearly caught me out there, no, no more, I've earned enough money for a month of salad Russo, dad's death has been brought forward a few years at least and so has my inheritance!!!

Reporter guy with IQ -100: Ah, I don't get how anyone coulda said those tings (he was American-Jamaican, hired in to convince everyone they ain't racist) about you, couldn't have met a nicer guy, hey, da ya wanna come home with me, I've got a daughter, if ya promise not to cut her throat, maybe we can make a deal, a few books, a vacation home in Italy, I like that, I knew when the woman said she saw you in the lift and no way could you be a killer, based on her findings, as you both elevated through the building, that you were a great guy, like she said, what more do you need, she read the book, and you said you did not do it, well, based on that, if every crook and killer wrote a lil old book, nobody would ever need to go to jail and I think that'd save on my tax bill. We love ya.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:06 pm   Post subject: WHERE'S AMANDA?   

From Injustice-Anywhere:Teddy's translation of the Frank Sfarzo article in OGGI.
Basically a book review, but the conclusion is interesting.

THEY STARTED TO LIVE AGAIN

"After four years of hell Amanda and Raffaele started to live their lives again. He attends the University of Verona. In March he flew to America. He stayed about two weeks in Los Angeles, to sign his contract and begin drafting his book with Andrew Gumbel. He took advantage of his trip to also visit Seattle, to see Amanda and meet their supporters.

At the beginning of August he went back to America, as a guest this time of a supporter from San Francisco. From there he was able to attend the artistic Burning Man festival, in the Black Rock desert of Nevada. Then he moved up to New York, for a recording in a TV Studio. The last stop is in Seattle, in a bookstore.

Raffaele, maybe to publicize his book, flooded the net with his photographs. Amanda, on the other hand, begs us not to publish photos or write articles about her. “I don’t want to influence the judges of the Supreme Court”, she explains. All we can say about her is that she is working very hard. She spends a lot of time at home, a cheap apartment that she shares with a friend. She goes out to get the groceries, to meet friends and family, for the occasional party in her honour, for brief vacations, one or two days at most, in the mountains or by the rivers of Washington State. For her book she has received an advance of 3.8 million dollars, but she is still living economically. In fact she has had to pay taxes and her agent. She has paid back her parents. She has hired an editor that helps her write the book. She continues to pay the lawyers and, intending to write the full truth, she has set up an insurance policy to protect against any claims. Ironically, Amanda will really make money if somebody accuses her of defamation."

Frank Sfarzo.


Only if the Supreme Court exonerates her of the defamation charge against Lumumba, Frank. And if you mean anyone defames her, well, we have freedom of speech here in common law countries, and know quite well what the limits are.

But really, bring on the book. How the prison guard talked dirty to her. How the inmates were nice. How Meredith was her 'friend'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
New York Times Best Seller List for October 14. Sollecito's book has disappeared.

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html

Last week, it squeaked in at #25 on the e-book list.

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html



From 1942 to 1998 there were two New York Times best seller lists, one for fiction, one for non-fiction. Both came to recognize the fifteen best-selling books, 30 books in all . Today there are twenty New York Times “bestseller” lists, with even more planned, each recognizing anywhere between the top 10 and 35 top books for a particular niche. All in all, there are 300 places awarded on the lists each week today. “Everyone gets a trophy.” Why?

In 1998, Barnes and Noble entered a marketing agreement with The New York Times.
From the 1998 Barnes and Noble 10-K:

Since the launch of BarnesandNoble.com, the Company has aggressively pursued and won marketing and distribution deals with the Web's leading content, search and commerce sites. These deals serve to extend the reach of BarnesandNoble.com by creating links to high traffic sites, such as Lycos, CNN Interactive, Discovery Channel Online, ZD Net, The New York Times, Time Inc., New Media and USA Today. The reach was further extended by the thousands of additional Web sites that have joined the Company's innovative affiliate network. All of the affiliates earn commissions based upon sales generated from the traffic they direct to BarnesandNoble.com. The Company also entered into a partnership with Disney Online, in which BarnesandNoble.com is the exclusive bookseller for their site and operates a Disney bookstore on the BarnesandNoble.com site. BarnesandNoble.com has a dedicated management team of e-commerce marketing and technology professionals. As a leader in the fast-growing world of e-commerce, the Company intends to actively advertise and further develop affiliate relationships.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... 001106.txt

The list Sollecito made at #25 – ebook non-fiction - was only added to the Time’s roster last year. Even though his book sold fewer copies on amazon.com than “A Stolen Life” for the week ended September 22 (the cutoff for making the October 7 list) the secret formula placed Honor Bound ahead of Dugard’s book on the unproven e-book non-fiction list. The creation of the list is a "trade secret".
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: WHERE'S AMANDA?   

Ergon wrote:
She continues to pay the lawyers and, intending to write the full truth, she has set up an insurance policy to protect against any claims. Ironically, Amanda will really make money if somebody accuses her of defamation.



Interesting.
Some of us may be pooling risks with a felonious liar.
I'd love the details on her policy, the disclosures she made to get it.
Did she disclose her felony conviction for calunnia?
Does the policy extend to past crimes?

Amanda will make money if she's charged with the crime of calunnia? REALLY?
Is that how insurance works?
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

louiehaha wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
New York Times Best Seller List for October 14. Sollecito's book has disappeared.

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html

Last week, it squeaked in at #25 on the e-book list.

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html



From 1942 to 1998 there were two New York Times best seller lists, one for fiction, one for non-fiction. Both came to recognize the fifteen best-selling books, 30 books in all . Today there are twenty New York Times “bestseller” lists, with even more planned, each recognizing anywhere between the top 10 and 35 top books for a particular niche. All in all, there are 300 places awarded on the lists each week today. “Everyone gets a trophy.” Why?

In 1998, Barnes and Noble entered a marketing agreement with The New York Times.
From the 1998 Barnes and Noble 10-K:

Since the launch of BarnesandNoble.com, the Company has aggressively pursued and won marketing and distribution deals with the Web's leading content, search and commerce sites. These deals serve to extend the reach of BarnesandNoble.com by creating links to high traffic sites, such as Lycos, CNN Interactive, Discovery Channel Online, ZD Net, The New York Times, Time Inc., New Media and USA Today. The reach was further extended by the thousands of additional Web sites that have joined the Company's innovative affiliate network. All of the affiliates earn commissions based upon sales generated from the traffic they direct to BarnesandNoble.com. The Company also entered into a partnership with Disney Online, in which BarnesandNoble.com is the exclusive bookseller for their site and operates a Disney bookstore on the BarnesandNoble.com site. BarnesandNoble.com has a dedicated management team of e-commerce marketing and technology professionals. As a leader in the fast-growing world of e-commerce, the Company intends to actively advertise and further develop affiliate relationships.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... 001106.txt

The list Sollecito made at #25 – ebook non-fiction - was only added to the Time’s roster last year. Even though his book sold fewer copies on amazon.com than “A Stolen Life” for the week ended September 22 (the cutoff for making the October 7 list) the secret formula placed Honor Bound ahead of Dugard’s book on the unproven e-book non-fiction list. The creation of the list is a "trade secret".



Right, and am I right to think you mean that once upon a time in the West; the New York Times bestseller's list really did mean something but that it doesn't mean shit now, as it is not controllable but is very vulnerable to manipulation?

_________________
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: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:29 pm   Post subject: Re: WHERE'S AMANDA?   

louiehaha wrote:
Ergon wrote:
She continues to pay the lawyers and, intending to write the full truth, she has set up an insurance policy to protect against any claims. Ironically, Amanda will really make money if somebody accuses her of defamation.



Interesting.
Some of us may be pooling risks with a felonious liar.
I'd love the details on her policy, the disclosures she made to get it.
Did she disclose her felony conviction for calunnia?
Does the policy extend to past crimes?

Amanda will make money if she's charged with the crime of calunnia? REALLY?
Is that how insurance works?


That's Frank, at his flamboyant and ungrammatical best, in the equally serious OGGI :) Sure, anyone, can get an 'insurance policy' for anything. Lloyds famously insures supertankers, lol. Note how Frank doesn't say anything about anyone continuing to accuse her of murder. Note it's unclear whether he's talking about Lumumba. I thought he was saying she set out to make herself 'judgement proof'. But factually, the only way she can "make money" is if she's acquitted of calunnia by Cassazione in which case she's entitled to compensation by the state, and if her acquittal is upheld, even more so.

That's one thing that excites The Groupies (TM) the most, like good little doggies. They salivate at the chance she might Make Even More Money From Murder, and that excitement is matched only when they Tell Her How To Spend It, which is to sue Michael, Peggy, and Moi :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
Sollecito's closing his fan, er, fun page at facebook http://www.facebook.com/raffa.sollecito as he moves back to Italy. The only one remaining is his Honor Bound page set up by the publisher. And his private Italian page.


Sollecito Sr. seems to approve of what his son is doing. Quote posted on the Honor Bound FB page, translated for the Groupies by Komponisto:

Francesco Sollecito wrote:
A year since the rebirth. How many things you've managed to do: you've resumed your studies with success, you've learned to express yourself in English as if you had always spoken it, you've written a very beautiful book on the tragedy you were forced to live through, a book that it seems people are greatly appreciating. They have clearly understood the purpose of the book, which is to let the world know the TRUTH. If someone, indeed any citizen of the world wishes to know the truth, [and] only the truth on what happened to you and to Amanda and Meredith, they only need to read your book with due attention. It has made me very happy to know that wherever you went in the USA, you were welcomed as you deserved, even as a hero, it was enough to meet you, for everyone to understand who you are: a splendid person to be held up as an example. Best wishes my son, best wishes from the bottom of my heart, and may all your days be full of joy, satisfaction, and happiness, like those just passed, and even more. I love you, Papà.


Isn't there a potential problem with too much praise for too little effort? The twist here is that Sollecito Jr. wrote his book by himself whereas as far as we know he didn't write a single word; his ghostwriter wrote the book for him. The entire book is compiled from bits and pieces and lines lifted from other writers. ;) Obviously the ghostwriter cut some corners by taking content from other books rather than doing the research himself, so let's praise him for that!

As Sollecito Jr. would say: "He's given me a second chance, come on let's praise him in advance."

Raffaele Sollecito wrote:
Even though publishing is a business, this opportunity includes something more -- something much more valuable -- a second chance, which is a blessing from God.


http://www.martinliterarymanagement.com/testimonials.htm
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

"welcomed as a hero"? In some twisted quarters perhaps.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: WHERE'S AMANDA?   

Ergon wrote:
From Injustice-Anywhere:Teddy's translation of the Frank Sfarzo article in OGGI.
Basically a book review, but the conclusion is interesting.


Thanks Ergon for posting up this translation. I have been waiting for Sfarzo's next OGGI article. He was spotted scribbling something in his notebook at that UW book presentation event in September.

Attachment:
Frank at UW book signing.png


I'm starting to think that Sfarzo/Sforza may be suffering from a persecution complex. Some of the common symptoms include:

    - suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
    - reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events
    - persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
    - perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others
    - is quick to react angrily or to counterattack

From his latest post on Perugia Shock:

Frank Sfarzo wrote:
It had become normal, in the town of corrupted cops and prosecutors, to extort false statements, to lie in court, to defame suspects, to fabricate evidence, to insult, to threaten, to kidnap, to frame, to beat, to rape, to kill. All done in damage to the Italian Police and to the Italian People, who own it.
...
It was clear that there had been a meeting about me, in which my picture was showed to all kinds of cops (since even the new ones knew me) and that they were ordered not to let me in. The cops are just cops, they don’t understand when an order is illegal, and they executed it. For my pleasure, because such a waste of resources on my own person gave me the measure of my importance. [...]

So, I could recognize “the hand”: the one who uses the police to bother people he doesn’t like. The one who closed a blog that was talking of law, but also of science, art, sport (he pretended that it was making defamations…). The one who sent the gangsters to kidnap me (and then said to his faithful reporters that they had to go because I was raping a girl (unexisting…), actually no, because I was beating my mom and sister (who were a thousand mile away…)). The one who had the police to notify me of a fine in court because I had damaged five cops (there was the “proof”, a medical certificate! What a pity that I don’t recognize his authority so I never paid that fine. I’ve beaten five big cops, I sent them to the hospital, because they are weak like signorine, and I didn’t pay a penny. Actually in a couple of years they will have to pay me).


http://perugiashock.com/2012/10/03/the-october-3-revolution/#more-2325

Oh, and there is another Sfarzo court appearance tomorrow, Oct 10.


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Well, I hope he is able to understand the title of the poster he chose to adorn his latest Shock post with.

Hey Sfarzo, write a couple of sentences in your best Russian and let native Russian speakers judge how good your Russian is. Oh, and do tell us about your experience on the set of Bondarchuk's And Quiet Flows the Don. As someone who used to bathe in the Don river every summer, "at this point, I'm intrigued" (to borrow an expression from the recent Mignini interview.)

Got a picture of yourself and the great Bondarchuk together? [If not, you have Photoshop ;) ] How old were you in 1992? Tell us your story of survival in the Russian steppe at temperatures of minus 35 degrees Celsius.

Rupert Everett wrote:
35 below is not something you forget in a hurry.


In other words, tell us more, Mr Assistant Director.
Top Profile 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Is it a coincidence that the same group that buy Frank's angry tale also see nothing fishy with the shower dance and the knife pricking excuse? Are we just cynical or just plain more intuitive? Frank does have more than chip on his shoulder. The injustice he feels is personal , the kind that could cause him to end up spending his days on the street ranting with a large sign.
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 Oct 10, 2012 1:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Any one notice Raffaele Sollecito's appropriation of James Baldwin in his book? The quote, "some people hate because they cannot live with their own pain" is very nice, but I doubt Sollecito ever read Baldwin.
A child of wealth and spoiled privilege, not seeing how awful most Americans would see the railroading of an innocent black man? That Baldwin, the consummate writer on race and sexual prejudice, would not notice the hypocrisy of his name being appropriated like this? More like Gumbel adding a writerly flourish to boost the theme about how we all "hate" Knox and Sollecito.

"I don't believe what you say, because I see what you do" ~ James Baldwin
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
louiehaha wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
New York Times Best Seller List for October 14. Sollecito's book has disappeared.

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html

Last week, it squeaked in at #25 on the e-book list.

http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-boo ... /list.html



From 1942 to 1998 there were two New York Times best seller lists, one for fiction, one for non-fiction. Both came to recognize the fifteen best-selling books, 30 books in all . Today there are twenty New York Times “bestseller” lists, with even more planned, each recognizing anywhere between the top 10 and 35 top books for a particular niche. All in all, there are 300 places awarded on the lists each week today. “Everyone gets a trophy.” Why?

In 1998, Barnes and Noble entered a marketing agreement with The New York Times.
From the 1998 Barnes and Noble 10-K:

Since the launch of BarnesandNoble.com, the Company has aggressively pursued and won marketing and distribution deals with the Web's leading content, search and commerce sites. These deals serve to extend the reach of BarnesandNoble.com by creating links to high traffic sites, such as Lycos, CNN Interactive, Discovery Channel Online, ZD Net, The New York Times, Time Inc., New Media and USA Today. The reach was further extended by the thousands of additional Web sites that have joined the Company's innovative affiliate network. All of the affiliates earn commissions based upon sales generated from the traffic they direct to BarnesandNoble.com. The Company also entered into a partnership with Disney Online, in which BarnesandNoble.com is the exclusive bookseller for their site and operates a Disney bookstore on the BarnesandNoble.com site. BarnesandNoble.com has a dedicated management team of e-commerce marketing and technology professionals. As a leader in the fast-growing world of e-commerce, the Company intends to actively advertise and further develop affiliate relationships.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/ ... 001106.txt

The list Sollecito made at #25 – ebook non-fiction - was only added to the Time’s roster last year. Even though his book sold fewer copies on amazon.com than “A Stolen Life” for the week ended September 22 (the cutoff for making the October 7 list) the secret formula placed Honor Bound ahead of Dugard’s book on the unproven e-book non-fiction list. The creation of the list is a "trade secret".



Right, and am I right to think you mean that once upon a time in the West; the New York Times bestseller's list really did mean something but that it doesn't mean shit now, as it is not controllable but is very vulnerable to manipulation?


I think making the original list is still quite an accomplishment, it's the newer lists that I think have to be viewed with skepticism as their purpose seems to be to generate commissions.




Here’s a visual comparing the feat of making the original list at #1 to making the non-fiction eBook list at #25:
(Sales for the October 7 NYTimes list were the week ending September 22.)

Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:04 pm   Post subject: IS THE FIX IN AT THE SUPREME COURT?   

No, I don't think so. I see however that the debate at. ORG focuses on political considerations while I've always thought it would come down to conservative vs liberal interpretations of the law. The Italian court is moving towards a hybrid inquisitorial vs adversarial position and so it will be a coin toss whether they will favour the adversarial Hellmann or the inquisitorial Massei. The Galati appeal, focuses strictly on the law and I am therefore hopeful it will prevail. The SC will not be swayed by its prior ruling on Guede or how it would affect law professionals' morale.
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 Oct 10, 2012 2:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

.ORG mentions an Italian blogger saying Sollecito's book being translated into the Italian. Keeping in mind that could logistically not even be published before the Supreme Court ruling it seems to me the Sollecitos are reasonably confident they will prevail. That will be on the advice of his lawyer Giulia Bongiorno so we shall see. One thing to keep in mind is she was only a junior lawyer at the SC hearing that exonerated Italian PM Andreotti, the case that supposedly established her reputation?

Anyone know when she's required to file her response to the Appeal? I asked that question a while back but haven't heard anything. Would love to see Bongiorno's strategy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ergon wrote:

I think making the original list is still quite an accomplishment, it's the newer lists that I think have to be viewed with skepticism as their purpose seems to be to generate commissions.



This is what I was trying to say, but didn't write it very well.

_________________
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 Oct 10, 2012 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I do not resemble that remark; louiehaha does :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

malvern wrote:
Is it a coincidence that the same group that buy Frank's angry tale also see nothing fishy with the shower dance and the knife pricking excuse? Are we just cynical or just plain more intuitive? Frank does have more than chip on his shoulder. The injustice he feels is personal , the kind that could cause him to end up spending his days on the street ranting with a large sign.



Not cynical or more intuitive... it is only common sense for the most part that gives us the advantages.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
I do not resemble that remark; louiehaha does :)



Oh, well, in that case, as the French would say, Ex scuse em wah Lou

_________________
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 Oct 10, 2012 8:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Happy Birthday, dgfred!

mul-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Is Frank a native Italian?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Happy Birthday, dgfred!

mul-)


Haha... thanks. Maybe Birthmonth might be better cause mine is on the 15th ;) .

'ROCKTOBER' da-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Walked into a hos pit al
Where none were sick and none were well
when at night the nurses left
I could not walk at all

Each guilty, as in, action carried out by the guilty, like dumb TV shows that the least evolved chimp could make a better job of, each fake face, each pathetic and insincere appearance by the profit-mongering ghouls feels like there are sticking another knife into Meredith, and I hate to have to be so graphic as it never ceases to destroy my head, as i does with all those with an own mind and eyes to see clearly what has gone on in this case, it's not just that to see Sollecito'ssickly face disturbs my sense of decency, more it is that each exercise in the perpetuation and continuation of this vastly wicked set of deeds, is heartbreaking, and verily frustrating, that they in this world can continue to get away with everything, the entire range of activity mocking Meredith even in her grave.

I hereby condemn their souls to the place where those without a shred of kindness can only reside, and that is in living and dying hell.

Forgiveness, has nothing to do with this, because saying it how it is, is an act of great love, it is the wayward and lost souls that must find the way to recover from the self-inflicted torments that result from wrong thought and wrong action, and they will need to forgive themelves which will be hard or rather impossible so long as they refude to face the music of their own actions, the action are real, they are now embedded in their soul records (not Motown), akashic records; karma is inescapable like energy that changes form but never disperses, nobody can save another person's soul, if the person in question refuses to repent of the wicked and unkind blind actions, only through embracing real love can a person, not even in a single lifetime, or many lifetimes, gt back from the detached and tormenting self-created hell, created in the mind and the soul pushed way into some unreachable universe. How much will need to be undone to return, after earning better, h5ow long can that take at the very least, maybe a thousand, 10,000 years, who knows, not for me to say, but all as I do know is that here and now, these people do not exist, Meredith exists, in spirit, and her soul is free and blessed, she lived and served, and was on her path, that she was taken off it, unnaturally, is not her fault, and I feel nothing is lost once we get beyond the concept and framework of physical existence, but those living and living with an almighty burden, that will cause them illness in various way, will lea p over into the lives of loved ones, which will not necessarily be their own faults, even when they tell lies, for they cannot grasp what different matters truly mean.

If you hold your palms before you, together, like in prayer, and bow your head to the person in front of you and say, the God in me bows down to the God in you, then where is the God in the person that tricks even the own self into taking the incorrect route through life, transporting the soul to the place it does not want to be, but has no power over the physical mind to control the matter because each deed that the mind pushes the person to carry out that is not beneficial to a person as a complete entity, this mind, body and soul, and spirit invigorated, means that the disharmony leads to the huge train crashed s in life that we see in this case.
You cannot mix up orange and apples, by thinking you can hide behind a wall of your self-created illusions, you cannot play hide and seek with what is vital to your spirit, because the spirit knows everything, and is there but it is pushed far away, unable to reside in that sphere in and under such dire and wrong conditions, just as the laboratories and protected and treated in sterile ways, no unclean person can get into the house of knowledge and love if the work is not done.
And every person is given the freedom to carry on fooling the self, wasting the time given and the life gifted unto us, yet in the end, who will lose, who will come first and who will be last, where there are walls and gardens each one measured and laid out awaiting our return to the light, where there is no suffering, who wants to stay out in the cold?

Only those who refuse to see, yet underneath, it is the very place they look for all their lives in everything they do, in all of the bad actions, driven, unknowingly, to finding relief, but being physical, the human being can only fail and fall, like a stumbling chick feeble on its feet, like a puppy blind and unable to help itself, who wants to stay out in the cold, nobody really does, but the selfishness that is part and parcel of the physical realm means human beings have no idea who they are or why they were born, they stumble and make the wrong choices, all driven by ego pursuits and fake happinesses, joy, it cannot be had with money or thin, it can only be had through unending understanding. People are born to stumble, because it's the only way that they will in the end fall to their knees in full renunciation of worldly pursuits, only surrendering then completely to love, the love that was always hidden away deep down, and for which every human being searches in the visible exterior world, not knowing that it is not to be had, it is to be embraced, and then shared and given, with no want for anything, from anyone, other than their joy.

I cannot force others to open their eye and hearts, but I can't deny what I know, and I know that the only way to get help, be helped, it to help yourself first.

This is why, in my opinion, no matter what anyone says, the only way Sollecito and Knox (and Guede too of course) can in any way retrieve, begin to retrieve their souls and spirits is by using their minds opening up their hearts and handing themselves in.

They would be through heir time, whatever it is, it would be far less worse than what they are ow going to suffer until the day they die. How, after they admit their wrongs and surrender to their fates, they will further deal with themselves, their shame, their sense of guilt and damaged consciences, how they will get a spark of kindness back, is for them to see, but thy are never going to be getting anything real as long as they keep up the pantomime.

_________________
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 Oct 10, 2012 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Blessing and a curse, Zorba. Unless the head aches and the heart hurts, you will feel no need to speak out against the injustice, the wrongness of it all. Be grateful for it. It means you have a conscience.
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 Oct 11, 2012 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

You know zorba, I don't believe that anger is wrong or misplaced. It is ok to be angry at injustice, or at the sin and not the sinner, or even at those that commit crimes. Anger can come because we care, and it can be purifying.

But it is a long way yet till we get to the SC hearing. Far too many of us have burnt out or been able to keep involved, and more's the pity. Do be sure, every one, to conserve your self, rest, enjoy life. It's been an honour to meet all of you ~ I'm not going away anywhere yet :-)

Hope to see old friends (and new) once the case heats up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Twitterings:
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt

#Perugia docket: Blogger Sfarzo's resisting arrest hearing delayed to mid-Nov. Monster of Florence journo Spezi defamation trial Friday.

Is there anything in Italy that does not get delayed? :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Blessing and a curse, Zorba. Unless the head aches and the heart hurts, you will feel no need to speak out against the injustice, the wrongness of it all. Be grateful for it. It means you have a conscience.



Thank you Napia, and that's exactly what I mean, that the one thing that I am unafraid of is having a conscience, I wanted to say, yesterday, that, unless someone bashes my brains in or I get dementia, I will always be compelled to speak my mind, especially where there is far-reaching injustice, as there is here, with Meredith 6 feet down, and her killers $-up (dollars 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: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Honor Bound could use a few more balanced reviews on Amazon.com

Here are some of the 1-2 star reviews:

Nonsense, September 28, 2012
By Picky
This review is from: Honor Bound (Kindle Edition)

Quote:
This book doesn't really help understand what happened that night. I have followed every single thing that happened around this crime because I lived in Italy at that time, in my humble opinion, this book is no-new light.

Comments (3)

Turned me against them..., September 28, 2012
By Reeve Baily (Seattle, WA)
This review is from: Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox (Hardcover)

Quote:
I have read every book about this case and I feel this particular effort sheds ZERO new light on what really happened. I had hoped for clarity on what REALLY happened the night of the murder, and this book just soft pedals the already accepted version of the facts that have led to Amanda & Raffaelle's [sic] freedom. It's impossible to tell how much R really wrote and how much the ghost writer penned but based upon the recent book tour and seeing Raffaelle [sic] at the University of Washington, I suspect he wrote very little. I'm not falling for this. And I regret buying the book.

I hope Amanda does a better job of remembering.

Comments (6)

Ok, I guess, September 27, 2012
By Tracy
This review is from: Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox (Hardcover)

Quote:
Prior to reading this book I had read extensively on the case. I feel that the evidence is not conclusive and we will never truly know what happened to Meredith but I was leaning more towards Rafaelle and Amanda not being involved. Upon reading this book I still feel the evidence is not conclusive and that the Perugia police bungled the investigation but I now think Rafaelle and Amanda must be hiding something. Rafaelle contradicts himself in the book in the following manner: at the beginning of the book he says that smoking marijuana the night Kercher was killed made his memory foggy. Then about 60% through the book he says he did drugs, but never enough to make him impaired. It was direct contradiction of what he had written earlier. Second, he seems completely unconcerned about Meredith or her family but complains on and on about being imprisoned. At the very least the lack of empathy displayed by him makes it easy for me to understand why the Perugia police were so convinced they may be involved. This is an okay read but I feel like everyone who wrote 5 star reviews didn't read the same book I did. A lot of the information was rehashed if you've read blogs about the crime.
For a far better memior of false imprisonment read "Life and Death in Shanghai" by Nien Cheng.

Comments (26)

Amazon Reviews Honor Bound

Note that these neutral/negative reviews have the most comments. Knox & Sollecito's supporters immediately jump into judging the 1-2 star reviewers and try to convert them to their point of view and convince them that they are wrong and the book is great. And there are some familiar names like Brago Kex, Richard Bonin, and others...
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

That section is quite a hoot, guermantes. Odd to see a book get so many 5 star reviews that aren't reflected in actual sales, lol.

Funniest comment from 'Thomas Mininger' who doesn't like to see any one insulted but says:

"This heat is nothing compared to what pro-innocence Italian journalists have to face. Frank Sfarzo was beaten and nearly murdered eek-) by the Perugian Police for taking an innocence stand. I'm not exagerating when I call the Squadra Mobile a pack of thugs.

The Committee to Protect Journalists Worldwide is trying to protect Frank". p-(((

Still?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
Ok, I guess, September 27, 2012
By Tracy
This review is from: Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox (Hardcover)

Quote:
Prior to reading this book I had read extensively on the case. I feel that the evidence is not conclusive and we will never truly know what happened to Meredith but I was leaning more towards Rafaelle and Amanda not being involved. Upon reading this book I still feel the evidence is not conclusive and that the Perugia police bungled the investigation but I now think Rafaelle and Amanda must be hiding something. Rafaelle contradicts himself in the book in the following manner: at the beginning of the book he says that smoking marijuana the night Kercher was killed made his memory foggy. Then about 60% through the book he says he did drugs, but never enough to make him impaired. It was direct contradiction of what he had written earlier. Second, he seems completely unconcerned about Meredith or her family but complains on and on about being imprisoned. At the very least the lack of empathy displayed by him makes it easy for me to understand why the Perugia police were so convinced they may be involved. This is an okay read but I feel like everyone who wrote 5 star reviews didn't read the same book I did. A lot of the information was rehashed if you've read blogs about the crime.
For a far better memior of false imprisonment read "Life and Death in Shanghai" by Nien Cheng.

Comments (26)

Amazon Reviews Honor Bound

Note that these neutral/negative reviews have the most comments. Knox & Sollecito's supporters immediately jump into judging the 1-2 star reviewers and try to convert them to their point of view and convince them that they are wrong and the book is great. And there are some familiar names like Brago Kex, Richard Bonin, and others...

My gosh. Poor Tracy. So you read this book, because you have an interest in the case. You write your honest opinion and immediately get a bunch of demands and instructions how you are supposed to think thrown at you. Love her response to the weirdos: "Please get professional mental help."...lol... Also love how there are supporters that repeat the failed stomach content theory. Yes, H/Z had it all wrong. Re-trial please :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
You know zorba, I don't believe that anger is wrong or misplaced. It is ok to be angry at injustice, or at the sin and not the sinner, or even at those that commit crimes. Anger can come because we care, and it can be purifying.

But it is a long way yet till we get to the SC hearing. Far too many of us have burnt out or been able to keep involved, and more's the pity. Do be sure, every one, to conserve your self, rest, enjoy life. It's been an honour to meet all of you ~ I'm not going away anywhere yet :-)

Hope to see old friends (and new) once the case heats up.



Yes I see that but, there is a fine line between rightful anger in response to A BAD, or violent anger

because, in many cases those angered by an injustice can go from anger into violent anger, like where people are disgusted with what animals are put through but use violence as a result of the indignation and anger felt to try to put things right,

obviously 2 wrongs do not make a right,

I think I'll call it pissed-offness,
the word anger is loaded,
even if it is right it sounds wrong,
as it just has so many associations with violence

_________________
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 Oct 12, 2012 12:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

my own new book review (make-believe, like all the rest on Sorry Sollypsycho's Amazonioni page

George Brute
5 points
Hi there all, I've given it a 5 right but if I could give it 10 I'd give it, and if I Could give 100, I'd give it and if I could give a 1000 I'd give it and what number comes after that?
well, I'd give it, if I could work out the numbers.

So, anyhow I would because this book is the most fantastic, amazing, incredible, terrific, perfect, lovely book, written by a true gentleman, my friend met him in a dark alley on the way home and said, after meeting him that he was the nicest young man she could ever have met, but she was glad she was a sportswoman and said I have to run and did. She wasn't scared, she just had to get home.

The gentleman offered to take me to buy a nice knife if I liked them, because he knew about knives and had lots, so he could help me get one, he offered to show me his, anyway, next day I met him in the lift too, and well, in fact I did a TV show with him, I said, how anyone could think this lovely young man could murder anyone I don't know.

He's taking me to get my new knife at 5. Anyway, that book right, it's great, he said he didn't do it so that's that, every legal system is based upon such a concept, if the person says he didn't do it, dismiss the court, send the lawyers home.

Send the cops off on pension. Hello Mr S, did you do it?
No I did not.
Jane police specialist and judge: Okay you can go now.

And then, they all lived happily ever after,
well,
I say all,
all except the victims of the murders,
and so on and so forth.

Listen, this book is the best one of the two I have ever read.

Basically, all you need is a dumb TV presenter person, talking crap,
and it will save the judiciary a packet,
just call me up, Jane's the name,
I'd sort it I would,
I'd say listen Mr Judge, he said he did not do it,
so let's all go home right, look at him,
I met him in the lift and he didn't even have bloodstained clothes on, and he certainly didn't kill me.

After all, if someone accused of murder, had a TV appearance to make, surely, like me, you're going to be afraid in the lift, it's logical, he might kill you in the lift, no show and stuff, so, I was surprised he didn't kill me, I wouldn't have liked that, no sir.
So he's great, the book is great, my show is also great.

Anyone who disagrees and doesn't give a 5 is a moron.

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Reading Tracy's review and the pile-on comments afterwards really takes me back. I remember the first few times that I posted something about this case. As I've said, I didn't know anything about this until 2 years after the fact. After I made my post, I went back to read the comments. I chuckle now when I remember how bewildered I was when I read some of the downright nasty answers.

The first time it happened, I kept reviewing MY comment to try to see what it was that people were mis-understanding. I initially figured that there had to be some sort of misinterpretation, because, surely there wasn't anything in my post that could have caused such an angry outpouring. Nope. I was just another victim of a Groupie pile-on. I still have to laugh at the thought of how I struggled to clarify my position. Surely, I could explain my conclusions clearly enough to get these people to back off. Didn't happen. I kept thinking, "What the hell is WRONG with these people?" "Can't they see how simple my comment is?"

From the answers, it appears that Tracy caught on much sooner than I did. Good for her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Twitterings
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt

"Mario Spezi, co-author w/ Douglas Preston of "Monster of #Florence" convicted of defaming ex-cop Giuttari. Plot thickens."

Don't really know what this is all about. It had something to do with Mignini IIRC. And why was Douglas Preston not convicted as well?

Brings back fond memories of my childhood though. Backpacking and hiking through the Austrian Alps with my parents. Then after hours of not seeing a living soul there is a 'heaven', in this case it is called a Hütte. It is a hotel/restaurant and it can be in the middle of some hiking tracks on the top of a mountain. So a for me unknown drink called Spezi was on the menu, and the nice Fräulein convinced me to try it. Nothing special but I liked the size of the glass..lol.. The cheese sandwich was awesome as well. Not the plastic supermarket cheese but the real fat and smelly homemade cheese. I am getting hungry now. Anyway, Spezi is half cola half orange soda (usually Fanta orange). Only available in Austria and Southern Germany. I guess I am totally off topic now :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
Twitterings
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt

"Mario Spezi, co-author w/ Douglas Preston of "Monster of #Florence" convicted of defaming ex-cop Giuttari. Plot thickens."

Don't really know what this is all about. It had something to do with Mignini IIRC. And why was Douglas Preston not convicted as well?

Brings back fond memories of my childhood though. Backpacking and hiking through the Austrian Alps with my parents. Then after hours of not seeing a living soul there is a 'heaven', in this case it is called a Hütte. It is a hotel/restaurant and it can be in the middle of some hiking tracks on the top of a mountain. So a for me unknown drink called Spezi was on the menu, and the nice Fräulein convinced me to try it. Nothing special but I liked the size of the glass..lol.. The cheese sandwich was awesome as well. Not the plastic supermarket cheese but the real fat and smelly homemade cheese. I am getting hungry now. Anyway, Spezi is half cola half orange soda (usually Fanta orange). Only available in Austria and Southern Germany. I guess I am totally off topic now :mrgreen:


Hi max, Mario Spezi is the famous Italian crime journalist who wrote about The Monster Of Florence sex crime killings in the 80's for La Nazione and ran afoul of PM Mignini at some point. Here's Doug Preston's take on the case http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... _page=true which really is worth while reading in full. He also states "Spezi has just emerged from three weeks in prison, accused of complicity in the Monster of Florence killings. I have been accused of obstruction of justice, planting evidence, and being an accessory to murder. I can never return to Italy."

The fact challenged Injustice In Perugia then extrapolates that http://www.salem-news.com/articles/octo ... erdict.php to say "Injustice in Perugia has obtained this exclusive photograph which shows Mignini’s face as he receives a proverbial sock to the stomach. (Photo taken by Mario Spezi) Incidentally, Giuliano Mignini had also falsely accused Mario Spezi of murder several years ago and was thrown in prison on no evidence."

Mario Spezi was actually charged with impeding the investigation, and spent three weeks in prison before being released. I have no opinion on his defamation case with ex-cop Giuttari but can see why he and Doug Preston have er, issues with PM Mignini. But it does remind the Knox and Sollecito families that their own cases are merely being held in abeyance, and not cancelled, and Raffaele should have been more circumspect when he swanned around America?

However. We can never have enough OT here, max. Your comment about Huttes brought back fond memories to my wife who also backpacked through the Austrian Alps and the Tatras when in her teens with her parents. They made the ascent of Gross Glockner and Mont Blanc, and no, she never had a Spezi :) Her big treat, though, is when her father got her a huge mug of sweetened black tea, with a nice measure of rum (she had frostbite) She was 13 at the time, and still remembers how the rum worked its way through her veins.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Great book review, Zorba! A pity you can't post it on Amazon. :) I know that before you can post a review, you're required to have an Amazon account that has been charged for the purchase of a book or digital item, which is kind of a weird restriction.

Interesting news about Spezi. Expect a new level of madness in Frank Sfarzo's battle against the Perugian justice authorities. I shudder to think about his state of mind right now. ta-))

In the meantime, Nigel Scott has written a new piece for the Ground Report:

The forty myths that convicted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

You might fall asleep just reading it; it's rather long-winded. Looks like it will be expanded into several parts! I didn't read any of it, just scrolled down but had to stop half way after getting cramp in my index finger (yes, it's that long!) :) Seems the number of "myths" continues to grow exponentially. In Karen Pruett's "Myths and Mythology", there were only 23; now there are already 40! I stopped reading anything by the Groupies on Ground Report long ago, except maybe articles that quote from Honor Bound. Hope, at the end of the year, they'll get their $13 reward(s) for all their efforts from the GR management.

Anyway, some brave souls still have enough patience to argue with them in the comments. Really, sometimes I think those people (David Kamanski, Chris Halkides, Karen Pruett, Michelle Moore) have nothing better to do than just waste their time and everyone else' s included, bickering in online comments. Some days, I wish they would float away. One could only hope they would. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
max wrote:
Twitterings
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt

"Mario Spezi, co-author w/ Douglas Preston of "Monster of #Florence" convicted of defaming ex-cop Giuttari. Plot thickens."

Don't really know what this is all about. It had something to do with Mignini IIRC. And why was Douglas Preston not convicted as well?

Brings back fond memories of my childhood though. Backpacking and hiking through the Austrian Alps with my parents. Then after hours of not seeing a living soul there is a 'heaven', in this case it is called a Hütte. It is a hotel/restaurant and it can be in the middle of some hiking tracks on the top of a mountain. So a for me unknown drink called Spezi was on the menu, and the nice Fräulein convinced me to try it. Nothing special but I liked the size of the glass..lol.. The cheese sandwich was awesome as well. Not the plastic supermarket cheese but the real fat and smelly homemade cheese. I am getting hungry now. Anyway, Spezi is half cola half orange soda (usually Fanta orange). Only available in Austria and Southern Germany. I guess I am totally off topic now :mrgreen:


Hi max, Mario Spezi is the famous Italian crime journalist who wrote about The Monster Of Florence sex crime killings in the 80's for La Nazione and ran afoul of PM Mignini at some point. Here's Doug Preston's take on the case http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... _page=true which really is worth while reading in full. He also states "Spezi has just emerged from three weeks in prison, accused of complicity in the Monster of Florence killings. I have been accused of obstruction of justice, planting evidence, and being an accessory to murder. I can never return to Italy."

The fact challenged Injustice In Perugia then extrapolates that http://www.salem-news.com/articles/octo ... erdict.php to say "Injustice in Perugia has obtained this exclusive photograph which shows Mignini’s face as he receives a proverbial sock to the stomach. (Photo taken by Mario Spezi) Incidentally, Giuliano Mignini had also falsely accused Mario Spezi of murder several years ago and was thrown in prison on no evidence."

Mario Spezi was actually charged with impeding the investigation, and spent three weeks in prison before being released. I have no opinion on his defamation case with ex-cop Giuttari but can see why he and Doug Preston have er, issues with PM Mignini. But it does remind the Knox and Sollecito families that their own cases are merely being held in abeyance, and not cancelled, and Raffaele should have been more circumspect when he swanned around America?

However. We can never have enough OT here, max. Your comment about Huttes brought back fond memories to my wife who also backpacked through the Austrian Alps and the Tatras when in her teens with her parents. They made the ascent of Gross Glockner and Mont Blanc, and no, she never had a Spezi :) Her big treat, though, is when her father got her a huge mug of sweetened black tea, with a nice measure of rum (she had frostbite) She was 13 at the time, and still remembers how the rum worked its way through her veins.



Hello Ergon,

I'm afraid to say, your analysis is based on incorrect data, because your analysis is incomplete, as it starts somewhere and is very vague, to say you understand why they have issues with Mignini, well you are saying a lot, considering you do not seem to know the facts fully or correctly.

Spezi arrived at a murder scene, was waiting there, the first butchering in the series, many years ago, even before the police knew or could arrive there too.

It is hardly surprising that not Mignini, but the police/detectives and prosecutor (all of whom then became involved in the case) working on the case had to consider Spezi as being up to no good, after all, if a body is found at some point, and nobody knows, all except a journalist who is sat there smoking a cigarette like a clever little ape; do you say, well, that's journalists, I don't suppose you could help us could ya, like how comes you are here, and how comes you knew.

I think you need to look the facts up, and not those supplied by either Spezi or Preston.

Personally, I would not piss on Preston if he were on fire, but I did study the case after Meredith was murdered, all I can tell you, is, if you believe the crap put out by Preston, with his chip the size of a ship on his shoulder because he could not just do whatever he liked in Italy, goaded along too, by Spezi as a result of Spezi's arrogant meddling ways, where he does not help but hinders the solving of the most horrific crimes thinkable, acting as though he is a law unto himself, then more fool you, it is against the law to withhold information where crime is concerned and certainly forbidden and a very serious matter when it concerns murder and then some.

I find it disturbing what you wrote here and do not take such words lightly, within the context of everything that has happened Meredith murdered and this used by Preston (& Spezi the same even before Prestion, so who is using who, co-dependents perhaps?) for his own ends, to blacken Mignini's name and whoever else who dares oppose this awful manipulative behaviour), I would say if you are going to make such statements, you need to do your homework far better, to underpin what you are saying properly and substantially, as what you said is just so way off the mark, as far as I am concerned it is.

So I would say, go back to the start and then work out the context of the entirety, including the point Mignini became involved which was way way later than the first crimes, all the detectives and the prosecutor had already been stuck and hindered by Spezi and his arrongancy/crimes, and how else could they react than to suspect that he knew things (by means of his criminal connections) if he could not and would not explain how it was he was there at that first murder waiting for the cops to show up like some mutant, gormless, smug idiot.
Talk about Sollecito's sense of entitlement,
well Spezi,
enjoying his certain reputation as a journalist, was really something else.
There is nothing worse, in my view anyway, than pseudo intellectual gameplaying.

Consider this in the correct and accurate context of the then-timepoint in history, when newspapers had a lot of (almost supreme) power, as they formed, along with TV, a monopoly on news, and could bring news pretty much however they pleased, shaping opinions, and very often, deceitfully and incorrectly so, thereby playing politics unofficially by swaying citizens to take certain views. Therefore, of course he was well-known, it goes without saying, and is hardly surprising, as there were only so and so many news outlets available, but was he really great if he did crap like what he did do, when women were getting their vaginas cut out and breasts sliced off on full moon nights? He Spezi thinking himself to be above the law. That notion undermines every basis of law. Let's string 'em up, lets take the law into our own hands, etc.

What you should/could/would have said, if you knew the history on this case properly, was, no wonder Mignini had suspicions and no wonder his predecessors did too.

_________________
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 Oct 12, 2012 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
Great book review, Zorba! A pity you can't post it on Amazon. :) I know that before you can post a review, you're required to have an Amazon account that has been charged for the purchase of a book or digital item, which is kind of a weird restriction.

Interesting news about Spezi. Expect a new level of madness in Frank Sfarzo's battle against the Perugian justice authorities. I shudder to think about his state of mind right now. ta-))

In the meantime, Nigel Scott has written a new piece for the Ground Report:

The forty myths that convicted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

You might fall asleep just reading it; it's rather long-winded. Looks like it will be expanded into several parts! I didn't read any of it, just scrolled down but had to stop half way after getting cramp in my index finger (yes, it's that long!) :) Seems the number of "myths" continues to grow exponentially. In Karen Pruett's "Myths and Mythology", there were only 23; now there are already 40! I stopped reading anything by the Groupies on Ground Report long ago, except maybe articles that quote from Honor Bound. Hope, at the end of the year, they'll get their $13 reward(s) for all their efforts from the GR management.

Anyway, some brave souls still have enough patience to argue with them in the comments. Really, sometimes I think those people (David Kamanski, Chris Halkides, Karen Pruett, Michelle Moore) have nothing better to do than just waste their time and everyone else' s included, bickering in online comments. Some days, I wish they would float away. One could only hope they would. ;)



Thanks Guer,

I will gladly join up through the purchase of a Donald Duck album, as there'd be more common sense in that than in Sollecito's nonsense, but do no use and do not want to use credit cards, so I'm still working on it and Mr Duck will have to wait a little longer for my hard-earned dough.

_________________
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: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Latest tweet from Andrea Vogt:

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt

Quote:
Monster of #Florence journo Spezi fined €1800 for alleged 2008 defamation. Judge reserved ex-cop Giuttari's right to civil recourse.


https://twitter.com/andreavogt
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:38 pm   Post subject: THE ORGAN GRINDER'S MANY MONKEYS   

Sigh, nothing, nada, new; not even a scintilla of originality to the Ground Report article from Nigel Scott, guermantes. it might be argued though that Bruce Fischer must be nominated for the Noble Prize in Physics, for inventing the Perpetual Motion Machine of Ground Report articles having to do with the case, just saying :)

However, since he references 'former Times editor' Magnus Linklater as an apologist for Knox, then it might be instructive to know who Magnus Linklater is. He was central to the Hitler Diaries scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Linklater and later was found out to have not revealed to his readers a conflict of interest when he wrote about a Scottish bird charity from which he, as a major land owner, stood to benefit (ibid). The journalist George Monbiot also alleged factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the evidence.

So, what's a now retired freelance writer (since 1994) to do? Why, join the well funded rush to defend Madeleine McCann's parents AND Amanda Knox. http://justice4mccannfam.blogspot.ca/20 ... al-by.html It's all the fault of the media, he opines, in its rush to judgement. This was a trial by media, he says, and there is something rich about someone from the cesspool of the British Press going on about his own country's system of reporting on serious crimes vs others'. I leave it to readers to decide for themselves on the credibility of Magnus Linklater as a source.

Ps: While the GR groupies applaud Nigel Scott's latest on the big bad media and how they found Knox and Sollecito guilty before the trial based on 'leaks', they ought to ponder the hypocrisy of their applause for their hero du jour, Frank Sfarzo. The biggest source of all those 'leaks' to the media was not only the Knoxes and the Sollecitos, it was Frank Sfarzo, who, using his sources in the police, had a virtual cottage industry in evidence he sold to the media. He even tried to sell nude photos of Amanda Knox to the media, who wisely declined. (I believe they came from Knox's seized cell phone)

So, blaming PM Mignini for the leaks to the media, is just silly, and the trial by media meme is so, overdone. What'll they do if the SC overturns Hellmann? Who'll they blame? Mignini? The Media? Canada?
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 Oct 12, 2012 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

@Zorba, when I said "I can understand why they have issues with Mignini", I was being sarcastic. My quote had to do with them making things up, telling boogers, lying.
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 Oct 12, 2012 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

In fact, if someone misunderstands antything I say, assume I was being sarcastic. That's my default position ;)
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 Oct 12, 2012 7:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Or ironic :)
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 Oct 12, 2012 7:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Just posted my response to Ground Report there as well. Surprise, it must be 'approved by a moderator', who I'm sure will post it lickety split.
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 Oct 12, 2012 7:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
Latest tweet from Andrea Vogt:

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt

Quote:
Monster of #Florence journo Spezi fined €1800 for alleged 2008 defamation. Judge reserved ex-cop Giuttari's right to civil recourse.


https://twitter.com/andreavogt


Frank Sfarzo's next up, in November I think.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
Just posted my response to Ground Report there as well. Surprise, it must be 'approved by a moderator', who I'm sure will post it lickety split.


I haven't seen your post there yet, Ergon. But, hope springs eternal.
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 Oct 13, 2012 4:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

In other news, the Supreme Court has frozen the 40,000 euro invasion of privacy awarded to Amanda Knox from the Italian publisher of "Amanda and her friends" and sent it back to the Milan court for review.
Cries about 'backwards Italians' and ÷÷÷÷ italy from the usual suspects. In the open Amanda Knox thread, no less.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks Ergon. Here is one article about it:
http://www.imgpress.it/notizia.asp?idno ... dsezione=3

Annulled because (google translate) "as the lawyers of the American did not state in a complete manner the steps of the writings that would have violated the privacy policies and those of the Code information."

Sometimes it is that simple. H/Z certainly showed a lot of incomplete reasoning so lets hope it is an omen of things to come.

Here is an old article as a reminder of what the story is about:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/s ... d=10169888

Wikipedia needs to be adjusted also. Tides are turning :)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
In other news, the Supreme Court has frozen the 40,000 euro invasion of privacy awarded to Amanda Knox from the Italian publisher of "Amanda and her friends" and sent it back to the Milan court for review.
Cries about 'backwards Italians' and ÷÷÷÷ italy from the usual suspects. In the open Amanda Knox thread, no less.


Thanks for this news Ergon. Maybe someone at .org can translate it into proper English...
It was a bad day for "them" today: first Spezi's "conviction", then this...
Okay, I'm going to try veerrrry hard and restrain my Schadenfreude. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

If anyone is interested, here are the links for Parts 2 & 3 of the "Myths" p-(((, Part 3 just in from Google Alerts -

Part 2: The forty myths-2
Part 3: The forty myths-3
(A long list of "sources" at the end).
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Judge Heavey continues his Rotary Club tour, giving the same talk over and over again. p-(((

12 October - La Jolla Golden Triangle Rotary Club

Attorney for Amanda Knox???

Attachment:
LaJolla Rotary Newsletter - 1.JPG


Attachment:
LaJolla Rotary Newsletter - 2.JPG


La Jolla Golden Triangle
(Click on Club Newsletter)


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:13 pm   Post subject: BOOK NEWS   

In other news, Honor? Bound has been removed from Amazon UK and Germany sites, and as of this morning, is no longer available on Amazon France.

The groupies are offering to help people get it on Kindle, as if there is this tremendous interest in Europe. Nope, sorry. Also blaming it on Mignini. Sure, as if. You'd think the publisher would have realised that any defamation in the book could hold them liable ACROSS the EU but nah.

Me, i think it's being pulped soon :-) Poor sales have a way of getting in the way of the plans of mice, men, and PR agencies.

If I were on the board Of Harper Collins, I might be saying WTF, not that I believed Frank Sfarzo's story that Knox got $ 3.8 mil up front. That was Tony Blair's advance, and he's a MASS Murderer, just saying.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ah, Judge Heavey.

I know a man in his late 50s,who played defensive end on his high school football team, some 40+ years ago.
Without fail, when friends bump into him at some social function or other, he immediately assumes the position, jumps up, makes an imaginary run around the offensive line, in order to sack the quarterback. Big smiles, and high-fives afterward. He is oblivious to the discomfort of those around him. This moment, 40 years ago, still defines him. Any coversation with him lasting more than five minutes will eventually lead back to the good old days, when he 'made the play', or 'remember the game with?' He has no idea that he is the object of pity.

I personally see the connect between this man and the judge. The moment is gone. The spotlight has moved. And, it appears that he thinks if he runs fast enough, he will be able to re-insert himself into it. I suffer from an over-abundance of empathy, sometimes. I can almost feel pity. Note, I said ALMOST.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:15 pm   Post subject: Re: BOOK NEWS   

Ergon wrote:
In other news, Honor? Bound has been removed from Amazon UK and Germany sites, and as of this morning, is no longer available on Amazon France.

The groupies are offering to help people get it on Kindle, as if there is this tremendous interest in Europe. Nope, sorry. Also blaming it on Mignini. Sure, as if. You'd think the publisher would have realised that any defamation in the book could hold them liable ACROSS the EU but nah.

Me, i think it's being pulped soon :-) Poor sales have a way of getting in the way of the plans of mice, men, and PR agencies.

If I were on the board Of Harper Collins, I might be saying WTF, not that I believed Frank Sfarzo's story that Knox got $ 3.8 mil up front. That was Tony Blair's advance, and he's a MASS Murderer, just saying.


Ergon, I'd like to ask a question. I would truly appreciate it if someone with a working knowledge of the Italian legal structure would take the time to answer.

Mignini, Mignini, his powerful tentacles reach EVERYWHERE. Just what exactly is his position in the legal, political, power structure in Italy?

Is he equal to a district attorney? Attorney General? Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? This is a serious question on my part, and, I'm sure others reading would gain something from this information. The Groupies place everything squarely on his shoulders. Just how much power does he have? If this question has been asked and answered before, can I have a link, please?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
Ergon wrote:
In other news, the Supreme Court has frozen the 40,000 euro invasion of privacy awarded to Amanda Knox from the Italian publisher of "Amanda and her friends" and sent it back to the Milan court for review.


Thanks for this news Ergon. Maybe someone at .org can translate it into proper English...


Posting Yummi's translation of yesterday's news, with thanks:

Quote:
The decision condemning RCS [Rizzoli-Corriere della Sera, RCS Media Group] to pay 40 thousands euros damage to the American student Amanda Knox - who was acquitted on appeal of the charge of murdering the young English woman Meredith Kercher - for having published information about her sexual life in the book 'Amanda e gli altri. Vite perdute intorno al delitto di Perugia' ('Amanda and her friends. Lives lost around the crime of Perugia') written by journalist Fiorenza Sarzanini and published by Bompiani, has been nullified by the Cassazione, with remanding to a new trial.

According to the Supreme Court the clamor of the events could justify the dissemination of sensitive information about Knox, who, as a consequence, would have no right to complain of having suffered any damage. By now, as an effect of ruling 17408 of the third civil division of Cassazione, which was issued today, the tribunal of Milan, who had awarded 40 thousands euro in damages to the Seattle girl, now will have to review its decision that was issued on April 20. 2010.

In particular, Cassation stressed they don’t subscribe to the ‘core’ of the verdict in the decision of merit, where the verdict claimed “the information we are talking about were not indispensable to offer adequate information about the personality” of Amanda.
Moreover the tribunal of Milan, as for the legitimacy court, will have to explain for what reason [they thought] that media reports about private aspects of Knox’s life would have allegedly overstepped the boundaries of the “normative notion of essentiality”, given that by the date of the book publication, in November 2008, those aspects were discussed in an ongoing trial.

Finally, the Supreme Court, accepting the recourse requests of RCS’s lawyers, nullified the right to damage award in favor of Knox for three articles that had been published in the ‘magazine” of Il Corriere della Sera - 'I segreti di Amanda’, ('Amanda's Secrets'), 'Tutti gli uomini di Amanda' ('Amanda's Men') e 'Amanda voleva solo fare sesso' ('Amanda just wanted to have sex') - which are available on the web, because the lawyers of the American woman failed to indicate, within the writings, those statements that allegedly violated privacy laws and Information Code laws.


IMG PRESS

Original Post: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=122091#p122091
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

That case seems to have been lead by the lawyer Dalla Vedova.
Quote:
Amanda Knox's lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told ABC News that in the proceedings against Sarzanini and Rizzoli, he had argued a violation of Knox's privacy as far as her sexual activity and medical history were concerned, both of which are protected by privacy laws in Italy.

Dalla Vedova also charged that Knox's rights were violated when a photo of her in police custody was published in a Rizzoli magazine, and because the magazine and Sarzanini's book quoted legal documents that were not public.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/s ... d=10169888

So he can't be too happy when the SC now says:
Quote:
the lawyers of the American woman failed to indicate, within the writings, those statements that allegedly violated privacy laws and Information Code laws.

I know it is all rather minor compared to the murder case, and the acquittal was probably mostly due to the work of Bongiorno (and not so much AK's lawyers) but at least it shows that the SC doesn't just rubber stamp anything when AK's name is on it.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:26 pm   Post subject: A CHALLENGE FROM INJUSTICE-ANYWHERE   

I would like to thank the Injustice-Anywhere forum for the following, posted in their entirety, so that we can respond.

Bill Williams Post subject: Re: Today over at PMF
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:55 am
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:49 pm
Posts: 3421

Ergon, Site Admin, Post Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: THE ORGAN GRINDER'S MANY MONKEYS wrote:

Sigh, nothing, nada, new; not even a scintilla of originality to the Ground Report article from Nigel Scott, guermantes. it might be argued though that Bruce Fischer must be nominated for the Noble Prize in Physics, for inventing the Perpetual Motion Machine of Ground Report articles having to do with the case, just saying

..... <sinister deletia> .......

So, blaming PM Mignini for the leaks to the media, is just silly, and the trial by media meme is so, overdone. What'll they do if the SC overturns Hellmann? Who'll they blame? Mignini? The Media? Canada?


If the SC overturns (quashes Hellmann) it will be just as bad for the prosecution as it would be for the defence for the two students.

Such overturning will be on matters of law, and the SC can (unless I am wrong on this) recommend only further evidence collection. It cannot rule on the facts deemed as facts by the appeals court. So those facts remain.

So a second Appeals' level trial would start from even the facts as judged at the first trial:
1) no mixed blood anywhere at the cottage
2) There's no motive for the crime
3) Sollecito and Knox really are good kids, caught up in unfortunate circumstance

And these are findings from the Massei court! Yet guilters, appealing to Massei, still insist on demonizing Knox, her family, Sollecito, his family, and all who support them, this posting included. Note, the first court has established findings that cannot, in and of themselves, be overturned by the SC. Why? Because those facts were not challenged by the appeal's level.... Hellmann fully accepts - no mixrd blood, no motive, and that Knox and Sollecito are good kids; not the demons presented ad nauseum by Ergon and Mignini.

..... and that before considering Hellmann's findings, which cannot be challenged by the SC in throwing it back, unless the conclusion was arrived at by the wrong application of law.
1) the C&V report would stand, unless the SC recommended further DNA testing - and then what would they test? The bra-clasp is gone!
2) the break-in was real, there was no staging of a crime scene
3) there was no transportation of a knife from Raffaele's to the cottage by anyone that night.
4) the conviction for calunnia against Knox about Lumumba could also be back into play.
5) Knox's signing of a document implicating Lumumba does not imply her own involvement in the horrible murder.

If the SC quashes anything on the wrong application of law, it is #4 in the Hellmann report. On that, the SC also has the option to quash and not send back.

On the others, it would seem to me that the SC would have to send the whole thing back, from a new starting point than even the one Zanetti started from, because a new trial would have to accept a whole now slew of evidentiary conclusions positive to Sollecito and Knox; not just as Zanetti observed at the start of the first Appeals' trial.

So - Ergon should know that the only real complaint from this end of the country, about the SC sending this back to appeals' level, is that it would unfairly extend the legal uncertainty surrounding Sollecito and Knox for another 3 years past 2015, as well as extend the suffering of the Kerchers over this.

This would, in my mind, hold the whole Italian justice system in disrepute.

And the reason, presumably why Ergon wants to extend this? All for Meredith.
-------------
Rhea Post subject: Re: Today over at PMF
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:48 pm
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 634

Hans wrote:
The only problem is, the least person they care about is... Meredith Kercher...


I think in a bizarre way they do care about her, she is the messias of their grotesque cult (I'm sure Meredith would have been dismayed by this). What is always disturbing is when they are discribing a perfect world, they imagine a world where they wouldn't need any forum-rules to talk about the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher'. Several times they've said that.

Why on earth would Meredith still be murdered in a perfect world? What's the confused, bizarre mindset behind this?

It's a very bizarre, grotesque cult, and it's sad for the memory of Meredith Kercher the way she is monopolized by them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: A CHALLENGE FROM INJUSTICE-ANYWHERE   

Ergon wrote:
I would like to thank the Injustice-Anywhere forum for the following, posted in their entirety, so that we can respond.

Bill Williams
2) There's no motive for the crime


BBC journalist Duncan Kennedy puts the whole notion of motive into perspective:

"In every murder, investigators look for a motive.

Just look at TV series like CSI and you are given the impression that behind each crime of violence there is a clear, verifiable, intent - a reason to kill.

But television crime shows have inoculated us against the reality that, actually, motives can be the most elusive element of all.

Why was Miss Kercher killed? The brief answer is that no-one, apart from the murderer, or murderers, knows." (Duncan Kennedy, BBC News).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8390909.stm
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:

Attorney for Amanda Knox???

WoW great catch!

I'm almost positive that falsely claiming to represent someone is an ethics violation.

When does this fruitcake's term expire anyway?
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:06 pm   Post subject: WHY MEREDITH MATTERS   

I'll be responding to the ill-founded attack on us later. For now, why does Meredith matter?

One of the first things I did when I started researching The Murder of Meredith Kercher was ask why do people care so much? So if you remember my 'What Drew You To This Case' posts on the True Justice For Meredith Kercher and PMF.ORG sites, and then here, and the variety of responses? Many of you had lost close family or friends affected by violence. Many of you had been involved on other sites looking into other crime cases. You were articulate and well-reasoned, and, you cared about the fact that always, in cases like this, the victim was the first to be forgotten, and, the one voice that would never be heard.

That answers the question quite well, I think.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Note to IIP, or IIA or FMK: If the Kerchers should, at any point in time in the future, request that we stop posting, I would immediately honor that request. Until such time, I do not, repeat, do not, give a rat's ass what any of you think of my posts, or your opinion of my motives.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hahaha..I am imagining the spin that it would be a bad thing for the prosecution if the SC overturns the Hellmann verdict. Yah right, I am pretty sure that 'Ergon and Mignini' would be rather happy when that happens. Hilarious.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

You're addressing people that not only tell the Kerchers what to think, they speculate on what Meredith would feel if she were around, Napia 5. That is strange on so many levels, not including they are unaware how strange that is.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I read a few of the comments on the latest GroundReport article, and one comment struck me as a bit amusing.
One of the Groupies hopes that the need doesn't arise to start packin' because of all of the perceived stalking.
Packin'? Packin' what? Oh my, the drama of it all. Somebody's been sniffing the fumes of too many candles, I think.
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 Oct 15, 2012 6:33 am   Post subject: MY REPLY TO INJUSTICE-ANYWHERE   

Bill Williams said:

a) "If the SC overturns (quashes Hellmann) it will be just as bad for the prosecution as it would be for the defence for the two students."


So, in that alternate universe of theirs, that the prosecution should win and the defence should lose at the SC, is equally bad for both sides. Okay.

(b) "Such overturning will be on matters of law, and the SC can (unless I am wrong on this) recommend only further evidence collection. It cannot rule on the facts deemed as facts by the appeals court. So those facts remain."

Yes, it would be a ruling on whether Hellmann followed or did not follow the requirements of the law. You are wrong to think the SC can in the latter case 'recommend only further evidence collection'; it will either uphold Hellmann, or order a new trial. If the SC should hold that Hellmann overstepped his bounds at any point it will state so, and this must be considered at the new Appeals trial. If there is one, there will be no facts 'deemed as facts by the appeals court'. Those 'facts' are null, and will have to be argued again.. You also just said the higher court is bound by the decision of the lower court :)

(c) "So a second Appeals' level trial would start from even the facts as judged at the first trial:
1) no mixed blood anywhere at the cottage
2) There's no motive for the crime
3) Sollecito and Knox really are good kids, caught up in unfortunate circumstance"


No, it will be a new trial, with a review of Massei. Hellmann will vanish into the ether. Your other points:
1) So?
2) So?
3) So?
And here you go again with the higher court being bound by the decision of the lower court :)

(d) "And these are findings from the Massei court! Yet guilters, appealing to Massei, still insist on demonizing Knox, her family, Sollecito, his family, and all who support them, this posting included. Note, the first court has established findings that cannot, in and of themselves, be overturned by the SC. Why? Because those facts were not challenged by the appeal's level.... Hellmann fully accepts - no mixrd blood, no motive, and that Knox and Sollecito are good kids; not the demons presented ad nauseum by Ergon and Mignini."

Massei found them guilty. And since you refer to 'this posting', where in my 'Many Monkeys' post about the Ground Report article have I demonized anyone? Made fun of, yes, and pointed out that the Times editor referenced there was disgraced for being taken in by the Hitler Diaries scam and now, apparently by the Knox/Sollecito scam. Something Ground Report predictably omitted to publish, of course.

(e)..... "and that before considering Hellmann's findings, which cannot be challenged by the SC in throwing it back, unless the conclusion was arrived at by the wrong application of law.
1) the C&V report would stand, unless the SC recommended further DNA testing - and then what would they test? The bra-clasp is gone!
2) the break-in was real, there was no staging of a crime scene
3) there was no transportation of a knife from Raffaele's to the cottage by anyone that night.
4) the conviction for calunnia against Knox about Lumumba could also be back into play.
5) Knox's signing of a document implicating Lumumba does not imply her own involvement in the horrible murder."


Getting there, but you might be surprised, again, by what the SC can and cannot do. Such as in the case of, an egregious miscarriage of justice that stinks. There are provisions in law for that too, just saying. Do you really, at this stage of the game, want to bet the farm on HELLMANN? The whiff of desperation is reaching all the way here from the West Coast :)

Replying to your points:
1) If the court holds that C&V erred, and that Zanetti erred in appointing them, their report will go into the ether along with Hellmann. The new court will then have to consider Stefanoni on the bra clasp and retest the knife :) and yes, her findings will stand because the defense should have sent representatives to the lab when they could have, the clever little monkeys (sarcasm intended) Nor will the accept the contamination argument, with Professor Novelli waiting to testify.
2) Three courts found the break in staged. I like them odds.
3) Ditto the transportation. Ditto the odds.
4) Indeed. So?
5) It suggests as to character, and trying to deflect guilt. And you think a new court will not consider that why?

(f) "If the SC quashes anything on the wrong application of law, it is #4 in the Hellmann report. On that, the SC also has the option to quash and not send back.

On the others, it would seem to me that the SC would have to send the whole thing back, from a new starting point than even the one Zanetti started from, because a new trial would have to accept a whole now slew of evidentiary conclusions positive to Sollecito and Knox; not just as Zanetti observed at the start of the first Appeals' trial."


So it will either quash or send back. And I disagree with those that focus on #4 alone. The entire Galati appeal is very strong, and I can see why he emphasises some aspects and not others, but I'm not an expert to argue his tactics.

What 'positive evidentiary conclusions' from Massei? What makes you think the new Appeals might not accept the evidentiary conclusions from Micheli, and Giordano? (The SC decision on Guede?)

(g) "So - Ergon should know that the only real complaint from this end of the country, about the SC sending this back to appeals' level, is that it would unfairly extend the legal uncertainty surrounding Sollecito and Knox for another 3 years past 2015, as well as extend the suffering of the Kerchers over this.

This would, in my mind, hold the whole Italian justice system in disrepute.

And the reason, presumably why Ergon wants to extend this? All for Meredith."


Oh, I don't 'know', not that you've done much to educate me. I know what you mean, though, about your 'end' of the country. The whiff of fear that this will extend way past 2015, a distinct possibility. It's nice to know your concern is also for the Kerchers. If it were my daughter I think I'd want to know what happened to her, regardless of the accused murderers wishes.

The SC will do what is right. Are you saying it's concerned with how foreigners perceive them?

And why do I want to extend this? For Justice.
-------------

Hans said:

"The only problem is, the least person they care about is... Meredith Kercher"...


She is not the 'least person', nor do you care for her except you want to pressure the Kerchers into not seeking answers. Well, we do care about her, and no matter how the ruling goes, we still want answers, not just for the case, but your behavior.
-------------

Rhea said:

"I think in a bizarre way they do care about her, she is the messias of their grotesque cult (I'm sure Meredith would have been dismayed by this). What is always disturbing is when they are discribing a perfect world, they imagine a world where they wouldn't need any forum-rules to talk about the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher'. Several times they've said that."


So you not only know our motivation, you know how she would feel, even though she's dead? She'd be dismayed by our fighting for justice for the victim and her family? The rest is whining because so many of you have been banned for not following forum rules. It is your behaviour that has been grotesque, yet you think we would welcome that sort of 'talk'?

"Why on earth would Meredith still be murdered in a perfect world? What's the confused, bizarre mindset behind this?"

It is not a perfect world. Good people get murdered every day, justice is not served, the guilty get rewarded. The 'confused, bizarre mindset' is that of those who can't understand why people are offended by that.

"It's a very bizarre, grotesque cult, and it's sad for the memory of Meredith Kercher the way she is monopolized by them."

Funny how some are so self-unaware they don't realize how most people might not appreciate special pleading by accused murderers and their fans. No one's stopped you from setting up fake memorial shrines for Meredith, but you are being called out for not realizing how insulting this might be to her family. Your actions have been truly shameful.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
So he can't be too happy when the SC now says:
Quote:
the lawyers of the American woman failed to indicate, within the writings, those statements that allegedly violated privacy laws and Information Code laws.

I know it is all rather minor compared to the murder case, and the acquittal was probably mostly due to the work of Bongiorno (and not so much AK's lawyers) but at least it shows that the SC doesn't just rubber stamp anything when AK's name is on it.


The Knox family haven't put up anything resembling a fight when it comes to the media accusations against their family. They've made a lot of noise/threats and so have the FOA but so far, its a load of piss and wind. If I had £1 for every time the FOA have threatened to sue .net, .org, TJMK and a multitude of others, I'd be a very wealthy woman and one which is probably worth suing. It leads me to the conclusion that a. they can't be bothered and therefore the accusations can't be that upsetting OR b. there is truth in the accusations and they don't have a cat in hell's chance in court OR c. they can't afford it (but what about the $3m book advance, lol!)

I do know that if anyone wrote this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... r-men.html

...about me and my mum, I would have applied to be at Levenson as a witness to press intrusion as well as getting Max Clifford and Carter Ruck involved. Not a single thing has been filed against the Daily Mail in the UK, not even a letter to ask them to correct the article as the Mail would be bound to print it in the event of a correction. So truth or apathy? Either way, the saying "put up or shut up" seems appropriate and as they, including the FOA, can't "put up"....

Top work at the SC re: Knox's defamation payout. Considering what she has said about people and the consequences those people have suffered, it would be a mockery of the legal system if the magazine paid out before Knox pays everyone she has defamed (has Patrick ever received his 8,000E?). Hopefully this is a sign of things to come as the SC wouldn't be sending this back to trial unless there was a case or indeed, if they thought any judgement was unenforcable as Knox is in America and the Italians under no obligation to pay someone in another country.
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Note to IIP, or IIA or FMK: If the Kerchers should, at any point in time in the future, request that we stop posting, I would immediately honor that request. Until such time, I do not, repeat, do not, give a rat's ass what any of you think of my posts, or your opinion of my motives.


^^^^THIS^^^^
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

maybe somebody can do "120 myths about the 40 myths"
not even going to start breaking them down myself but .. rightaway:

"groundreport"

Amanda had a hickey on her neck. The police knew that at the time.

why would they photograph a "hickey"

John Follain alleges in his guilt-leaning book that it was more:

“Laura noticed that Amanda had a long vertical red scratch in the middle of her throat. Laura was certain that Amanda didn’t have that scratch on the day Meredith died – the last day Laura had seen Amanda. Questioned by Napoleoni, Laura said, ‘I absolutely rule out that it could have been a love bite or an injury other than a scratch.’

long. vertical. re. photograph. not a hickey. deep. a scratch. photographed healed one week later and still noticeable as a scratch
knox had tried to cover it up. people were aware of it .. many people commented on it

it was a scratch inflicted by meredith kercher in warding knox off as she struggled with the knife wielding knox, who was supported by the knife wielding sollecito, for her life.

It would have been impossible for Amanda and Raffaele to have been involved in a violent murder in a small room without sustaining even a scratch, yet they were both examined after they were arrested and nothing was found.


police evidence photograph of the scratch. only of amanda knox neck - nothing else. photograph submitted as evidence.

This absence of evidence has not prevented myths being propagated and smears appearing.

white is black. up is down. a gouge that appeared suddenly on the neck of knox the morning after the murder in an improbable position for such, is a "hickey"

There were smears and implications but no evidence and no photographs.

photographed one week later



photographed the morning after

Image


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Anything goes in Italy

Costa Concordia captain Francesco Schettino sues to get job back

Only one week before his trial for manslaughter and abandoning his ship is to begin, the captain of the Costa Concordia, Francesco Schettino, has launched a lawsuit. His lawyer said Schettino is suing for wrongful dismissal and wants his job back.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334614#ixzz29Ni8BgBv
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

looking at that second photograph again - the scratch is foreshortened. Photographed concavely

that scratch is over an inch long
Top Profile 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

That is no hickey or certainly like none I have ever seen. Unless Sollecito has some sort of uniquely talented lips that can draw a perfectly straight line that looks strangely like a finger nail scratch? Hey don't rule it out ;)

The Wikipedia page for hickey has a picture of one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickey For the sheltered amongst us, lovebites/hickeys/whatever look like massive bruises. Like someone punched you in the neck, or sometimes like a million tiny needles all pricked you in a very small neck space at the same time. They do not and never will look like a fingernail scratch no matter how many times you repeat it and hope it is true.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Anything goes in Italy

Costa Concordia captain Francesco Schettino sues to get job back

Only one week before his trial for manslaughter and abandoning his ship is to begin, the captain of the Costa Concordia, Francesco Schettino, has launched a lawsuit. His lawyer said Schettino is suing for wrongful dismissal and wants his job back.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334614#ixzz29Ni8BgBv


Preliminary hearings for the Concordia trial started today http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... court.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I'd like to demonstrate to Nigel Scott how easy it is to dispel a myth.

Nigel says,
Quote:
It would have been impossible for Amanda and Raffaele to have been involved in a violent murder in a small room without sustaining even a scratch, yet they were both examined after they were arrested and nothing was found


No, it would not have been impossible.

See. YOUR myth dispelled, Nigel.
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 Oct 15, 2012 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
looking at that second photograph again - the scratch is foreshortened. Photographed concavely

that scratch is over an inch long


I think it was Ed Mellas or Curt Knox who first explained it way as a hickey. This, combined with Edda's recollection of the early morning phone call led me to realize how they MUST have known something, but were lying to save Amanda. It is they who prolonged the Kerchers agony, and not their lawyer, Francesco Maresca.

And as for the most blockheaded argument ever made, it would be it must have been Rudy Guede that stole Filomena's cosmetic case. Me, I thought Amanda used it to cover up the scrape, and someof it must have rubbed off to reveal part of it in that iconic photo.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Check out the new post on TJMK - Professor Snape's first-hand impressions of Sollecito - and read his/her notes taken at the book presentation event in UW's Kane Hall (25 Sep):

TJMK

:)
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
Check out the new post on TJMK - Professor Snape's first-hand impressions of Sollecito - and read his/her notes taken at the book presentation event in UW's Kane Hall (25 Sep):

TJMK

:)

Thanks. Great read and love his sense of humor. Seems like no strangers were allowed, which makes me wonder yet again why this book was even written. It is clearly not the sales so maybe just for the reason to have a book so he can refer to it and hopes to be left alone. Something like, I have now written a book that explains 'everything' so don't ask me anything anymore :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Happy Birthday, DG FRED! hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I just saw that you can already pre-order a copy from Amanda Knox's book on amazon.de, but not amazon.com:

Amanda Knox Memoir

According to Amazon the book has 384 pages and is expected to ship in May 2013.

I wonder what the cover is going to look like. Amanda Knox smiling for the cameras? Amanda Knox kissing Raffaele Sollecito in front of the cottage while the police was examining the house? Or maybe Amanda Knox singing in court?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I hope it is a pic of the 'Love' T-shirt in the courtroom.

THANKS E! It was a good 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: Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:31 pm   Post subject: WHY DIDN'T KNOX APOLOGIZE TO LUMUMBA?   

From The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... story.html Barbie Natzeau reporting from the court June 12, 2009.

First, she fielded questions from Carlo Pacelli, attorney for Patrick Lumumba, the Congolese man Knox accused of murdering Kercher during an interrogation shortly after the murder. Lumumba, who spent two weeks in prison because of Knox’s accusation, is a civil plaintiff seeking an undisclosed amount from Knox for defamation of character. In addition, authorities filed criminal charges against Knox for falsely accusing him.

“The declarations were taken against my will. They called me a stupid liar. They said I would go to prison for protecting someone.”

“Did you ever apologize to Patrick?” Pacelli asked. [i]“No,” said Knox, passing up what seemed like a good opportunity to make the apology in front of the court.

“Did you ever offer compensation to Patrick?”asked Pacelli. “Who, me?” she laughed. “No.”


She (and her friends) doesn't realize how unsympathetic this and all the other exhibited behaviors makes her. A best seller this does not make. The questions that will be raised when she tries to promote her book (whether she is acquitted or not) will come back to haunt her.

It really would have been in her best interests to just, like Casey Anthony, fade away into obscurity.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bill #3 'There was no transportation of the knife by any one that night". How about that afternoon when RS came over to cook?. Has this been discussed before that the cooking knife may have been brought to the cottage that day or before for R to use to show off his culinary skills? This seems like a very reasonable scenario considering his knife prick tale. And Amanda's fish blood observation, plus her worry over his knife. So the knife was perhaps just returned to his apartment after the murder.
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 Oct 16, 2012 5:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

malvern wrote:
Bill #3 'There was no transportation of the knife by any one that night". How about that afternoon when RS came over to cook?. Has this been discussed before that the cooking knife may have been brought to the cottage that day or before for R to use to show off his culinary skills? This seems like a very reasonable scenario considering his knife prick tale. And Amanda's fish blood observation, plus her worry over his knife. So the knife was perhaps just returned to his apartment after the murder.


Not sure it's ever been discussed before, malvern. My own opinion, is that taken as is, in a single context, a young man using 'it to show off his culinary skills', sure it's possible, but not probable. Nothing special about the knife, that he couldn't have made do with the knives that came with the cottage. We also have no witnesses to the fact he ever cooked there, except for his and Amanda's word. No, it appears to be an attempt to explain how the knife got there, because as we all know, it is Meredith's DNA on the knife.

Now, as we all know, Judge Hellmann says the knife was not transported there. That's something the SC will or will not consider, and a further appeals court will rule on that.

Me, I'm going to consider why the knife was transported there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Since Amanda wouldn't just carry the knife for protectionand the cooking was doubtful, the prank or worse had to be premeditated . I guess I was just trying to consider a scenario that wasn't so planned and just got out of control. They must have worn balaclavas on their faces. Maybe the black wool source?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

There are some scenarios where one can speculate about the knife. What the evidence indicates is that the couple, Guede, Meredith and the knife all came into contact and Meredith's money is missing. One scenario might be that a couple, with time on their hands, decides to buy some additional drugs for the free evening. Not knowing exactly from whom and where the purchase will take place, the knife is taken along for protection. Guede is met, invited back to the cottage for payment with Meredith's money, Meredith comes home and catches them out.
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 Oct 16, 2012 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

It was indeed premeditated, to what extent we do not know. But yes, the rent money plays a significant part in the whole case as to motive, and the likely suspect is the person that knew the money would be there. That Kokomani was there is also a significant part of the puzzle, and I for one do not believe it was happenstance.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I also believe that there was premeditation of something. I personally have never seen any transcripts of the statements made by Knox or Sollecito during the week of the murder. Did the police ask Knox if she was aware of Meredith's plan to make an early evening of it with her girlfriends? I have always wondered if they knew in advance to expect Meredith's early arrival. This is one important fact in determining premeditation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Any questions regarding time would have been answered with the 'I don't know' or 'joints make me forget'... expecting a truthful answer would be like reaching for the moon.
No way they would have mentioned anything about knowing what time Meredith would be home and with who.

IMO they probably had a good idea of what Meredith's plans were before she left that day.
Add on to that the knowledge of her staying out extra late the night before, and maybe plans of study.

But... maybe Meredith embarrassed her further in front of RS. She could have mentioned anything from working at Patrick's club, AK's cleaning habits, bothering Meredith the night before, ignoring her then or from doing so the previous night, his comment about Meredith's jeans, etc. That might have started her mind working in overdrive for some form of retaliation.
The text from Patrick that she was didn't need to come into work might have been the final straw... her thinking she was being basically fired (blaming Meredith again) to add to the pile of stress while probably high as a kite. Probably saw RG about that time, plan escalated. Might have started drinking/smoking/planning further right then. The start.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:19 am   Post subject: Re: WHY DIDN'T KNOX APOLOGIZE TO LUMUMBA?   

Ergon wrote:
--- snip ---

It really would have been in her best interests to just, like Casey Anthony, fade away into obscurity.

--- snap ---


I believe Amanda Knox thinks herself safe in the US, even if she should be ultimately convicted in Italy. To publish a book was probably another great idea from her parents to earn some money before the tide turns. It was never of their concern to be sympathetic. Just think about how long it took them to extend their condolences to the Kerchers - if after so many years you can call it that! Amanda Knox and her family have never distanced themselves from the trolls who vilify Meredith Kercher and her family in "support" of Amanda Knox. After having been involved so heavily over the years in an internet and media campaign, they cannot claim ignorance about the comments that have been written about the Kerchers.

The first time I saw the Knox/Mellas family was during an interview in Perugia, they all wore t-shirts with messages in support of Amanda Knox. They mostly talked about how the media had vilified their daughter, based on information Amanda Knox had published on social network sites. My first impression of the Knox/Mellas family was that they were stupid. They have done nothing since 2007 to make me change my mind. The book is just another sign how little they care (or know) about right and wrong. They don't have a spark of decency.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
Check out the new post on TJMK - Professor Snape's first-hand impressions of Sollecito - and read his/her notes taken at the book presentation event in UW's Kane Hall (25 Sep):

TJMK

:)


Fantastic article from Professor Snape. Very interesting and funny to read.

Don't you love it how the FOA crowd bullies people unknown to them personally and who dare to attend Raffaele Sollecito's book presentation. If they suspect everyone they cannot personally identify, it is another clue that the FOA is a small and manageable little crowd.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I seem to remember a sign-up listed up-thread, showing the names of people who planned to attend. Bruce's wife was on the list, I think. Anyone know if these people were no-shows?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Alas, I suspect it's true. Chivalry is dead. We have been reading over the last few months of the Groupies' growing paranoia concerning the safety of the lovebirds. Secret meetings, decret de-coder rings, trips to the woods, all, I suppose, in an attempt to camouflage upcoming events, in order to protect said couple's safety. Even have armed police at the ready.

And then, and then, oh my gosh, they send their women-folk into the crowd, to sniff out strangers with possible hi-jinx in mind. I wonder, were the women-folk packin'?
Looks to me like the White Knights are only concerned for their damsels if they are young and pretty. hbc)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Marijuana Tale

RS's book
Quote:
I knew I had nothing to do with Meredith's murder, but I was furious with myself for having such a foggy memory and I knew it was in part because of the joint I'd smoked on the afternoon of November 1.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/se ... nox-memoir

AK's trial testimony June 12
Quote:
AK: Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don't look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And...he...umm...well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So, umm...

LG: Yes. So you talked a bit. Then what did you do?

AK: Then we smoked a joint together. What we did is, we said all right, let's find some rags, but he didn't have a "mop" [in English] how do you say "mop"? [The interpreter translates "lo spazzolone", the lawyer "il mocio"] he didn't have one, and I said don't worry, I have one at home, I'll bring it tomorrow, the leak is in the kitchen, it wasn't like it smelled bad or anything, we could just forget about it for the night, and then think about it tomorrow. So, we went into his room, and I think I, yes, I lay down on his bed, and he went to the desk, and while he was there he rolled the joint, and then we smoked it together.

AK's trial testimony June 13
Quote:
AK: Sometimes we smoked a joint.

FM: On Nov 1, you testified that you smoked a joint, in the afternoon.

AK: Afternoon-evening, yes.

FM: Afternoon or evening?

AK: Evening. Yes.

Afternoon, evening, afternoon-evening. Her most detailed story is about having dinner at about 10pm, washing dishes, mopping with rags, then go to room, lay on bed and smoke joint. How is after 10pm even close to afternoon, or afternoon-evening?

Hard to say when they actually smoked the joint but my best guess is the late afternoon (RS's version), and AK completely messes up her fake dinner story by saying they smoked after dinner. Then she tries to downplay the mistake by pretending after 10pm is the afternoon-evening.

ETA: IIRC the Polish student testified that a laughing AK was on the intercom when she stopped by the 2nd time at about 8:40pm. This could mean that they just smoked before. So RS moves it to the afternoon to explain for his evening of confusion, and AK messed up by confessing that it was after dinner which would perfectly fit with the 8:42pm phone call of RS with his father. It is difficult to get things straight if you are both lying :)
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I don't believe there was just 'one'. In addition to something else either mind altering or psychotic already there in their brains.
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 Oct 18, 2012 2:34 pm   Post subject: THE UW BOOK SIGNING EVENT   

Some thoughts on the "Professor Snape" piece on TJMK. As soon as the picture of Meredith went up during the interview I had a feeling it wasn't part of the presentation; also wondered if someone in the crowd taking pictures was from PMF.ORG. I mentioned a while back to warn that the Innocentsi site had already posted Dr. Randy Jackson, or "Fly By Night", .ORG's co-admin, school directory listing and wondering whether he was an actual professor or not.

Then they published his directory listing AGAIN on the open Amanda Knox thread, (pg 191) along with speculation he was "only the AV guy". This after the UW debacle, so it looked like they suspected him of having put someone up to sabotage the event.

Sure enough, Bruce Fischer posts Kathleen Jackson, Randy jackson's wife's, picture as "Professor Snape", and Kay Pea and co. are implying that Dr. Jackson was responsible for "hacking into the school computer" and a complaint's been filed. Calls for firing have ensued. (Pages 17-18 on the closed "Today Over At TJMK" thread)

This is all ridikulus, but since it doesn't involve this site, I don't need to comment further, except that the Innocentsi need to look at their own actions too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
I don't believe there was just 'one'. In addition to something else either mind altering or psychotic already there in their brains.

He claims that the marijuana caused his memory loss so the more the better. If he had smoked 3 he would have said so IMO. He does mention that drug-alcohol cocktail thing though, and they certainly wouldn't say if they had taken something like that. On the other hand from what I read from the book so far, this guy does not need any drugs to do something crazy.
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I don't believe there was just 'one'. In addition to something else either mind altering or psychotic already there in their brains.

He claims that the marijuana caused his memory loss so the more the better. If he had smoked 3 he would have said so IMO. He does mention that drug-alcohol cocktail thing though, and they certainly wouldn't say if they had taken something like that. On the other hand from what I read from the book so far, this guy does not need any drugs to do something crazy.



Haha max. If one makes you forget... would you remember the rest or wake up and wonder where all your reefer went???

sp)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Consider me uninformed on the subject of marijuana. I have a question. How is marijuana purchased?
Do you buy enough for one smoke at a time? I've seen stories on the television where marijuana is found in
plastic bags. Is there enough for two or three or five joints?

The reason I ask is simple. I would assume that, if the marijuana was purchased in an amount that could be divided into more than one joint, then the amnesia-effect would be the same for each joint smoked, would it not? Would this effect be noted each time a joint was taken from this bag? Wouldn't this same stupor have occurred on other evenings? And wouldn't there be more people in Perugia who would have noted this odd amnesia effect?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Well most likely they were casual users for the most part. Likely decent grass could be bought by the ounce/half-ounce/ or quarter ounces... or even smaller amounts. Enough for many joints.

Your assumtion is right... they probably had way more than enough for one joint, if not something added to them on top of that. Still, the amnesia-effect is a made up evasion by the deadly duo.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
Well most likely they were casual users for the most part. Likely decent grass could be bought by the ounce/half-ounce/ or quarter ounces... or even smaller amounts. Enough for many joints.

Your assumtion is right... they probably had way more than enough for one joint, if not something added to them on top of that. Still, the amnesia-effect is a made up evasion by the deadly duo.


I would have to draw the conclusion that they were lying based on this scenario. Since I have no first-hand experience on the effect of marijuana, I have had to rely on my readings to determine what the effects would be. Most certainly, the opinion from those familiar with the effects is that amnesia does not occur after smoking marijuana itself. Given that this has been explained countless times, I would assume that this is correct. However, if I would try to place some credence in their explanation of dual amnesia, I must assume that the purchase came to them with something added, or they added it themselves. Since I have seen no other reported cases of amnesia in Perugia for the Week of Nov 1, 2007, and they themselves do not admit to any other occasions of marijuana-induced amnesia, in order for me to accept their story as true, I would have to conclude that the amnesia was induced from one solitary joint.
In one, solitary purchase. There is no report of a 'bad batch' circulating the streets.
Using this logic, I can only conclude that they are lying about the amnesia, or they themselves added something.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

If one says the joint was smoked in the afternoon, and the other says it was after 10pm then we already know that they are lying. The amnesia thing is fake but the drug-alcohol cocktail story is peculiar since that is more likely to cause a foggy memory. Either way, I am sure AK will 'fix' these discrepancies in her book with more 'i was confused' and 'don't remembers'.


Last edited by max on Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Some wonderful news :)

Perugia dedicates scholarship to Meredith Kercher
http://www.gazzettadelsud.it/news/engli ... rcher.html

Quote:
Murdered student honored by city where she lived and studied
Perugia dedicates scholarship to Meredith Kercher

(ANSA) - Perugia, October 18 - The city of Perugia and its university have instituted a scholarship fund in honor of Meredith Kercher, the British student murdered in her home in the Umbrian city where she was studying in 2007. Kercher, 21, was found semi-naked and with her throat slit in the house she shared in Perugia with a Seattle-born student, Amanda Knox, and two Italian women. Knox and her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were acquitted of the 2007 murder at an appeals trial in 2010. "The city wishes to honor Meredith, whose image is now inextricably linked to Perugia," said Perugia Mayor Wladimiro Boccali.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

off topic -- Italy and fringe culture (comment)

"I think the people went to hear him play trumpet, not 2-5-1's if you know what i mean. He went to Milan where people listened to jazz in the 60's like Americans listen to the top 40's today. That was their pop music and I'm sure that most of the people there were not musicians or even knew what the changes to the songs were. I think people don't listen to jazz nowadays because jazz has become a fringe culture and when it gets put on tv or the radio its more of a stereotype than what it really is"

Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Regarding the amnesia issue I would like to add that the more time passed, the clearer their memories became, adapting their stories as the evidence against them was revealed. People's memories fade over the time, not the other way around.

None of them suffered from marijuana induced amnesia. It was a self-serving lie to protect themselves.

One reviewer on Amazon wrote the following about O.J. Simpson's book "If I did it":

Quote:
He claims to have been blacked out or amnesiac about the actual murder. Some people have ridiculed this, but according to Connie Fletcher's WHAT COPS KNOW, it's a normal reaction for an amateur murderer, who is generally traumatized be what he has done. In other words, the blackout story makes the notion that he killed them MORE, not less, convincing.


The same could apply to Knox and Sollecito. I think it is possible they consumed drugs that made them less inhibited, but the fact that they transported two knives to the cottage always makes me remember that they must have been clear-headed enough to prepare for an attack against Meredith Kercher.

The email and comments made by Amanda Knox after the murder are also telling. There was underlying anger over petty arguments. Too late to deny. All things considered and given the amount of planning involved and the fact that Amanda Knox lashed out against Meredith Kercher after her death, they were lucid enough to know what they were doing. No drug-induced amnesia, only shock maybe.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
Some wonderful news :)

Perugia dedicates scholarship to Meredith Kercher
http://www.gazzettadelsud.it/news/engli ... rcher.html


That is indeed wonderful news; thanks max. :)

In case anyone is curious about what an autographed copy of Sollecito's book looks like, here is the title page of Honor Bound signed by the "author."

Attachment:
Honor bound signed by Sollecito 23 Sep 2012.jpg


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
Some wonderful news :)

Perugia dedicates scholarship to Meredith Kercher
http://www.gazzettadelsud.it/news/engli ... rcher.html

Quote:
Murdered student honored by city where she lived and studied
Perugia dedicates scholarship to Meredith Kercher

(ANSA) - Perugia, October 18 - The city of Perugia and its university have instituted a scholarship fund in honor of Meredith Kercher, the British student murdered in her home in the Umbrian city where she was studying in 2007. Kercher, 21, was found semi-naked and with her throat slit in the house she shared in Perugia with a Seattle-born student, Amanda Knox, and two Italian women. Knox and her Italian ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were acquitted of the 2007 murder at an appeals trial in 2010. "The city wishes to honor Meredith, whose image is now inextricably linked to Perugia," said Perugia Mayor Wladimiro Boccali.


Thank you for the link max. The Perugians are obviously very warm and welcoming people. Dedicating a scholarship to Meredith Kercher is a very nice gesture.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
Regarding the amnesia issue I would like to add that the more time passed, the clearer their memories became, adapting their stories as the evidence against them was revealed. People's memories fade over the time, not the other way around.

None of them suffered from marijuana induced amnesia. It was a self-serving lie to protect themselves.

One reviewer on Amazon wrote the following about O.J. Simpson's book "If I did it":

Quote:
He claims to have been blacked out or amnesiac about the actual murder. Some people have ridiculed this, but according to Connie Fletcher's WHAT COPS KNOW, it's a normal reaction for an amateur murderer, who is generally traumatized be what he has done. In other words, the blackout story makes the notion that he killed them MORE, not less, convincing.


The same could apply to Knox and Sollecito. I think it is possible they consumed drugs that made them less inhibited, but the fact that they transported two knives to the cottage always makes me remember that they must have been clear-headed enough to prepare for an attack against Meredith Kercher.

The email and comments made by Amanda Knox after the murder are also telling. There was underlying anger over petty arguments. Too late to deny. All things considered and given the amount of planning involved and the fact that Amanda Knox lashed out against Meredith Kercher after her death, they were lucid enough to know what they were doing. No drug-induced amnesia, only shock maybe.


Yes, Nell. This is it, exactly. Upthread, I posted my rather simplistic explanation for reaching the conclusions that I did concerning their "amnesia". It was not media spin or demonization or vilification of the lovebirds that caused me to latch onto the fact that both alibis were founded on a lie.

One does not need a degree in Pharmacology to explain the holes in their story. All it takes is a bit of logic and common sense. Contrary to the Groupies' opinion that this is some sort of confirmation bias, I applied this logic to any two innocent people. Their story does not compute in terms of truth.

And, Nell, I believe you are also correct when you state that their memories should not have improved over time. I have seen and read stories of people suffering from alcoholic black-outs, and horror stories of people being slipped GHB, the date-rape drug. I personally cannot recall any of those stories ending with the person being able to better recall all the minute details of an evening years after the fact. While it may be possible for a person to have flashbacks of a particular evening, what would the odds be for TWO people to have flashbacks of the same events?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nick Squires is reporting on the scholarship in honor of Meredith Kercher:

Meredith Kercher scholarship set up at Perugia University
By Nick Squires
October 19, 2012

A scholarship has been set up to honour Meredith Kercher in Perugia, the hilltop town where she was murdered nearly five years ago.

The scholarship will be available to British students who want to study at Perugia's University for Foreigners, which is well known for its Italian language and art courses.

Candidates for the scholarship will be chosen by the Italian embassy in London.

The announcement of the scholarship comes ahead of the fifth anniversary of Miss Kercher's murder, which happened on Nov 1, 2007.

"The city wants to honour Meredith, whose memory is now inextricably linked with Perugia, so it is right to have a scholarship in her name," said Wladimiro Boccali, the mayor.


THE TELEGRAPH
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I just got Sollecito's book from the library. Will post my impressions later :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
--- snip ---

And, Nell, I believe you are also correct when you state that their memories should not have improved over time. I have seen and read stories of people suffering from alcoholic black-outs, and horror stories of people being slipped GHB, the date-rape drug. I personally cannot recall any of those stories ending with the person being able to better recall all the minute details of an evening years after the fact. While it may be possible for a person to have flashbacks of a particular evening, what would the odds be for TWO people to have flashbacks of the same events?

--- snap ---


Exactly. Transient amnesia is not as common as some accused murderers trying to get out of a tight spot might think.

The whole story that they had foggy memory because of one joint is made up to spare them more questioning. Before Raffaele Sollecito decided his memory was too foggy, he told police Amanda had asked him to lie and that she had left his apartment around the time Meredith Kercher was murdered.

The sudden acquittal must have boosted their brain cells, because now both are able to remember every detail to the extent of being able to publish a book about the fateful night of the murder. In spite of it all, in 2009, during the first trial - almost two years after the murder -, their memory still hadn't recovered fully.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
I just got Sollecito's book from the library. Will post my impressions later :)


Lucky you. I wish they had it in my library, so I could read it. I won't spend my money on his book. I've read some excerpts on .org and apparently he shoots himself in both legs with only one bullet. It was mind boggling.

I am looking forward to read your opinion about his fairytale.
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 Oct 20, 2012 1:58 am   Post subject: Honor Bound book criticism   

Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
I just got Sollecito's book from the library. Will post my impressions later :)


Lucky you. I wish they had it in my library, so I could read it. I won't spend my money on his book. I've read some excerpts on .org and apparently he shoots himself in both legs with only one bullet. It was mind boggling.

I am looking forward to read your opinion about his fairytale.


I'm reading it now and, having skimmed through most of it at the book store previously am struck by how hard he tries to convince. The question is whom? I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a reader that knows a little about the case and is curious because of the TV coverage. Would the book convince a neutral person of his innocence? I just don't think so. There's this feeling which just comes up on every page, and it really smells like bullshit. I am convinced that most people can sense falsity. I ask why his TV appearances didn't help drive sales. Because people aren't dumb. They are so attuned to lies from politicians, media, 'experts' his very appearance, body language and speech patterns screamed not a person who's innocent, but just a person trying to convince you, to sell something.

Now I love books. I have fully 5000+ books at home and can read a book a day without a sweat. If this book were well written I'd still applaud it at least for the skill of the (ghost) writer. But it comes across as if it were dashed together, a linear progression that doesn't encourage you to think, it is workmanlike, does not draw the reader in, and he doesn't come across as sympathetic, just whiny. And here's one more marker. Even the reviews I've read were prosaic. If the reviewer, even those paid by the media that feed the machine, can't be stirred to say, wow! this is a great book about an obvious case of injustice, then chances are, the book is crap.

J'Accuse, it ain't.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Here's an interesting fact.

Jane Velez Mitchell is a published author. And she and Raffaele have the same agent. Her book is titled I Want.

"Sharlene Martin is the perfect literary agent. Sharlene offered me crucial guidance and encouragement, while simultaneously pushing my project aggressively to those who count. When revisions were requested, Sharlene guided me through the process and wouldn't rest until she saw the result we both wanted-a book sale. Also, she's just a lot of fun to hang out with."

--Jane Velez-Mitchell, IWant, Health Communications Inc., 2009

http://www.JaneVelez-Mitchell.com http://www.youtube.com/user/iWantTheBook

If this was posted before, I must have missed it. Small world.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
I just got Sollecito's book from the library. Will post my impressions later :)


Lucky you. I wish they had it in my library, so I could read it. I won't spend my money on his book. I've read some excerpts on .org and apparently he shoots himself in both legs with only one bullet. It was mind boggling.

I am looking forward to read your opinion about his fairytale.


I'm reading it now and, having skimmed through most of it at the book store previously am struck by how hard he tries to convince. The question is whom? I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a reader that knows a little about the case and is curious because of the TV coverage. Would the book convince a neutral person of his innocence? I just don't think so. There's this feeling which just comes up on every page, and it really smells like bullshit. I am convinced that most people can sense falsity. I ask why his TV appearances didn't help drive sales. Because people aren't dumb. They are so attuned to lies from politicians, media, 'experts' his very appearance, body language and speech patterns screamed not a person who's innocent, but just a person trying to convince you, to sell something.

Now I love books. I have fully 5000+ books at home and can read a book a day without a sweat. If this book were well written I'd still applaud it at least for the skill of the (ghost) writer. But it comes across as if it were dashed together, a linear progression that doesn't encourage you to think, it is workmanlike, does not draw the reader in, and he doesn't come across as sympathetic, just whiny. And here's one more marker. Even the reviews I've read were prosaic. If the reviewer, even those paid by the media that feed the machine, can't be stirred to say, wow! this is a great book about an obvious case of injustice, then chances are, the book is crap.

J'Accuse, it ain't.


Those who are convinced of Raffaele Sollecito's guilt will only read the book to compare it to his former statements to police and his diary and those who maintain he is innocent only buy it to show their support. The readers you describe, those who sit on a fence, will probably find him phony - like everyone else who has started gathering information about the case.

I must say it is surprising how Knox and Sollecito chose to draw more attention to the case and therefore to their lies through the publication of a book. Not really clever given the evidence that incriminates them and expecting the ruling of the Supreme 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: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Here's an interesting fact.

Jane Velez Mitchell is a published author. And she and Raffaele have the same agent. Her book is titled I Want.

"Sharlene Martin is the perfect literary agent. Sharlene offered me crucial guidance and encouragement, while simultaneously pushing my project aggressively to those who count. When revisions were requested, Sharlene guided me through the process and wouldn't rest until she saw the result we both wanted-a book sale. Also, she's just a lot of fun to hang out with."

--Jane Velez-Mitchell, IWant, Health Communications Inc., 2009

http://www.JaneVelez-Mitchell.com http://www.youtube.com/user/iWantTheBook

If this was posted before, I must have missed it. Small world.


No, I haven't seen this before, Napia5. Shows how incestuous the media world is, and how Raffaele managed to get on Jane Velez Mitchell's show. Then with TWO of her guests ff) ff) his book? Priceless.
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 Oct 20, 2012 4:39 pm   Post subject: NEXT, AMANDA KNOX'S BOOK   

Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
I just got Sollecito's book from the library. Will post my impressions later :)


Lucky you. I wish they had it in my library, so I could read it. I won't spend my money on his book. I've read some excerpts on .org and apparently he shoots himself in both legs with only one bullet. It was mind boggling.

I am looking forward to read your opinion about his fairytale.


I'm reading it now and, having skimmed through most of it at the book store previously am struck by how hard he tries to convince. The question is whom? I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a reader that knows a little about the case and is curious because of the TV coverage. Would the book convince a neutral person of his innocence? I just don't think so. There's this feeling which just comes up on every page, and it really smells like bullshit. I am convinced that most people can sense falsity. I ask why his TV appearances didn't help drive sales. Because people aren't dumb. They are so attuned to lies from politicians, media, 'experts' his very appearance, body language and speech patterns screamed not a person who's innocent, but just a person trying to convince you, to sell something.

Now I love books. I have fully 5000+ books at home and can read a book a day without a sweat. If this book were well written I'd still applaud it at least for the skill of the (ghost) writer. But it comes across as if it were dashed together, a linear progression that doesn't encourage you to think, it is workmanlike, does not draw the reader in, and he doesn't come across as sympathetic, just whiny. And here's one more marker. Even the reviews I've read were prosaic. If the reviewer, even those paid by the media that feed the machine, can't be stirred to say, wow! this is a great book about an obvious case of injustice, then chances are, the book is crap.

J'Accuse, it ain't.


Those who are convinced of Raffaele Sollecito's guilt will only read the book to compare it to his former statements to police and his diary and those who maintain he is innocent only buy it to show their support. The readers you describe, those who sit on a fence, will probably find him phony - like everyone else who has started gathering information about the case.

I must say it is surprising how Knox and Sollecito chose to draw more attention to the case and therefore to their lies through the publication of a book. Not really clever given the evidence that incriminates them and expecting the ruling of the Supreme Court.


So true, Nell. His dismal sales figures show how hard a sell it will be for Knox's upcoming. Who cares, aside from the very small group of her supporters? I doubt the publishers will ever recoup their advances.

I looked at the TV audiences on CNN and Katie Couric. They all looked bewildered, and just a little, put off wtf) When Amanda Knox shows up on television, you can bet her audience will be saying the same :)

From Knox's perspective, she did the right thing. Capitalized on her moment of fame and signed up a literary super agent immediately after returning to the U.S. Got a hefty advance from a company that thought it had a best seller on its hands. Kept out of the limelight and made no public appearances that would affect her case. Held back the book release date.

Raffaele should have done the same, but didn't. And in so doing, may have sunk both himself and the good ship Amanda :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:08 am   Post subject: Ted Simon   

I have followed the discussion on .org about the lawyer fees and legal costs for Knox and Sollecito. The number of one million dollar was thrown in by Edda Mellas and Curt Knox and has never changed in 5 years. I have always been suspicious of this information given the fact that it later emerged the family had their airfares and hotel bills covered by the different media networks in exchange for interviews.

Now brmull has written the following about Ted Simon on .org:

Quote:
Ted Simon was already a pro-Knox talking head before he joined Knox's defense. He's probably doing it for free for the time being.


The truth is that Theodore Simon said that the police had a very strong case against Amanda Knox and he only changed his tune after he was hired by the Melloxes to join their legal team. Then, the strong case all of a sudden became a house of cards.

I think it is important to point it out and it shows how persuasive money can be. These people don't defend Amanda Knox, because they are convinced of her innocence. They are just doing a job in exchange for money. Period. Theodore Simon's change of mind has been commented on and it was speculated that he was hired to keep silent.

If someone wants to know more about Ted Simon and his ethics, I recommend reading about him defending Ira Einhorn. My suggestion: Keep a bucket or paper bag handy. It is truly sickening. What Ted Simon does is searching for legal loopholes to grant criminals undeserved freedom and inflicting more pain on the poor relatives of the victim. His specialty is international law and extraditions - fighting them that is. This guy has no conscience. If the price is right, he's on your side.

Here you can read a transcript from Ted Simon's appearance on Larry King Live regarding Ira Einhorn.

An innocent person wouldn't hire someone like Ted Simon. He is the answer to your pleas when you have run out of options.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: NEXT, AMANDA KNOX'S BOOK   

Ergon wrote:
So true, Nell. His dismal sales figures show how hard a sell it will be for Knox's upcoming. Who cares, aside from the very small group of her supporters? I doubt the publishers will ever recoup their advances.

I looked at the TV audiences on CNN and Katie Couric. They all looked bewildered, and just a little, put off wtf) When Amanda Knox shows up on television, you can bet her audience will be saying the same :)

From Knox's perspective, she did the right thing. Capitalized on her moment of fame and signed up a literary super agent immediately after returning to the U.S. Got a hefty advance from a company that thought it had a best seller on its hands. Kept out of the limelight and made no public appearances that would affect her case. Held back the book release date.

Raffaele should have done the same, but didn't. And in so doing, may have sunk both himself and the good ship Amanda :)


I believe it is somewhat difficult to predict book sales for Amanda Knox's book based on the sales for Sollecito's book, because people in the US will easier identify with Amanda Knox, "one of their own" to quote from Judge Michael Heavey, but there is far less interest in Raffaele Sollecito who is only a boring adjunct of Knox. She will sell more books than him. How many more is difficult to say, but I agree that both books are failures from a business point of view.

On the other hand, if she had published her book before his, it would have been easy to predict his sales numbers based on hers. The formula is Knox > Sollecito.

I know you are an avid reader Ergon and so am I. Have you ever seen a book that received so many reviews in such a short time after publication? I mean, a book that basically no one cares about? Apparently close to a third of all people who purchased the book felt compelled to write a positive review. Highly suspicious and only a very naive person would think these are genuine reviews. Other authors who sell thousands of copies don't receive that much attention from reviewers, despite their books being well received. The number of reviews received for Sollecito's book is disproportionally high compared to his sale figures.
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 Oct 21, 2012 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: Ted Simon   

Nell wrote:
I have followed the discussion on .org about the lawyer fees and legal costs for Knox and Sollecito. The number of one million dollar was thrown in by Edda Mellas and Curt Knox and has never changed in 5 years. I have always been suspicious of this information given the fact that it later emerged the family had their airfares and hotel bills covered by the different media networks in exchange for interviews.

Now brmull has written the following about Ted Simon on .org:

Quote:
Ted Simon was already a pro-Knox talking head before he joined Knox's defense. He's probably doing it for free for the time being.


The truth is that Theodore Simon said that the police had a very strong case against Amanda Knox and he only changed his tune after he was hired by the Melloxes to join their legal team. Then, the strong case all of a sudden became a house of cards.

I think it is important to point it out and it shows how persuasive money can be. These people don't defend Amanda Knox, because they are convinced of her innocence. They are just doing a job in exchange for money. Period. Theodore Simon's change of mind has been commented on and it was speculated that he was hired to keep silent.

If someone wants to know more about Ted Simon and his ethics, I recommend reading about him defending Ira Einhorn. My suggestion: Keep a bucket or paper bag handy. It is truly sickening. What Ted Simon does is searching for legal loopholes to grant criminals undeserved freedom and inflicting more pain on the poor relatives of the victim. His specialty is international law and extraditions - fighting them that is. This guy has no conscience. If the price is right, he's on your side.

Here you can read a transcript from Ted Simon's appearance on Larry King Live regarding Ira Einhorn.

An innocent person wouldn't hire someone like Ted Simon. He is the answer to your pleas when you have run out of options.


Speaking of Ted Simon, I always thought he was brought on as insurance. Here's the kicker regarding extradition which I haven't seen addressed on TJMK or PMF. Having followed the extradition fiasco concerning Roman Polanski (I think THAT little pervert should have been brought back to LA in leg irons) then it simply isn't enough to have the SC approve a retrial and then if eventually convicted that it will be a simple matter of sending Amanda Knox back to Italy. The Italian Minister of Justice must request extradition to its Foreign Ministry, who talks to the State Department here, who tells the Department of Justice. Knox can then appeal the decision (to extradite) in Federal Court, which may or may not agree seeing as how she already has been acquitted. Not according to Italian law, but US law specifically makes that exemption both in the double jeopardy clause and the specific extradition clause that allows for such exemption. In that case, Ted Simon will have been worth every penny he was paid (or not). And has Italy requested the extradition of the 23 CIA agents?

Honesty requires I bring that to your attention, and the question is whether she ever will face justice. I believe in a spiritual justice, and that if the SC orders a retrial, than that will be a moral victory worth much more than anything else. Those who want to wait till she goes back to jail may have to wait a long time. For me, it will be enough to know that it finally has been confirmed that she did murder Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: Ted Simon   

Ergon wrote:
--- snip ---

Speaking of Ted Simon, I always thought he was brought on as insurance. Here's the kicker regarding extradition which I haven't seen addressed on TJMK or PMF.

--- snap ---


It has been addressed on PMF and TJMK that he is an expert in fighting extraditions and it is believed that he was hired because of his knowledge how to fight extraditions, which is his expertise. But most probably he first appeared on the radar because of his statements made on national television, pointing out that the Italian police had a strong case against Amanda Knox and explaining to the public how incriminating her lies and false accusation of an innocent were. The reasons for hiring him were twofold.


Ergon wrote:
--- snip ---

I believe in a spiritual justice, and that if the SC orders a retrial, than that will be a moral victory worth much more than anything else. Those who want to wait till she goes back to jail may have to wait a long time. For me, it will be enough to know that it finally has been confirmed that she did murder Meredith Kercher.

--- snap ---


I agree with every word you say. I have no hope that Amanda Knox will face justice in Italy. I am not so sure about Raffaele Sollecito though. I wonder why he had a job interview in the US and he also indicated that he might seek permanent residence in the US. But he is Italian and if convicted, he would be extradited. So I infer his book might have been thought as a reminder to the American people that if Amanda escapes justice, so should he. I see his whiny book as an attempt to garner sympathy points in case the Supreme Court orders a retrial.

I hope for the Kerchers that the Italian courts come to the correct verdict which based on the evidence must be guilty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:02 am   Post subject: Ted Simon   

Re: Ted Simon's change of heart

Peter Quennell from TJMK mentioned Ted Simon in a few articles:

Meredith Dateline Documentary: New Standard For All Others? and American Lawyer Ted Simon Appointed To Help Out Italian Team On Appeal

Ted Simon before:



And after:


Ted Simon is a story teller. I wish he would have elaborated more about the transformation he believes it takes to commit a murder. Complete and utter nonsense.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Kermit has created an absolutely brilliant PowerPoint presentation which should be posted on TJMK later today. It highlights the numerous false claims of one of Amanda Knox's most high-profile and vociferous supporters. No prizes for guessing who it is. :D
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Machine wrote:
Kermit has created an absolutely brilliant PowerPoint presentation which should be posted on TJMK later today. It highlights the numerous false claims of one of Amanda Knox's most high-profile and vociferous supporters. No prizes for guessing who it is. :D


Thanks for the heads up, TM! Waiting impatiently for a chance to view Kermit's new PowerPoint. Who would that be: Judge Heavey, Anne Bremner, or Rocco Girlanda?

If anyone would like to re-read an old article about Ted Simon's "long-distance defense", here is the link:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/crime_and_punishment/131875863.html
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Kermit has created an absolutely brilliant PowerPoint presentation which should be posted on TJMK later today. It highlights the numerous false claims of one of Amanda Knox's most high-profile and vociferous supporters. No prizes for guessing who it is. :D


Thanks for the heads up, TM! Waiting impatiently for a chance to view Kermit's new PowerPoint. Who would that be: Judge Heavey, Anne Bremner, or Rocco Girlanda?

If anyone would like to re-read an old article about Ted Simon's "long-distance defense", here is the link:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/crime_and_punishment/131875863.html



From the article:

Quote:
Simon said he was also impressed by the fact that, after the whirlwind of events between her acquittal and arrival in Seattle, Knox wanted to first make a statement of thanks to those who had supported her and a statement of sympathy and condolences to the family of Meredith Kercher, the 21-year-old British student and roommate who Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, now 27, were wrongly convicted of killing in 2007.


Correct me if I am wrong, but if I am not mistaken, it was Ted Simon who included Meredith Kercher in his speech at the airport, not Amanda Knox.

I am also baffled that it would take Amanda Knox so many years to show sympathy to the Kerchers. We all know that neither her parents nor Amanda Knox showed any kind of sympathy to the Kerchers, actually, far from 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 Oct 21, 2012 8:33 pm   Post subject: Re: Ted Simon   

Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
--- snip ---

Speaking of Ted Simon, I always thought he was brought on as insurance. Here's the kicker regarding extradition which I haven't seen addressed on TJMK or PMF.

--- snap ---


It has been addressed on PMF and TJMK that he is an expert in fighting extraditions and it is believed that he was hired because of his knowledge how to fight extraditions, which is his expertise. But most probably he first appeared on the radar because of his statements made on national television, pointing out that the Italian police had a strong case against Amanda Knox and explaining to the public how incriminating her lies and false accusation of an innocent were. The reasons for hiring him were twofold.


Ergon wrote:
--- snip ---

I believe in a spiritual justice, and that if the SC orders a retrial, than that will be a moral victory worth much more than anything else. Those who want to wait till she goes back to jail may have to wait a long time. For me, it will be enough to know that it finally has been confirmed that she did murder Meredith Kercher.

--- snap ---


I agree with every word you say. I have no hope that Amanda Knox will face justice in Italy. I am not so sure about Raffaele Sollecito though. I wonder why he had a job interview in the US and he also indicated that he might seek permanent residence in the US. But he is Italian and if convicted, he would be extradited. So I infer his book might have been thought as a reminder to the American people that if Amanda escapes justice, so should he. I see his whiny book as an attempt to garner sympathy points in case the Supreme Court orders a retrial.

I hope for the Kerchers that the Italian courts come to the correct verdict which based on the evidence must be guilty.


My point being to inform the membership about the difficulties inherent in obtaining an actual extradition. It appeared to me, and if I missed it, apologies; that was not done.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Sorry Ergon,

I didn't get the sarcasm.

I should keep up, but I cannot, always manage.

All as I know is that Mignini is a good man

_________________
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: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Here is a link to the latest article on TJMK, including Kermit's new powerpoint as announced by The Machine earlier.

Thanks to Kermit for his great work.
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 Oct 21, 2012 9:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
Sorry Ergon,

I didn't get the sarcasm.

I should keep up, but I cannot, always manage.

All as I know is that Mignini is a good man


That's my fault really, Zorba, for being so bloody idiosyncratic. I updated Facebook recently, using my I Phone for the first time. So I wrote, "testing I Phone. How's You Phone?" and a long time friend had to ask what the hell I meant :)

I agree with you about Mignini. A good man, doing an impossible job, the best he can, coming up with the right decision.
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 Oct 21, 2012 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
Here is a link to the latest article on TJMK, including Kermit's new powerpoint as announced by The Machine earlier.

Thanks to Kermit for his great work.


Thanks x2, Kermit. This goes back to CPJ sponsor Doug Preston's involving the Committee to Protect Journalists in helping Frank Sfarzo and also inserting himself into the fight with prosecutor Mignini. Looking at his comments here http://www.cpj.org/blog/2011/04/cpj-res ... letter.php I can only wonder why any one would think Preston capable of honest debate.

What is apparent is DP's animus against Mignini is fueled by his friendship with Mario Spezi, who just was found guilty of defamation, just saying. Having his movie held up till Knox's status is resolved didn't help either. And don't the two just have a book about the case coming out next year? Ho hum.
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 Oct 21, 2012 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I also was wondering who Knox's 'most high profile and vociferous supporter' would be, when so many have disappeared. I mean, Anne Bremner, Donald Trump? In the end, Doug Preston supports himself and his own interests, and no one else's. And does such a piss-poor job of it too :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: Ted Simon   

Ergon wrote:
My point being to inform the membership about the difficulties inherent in obtaining an actual extradition. It appeared to me, and if I missed it, apologies; that was not done.


Hi Ergon,

From what I know, Mignini stressed during his closing arguments that the US would not extradite Amanda Knox in case she would be acquitted, even if the Supreme Court would later cancel Hellmann's verdict. Mignini's statements launched an online debate if Amanda Knox could be extradited or not.

There was a lively debate on the Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog that has been commented on this forum some time ago. I will post the link to the article again for those interested:

Amanda Knox and the U.S. - Italian Extradition Treaty by Ryan Scoville


Below I have copied a selection of comments that I believe added to the discussion of the legal arguments pro and contra an extradition:

Quote:
Stuart Ball on October 6, 2011 10:35 am

Has this issue been decided before? If acquittals can be reversed, what is the point of putting Article VI in the treaty? Is there a controlling citation or precedent?


Quote:
Ryan Scoville on October 7, 2011 10:31 am

Stuart, in response to your question, I’m not aware of precedent that decides this precise issue under the U.S.-Italian Extradition Treaty, but I think Article VI still retains meaning even if acquittals can be reversed. Under my reading, the role of the Article would be to preclude extradition simply where acquittal is the final result of the litigation process, including trial and appeal. Here, that process is not yet over, so it is hard to say that Article VI applies already. It certainly might apply, but only if the Italian supreme court upholds the intermediate appellate court’s decision to acquit.


Quote:
Stuart Ball on October 7, 2011 12:26 pm

Perhaps I have not expressed myself properly. I understand that she has not been acquitted under Italian Law. However, as I see the issue, the question is whether she has been acquitted within the meaning of Article VI. Under the plain language of the treaty, quite possibly. Remember, the US Supreme Court has proven that it is willing to disregard international law if it gets in the way of the rules of statutory construction.


Quote:
Mike W Schwartz on October 8, 2011 11:59 pm

Professor Scoville,

Amanda Knox’s parents are still schedule to go on trial in January for slander. Can they be extradited if convicted and are given a jail term?

Would the U.S. extradite them?

Thanks,

Mike

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/ ... 4-holiday/


Quote:
Ryan Scoville on October 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Mike, thanks for your question. I’m skeptical that slander would be an extraditable offense. To qualify as such, the act would have to be punishable by more than one year in prison under the laws of both the United States and Italy. Although I don’t know what the punishment would be under Italian law, I doubt that any U.S. jurisdiction has a law that punishes slander so severely. Assuming that is true, extradition would not be required under the treaty.


Quote:
Mark Myers on October 11, 2011 9:16 am

I’m not a lawyer but I think it may turn out that AK’s best argument for fighting extradition is an argument that she was denied due process/fair trial in her original conviction.

Her ‘confession’ was thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court but due to the concurrent civil trial being heard by the same jury, the confession was ‘back-doored’ into the criminal trial.

If something like that happened in the US courts it would clearly be considered a violation of the defendant’s rights.

So (in my non-expert opinion) there would be a Habeas Corpus question of sorts. Per our laws her right to a fair trial was compromised — and so how can the federal government physically apprehend her and thereby participate in the violation of her rights.


Quote:
Stuart Ball on October 14, 2011 1:10 pm

If Mark Myers argument were correct, no one would ever be extradited.
I still think her best argument against extradition would be Article VI. The article does not state “acquitted within the meaning of Italian law”; it only speaks of “an acquittal.”
There was a judicial hearing and a verdict of not guilty. The absence of a judgment is not relevant. Under US law, this generally constitutes an acquittal. Absent specific language or case law to the contrary, Article VI probably applies.


Quote:
Ryan Scoville on October 14, 2011 1:25 pm

Stuart, I appreciate your commentary on this post. I don’t think the text of Article VI rules out your interpretation, but I’m also skeptical that Article VI applies already in the Knox case because that interpretation would effectively discount the significance of each country’s appellate process by defining “acquitted” to refer to acquittal at any stage of the litigation, regardless of whether acquittal is the final judgment.


Quote:
Stuart Ball on October 26, 2011 8:21 am

Professor Scoville, you are absolutely right that my interpretation of Article VI would discount the nature of Italy’s appellate system. However, I would like to respectfully point out that does not necessarily mean that my interpretation of Article VI is invalid. One of the first things our founding fathers did when they established our constitution was create the Double Jeopardy clause because they saw it as being an essential guarantee against tyranny. Our founding fathers truly despised the European Law which allows a prosecutor to appeal a decision of not guilty. Respectfully, I believe that Article VI should be interpreted with that fact in mind.


Quote:
Stuart Ball on February 25, 2012 10:23 am

There is just one more issue I would like to discuss. If there is a lack of case law on the subject, it might indicate that the State Department has been dealing with the issue administratively. According to the treaty the State Department must certify that the defendant is extraditable before there can be an extradition hearing. If the State Dept. refuses to extradite there will be no habeas trial and no appeal and therefore no case law. I realize this is speculation but I think it’s possible that this issue will be dealt with by a polite letter to the Italian govt. saying “sorry, extradition request denied.”


Quote:
Stuart Ball on February 25, 2012 3:42 pm

Just to clarify, it seems somewhat odd that there would be no case law on the specific subject. The current extradition was signed in the early eighties and it seems strange that no one has tried to fight extradition under Title VI in all this time. Unless, of course, the State Dept. routinely refuses to process extradition requests when a Title VI argument can be made. I realize that I am being somewhat speculative with this post.


Quote:
Karl Popper on May 31, 2012 5:43 am

ARTICLE VI
Non Bis in Idem
Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or
pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for
which extradition is requested.
—————
I agree with Scoville’s article and response on this point. Stuart, this is the article and its meaning corresponds to the other wording, which makes your comment pleonastic. There is no double jeopardy in this case and certainly not the kind described in article VI … politicians – I agree with Jack – may not respect the treaty but this is another matter which courts may have to solve. If treaty is respected there is no reason to refuse extradition. In response to 2 previous questions from Jack: (a) Italy’s Supreme Cassazione Court can invalidate the appeal not only for procedural errors but also for inappropriate application of law. Cassazione can invalidate the appeal verdict for a faulty motivation as in Italy any verdict must be motivated in writing (by Constitution art.111). This is – in fact – the main reason of the current appeal to Cassazione by the general prosecutor of Perugia. Therefore, Cassazione will definitely analyse the evidence of the case (b) there is no chance Italy fails to request extradition for a common murder (in case of a final conviction). In case Cassazione invalidated the appeal sentence first degree verdict would be reinstated so a new arrest warrant would be issued for the defendants.


Quote:
Stuart Ball on June 2, 2012 1:27 pm

Just to be clear, I understand your argument. Everyone is considered technically innocent in Italy until the Italian Supreme Court confirms the conviction. Therefore, double jeopardy does not attach until Italy’s supreme judicial body confirms the conviction and/or acquittal. This system is consistent with the European Convention of Human Rights, which only prohibits prosecuting someone after a FINAL acquittal (emphasis added).
However, it should be noted that Title VI does not contain the word final, it only says acquittal.
Generally speaking, an acquittal in the USA is the event that occurs when the Jury decides (reaches a verdict) that there is insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty. Once this determination is made the defendant cannot be retried (placed in jeopardy) for the same offense, except under very rare circumstances which I will not go into here. This is obviously very different from the Italian system and terms such as convict and acquit really don’t translate very well. However, the USA’s position on double jeopardy is well known. Italian citizens certainly don’t need the protection of Article VI. If Article VI isn’t there to protect American citizens from multiple prosecutions, what is the intended purpose of Article VI? What meaning does it have and why did the USA bargain for it?
Unless someone can come find a binding case or precedent, I still believe that Article VI may very well prevent her from being extradited.


Quote:
Karl Popper on June 3, 2012 3:25 pm

I also understand your argument but Article VI was signed to avoid prosecuting a person for the same crime in 2 different countries. The defendants were never tried for this murder in the USA (the “requested party”) so the US cannot refuse extradition if we stick to the treaty. Politics is another matter; I agree with the conclusion of the writer of the article, Ryan Scoville: “if the United States were to decline an Italian request for extradition after reinstatement of the conviction and sentence, we would be doing so in contravention of international law.” Politics would cause breach of International law.
Regarding Jack and the Cassazione court, what “reportage” are we talking about? What does “narrow road” mean? The powers of Cassazione are well known. There is no doubt that the general prosecutor (PG) did appeal to Cassazione for faulty motivation – articulating on several points – and that the Court can invalidate the appeal for this reason which is substantial and has to do with evaluation of evidence from investigation to preliminary hearing, first and second degree. If the motivation is considered faulty the law was not followed and the appeal is cancelled. You can read the PG appeal document, as it is already available, and you can count on thousands of other Supreme court cases as precedents.

Finally, the Supreme Cassazione Court is the highest judicial body and does not “regurgitate” rulings; its sentences are irrevocable and must be accepted so your words are highly inappropriate. You are signalling a political prejudice on this case or the preference for a political solution, which is not the main object of this discussion. Should you be here arguing legal aspects?


I believe it is impossible for a complete layman to judge this complex legal situation, but I enjoyed reading through the different opinions. Of course someone like Ted Simon will look for a loophole that will make any extradition request for Amanda Knox fruitless.

In the Ira Einhorn case France refused to extradite him, because the U.S. had found him guilty and convicted to death in absentia after he had fled. In France this is not acceptable and to ensure his extradition, they wanted a guarantee that he would be given a new trial where he could properly defend himself. Despite a guarantee from the U.S. that he would be given a new trial if Ira Einhorn asked for it, Ted Simon now argued that the U.S. were in no position to grant his client a new trial, because he had already been convicted. He did everything possible to prevent that Ira Einhorn was granted a new trial and to convince France that this kind of guarantee was illegal, even though he had argued earlier that his client should not be extradited back to the United States because he would not be given a new trial in the U.S. It is perverse if you think about 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 Oct 21, 2012 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks for posting this, Nell. It seemed to me at the time of Hellmann's acquittal it was designed precisely to accomplish such a goal, to place Amanda Knox beyond the reach of Italian justice. Won't help Raffaele Sollecito, hence calls from his supporters to 'marry an American girl, settle down in the U.S'.

It was in that spirit I suggested Deanna Knox, though I understand Madison Paxton is also available? :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks for the post, Nell. And, lest anyone forget, Ted was ultimately unsuccessful in Ira's case.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of the Philadelphia District Attorney, Lynne Abraham, justice was finally served.
God, what a woman. I miss her almost-weekly appearances on the local news.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks to Tara at our neighbors for posting the full article of Monique Rivalland about her memories of Meredith. Otherwise you would need a subscription to the times to read the full article. Monique says one of the hardest things is that there is no explanation but I think even if all 3 gave an honest explanation it would still be impossible to understand. The mere fact that at least 2 of them held a knife against Meredith is something a sane person can not comprehend IMO.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/magazine/ ... 569039.ece

I remember this comment from her father.
Quote:
My daughter was a Leeds student with Meredith in Perugia. They went out together on Halloween. When Amanda Knox was asked how she felt on 2 November, she said: "Shit happens", which contrasts rather sharply with the contrived way she addressed the Italian court about "my friend Meredith".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 ... nox-murder
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
Here is a link to the latest article on TJMK, including Kermit's new powerpoint as announced by The Machine earlier.

Thanks to Kermit for his great work.


Thanks Nell for the link(s). Oh God, the MoF Afterword is riddled with so many glaring factual errors, unbelievable!

By the way, whatever happened to Preston and Spezi's upcoming book The Witch of Perugia? After the London Book Fair 2012 in March, they pretty much disappeared from the scene with promised book and all. Will it be another 'hard to believe' story full of unfounded insinuations and half-baked assertions, lies and innuendo?

William Morris Endeavour

THE WITCH OF PERUGIA by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi examines the harrowing story surrounding the killing of English exchange student Meredith Kercher, and the subsequent accusation of her roommate Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, as well as the superstitious and controversial prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who led the investigation. Both authors will offer a multi-layered picture of the case, delving into prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, superstition, and a flagrant abuse of power. Germany, Droemer.

http://www.bookbrunch.co.uk/page.asp?pid=london-book-fair-briefcase-2012

No mention of a new book on the Droemer Knaur Verlag website (search for 'Preston & Spezi'):

http://www.droemer-knaur.de/buecher

Only The Monster of Florence (translated into German) is available:

Attachment:
Die Bestie von Florenz in German.jpg


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
guermantes wrote:
--- snip ---

If anyone would like to re-read an old article about Ted Simon's "long-distance defense", here is the link:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/crime_and_punishment/131875863.html

--- snap ---



From the article:

Quote:
Simon said he was also impressed by the fact that, after the whirlwind of events between her acquittal and arrival in Seattle, Knox wanted to first make a statement of thanks to those who had supported her and a statement of sympathy and condolences to the family of Meredith Kercher, the 21-year-old British student and roommate who Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, now 27, were wrongly convicted of killing in 2007.


Correct me if I am wrong, but if I am not mistaken, it was Ted Simon who included Meredith Kercher in his speech at the airport, not Amanda Knox.

I am also baffled that it would take Amanda Knox so many years to show sympathy to the Kerchers. We all know that neither her parents nor Amanda Knox showed any kind of sympathy to the Kerchers, actually, far from it.


I had to look this up. It is as I remembered: Amanda Knox just thanked quickly her supporters and that was it. Not a mention of Meredith Kercher. See for yourself:




In the article posted earlier by guermantes, Ted Simon describes Amanda Knox as sweet, generous and charitable:

Quote:
“Most of all, I think about what she said, her sweetness of heart, the generosity to others and the charitableness she has,” Simon added.


If we compare this description to what witnesses, roommates and cellmates had to say and what we all could witness during her own court testimony, it becomes painfully clear that this characterisation from Ted Simon is wishful thinking.

- She accused Meredith Kercher in her email of having left the bathroom dirty and mocked her with the indiscreet revelation that police had asked Knox about Meredith's sexual preferences.

- She acknowledged in court having had quarrels with Meredith.

- She accused an innocent man of raping and murdering Meredith.

- She laughed in court when asked if she had ever apologised to Patrick Lumumba.

- Her behaviour in court showed a careless, self-centred and unsympathetic young woman, describing Meredith's death as "yuck".

- Commented Meredith's murder with the words "Shit happens!".

What we know about Amanda Knox is inconsistent with Ted Simon's kind words.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Somewhat off-topic. An Interview with Douglas Preston posted on the Droemer Knaur website. Thought some (Kermit?) might find it interesting ;)

English Translation:

On the red carpet: Douglas Preston

The ideas for his books come to Douglas Preston day and night, at the most impossible times and sometimes from unexpected corners ... The author close up and personal!


Describe yourself in three words!
Strange, wannabe hero, enlightened.

What puts you in a bad mood, what do you enjoy?
Bad mood: Political cruelty.
Good Mood: Sunlight shining dimly on the forest floor.

You can have breakfast, lunch and dinner in three different places in the world - where will this journey take you?
Breakfast: Cedar Mesa, Utah, over the mountains at sunrise.
Lunch: a picnic in Tuscany, Italy, with an excellent bottle of Brunnello.
Dinner: in Paris.

Coffee or tea?
"Doppio espresso, stretto" (Double Espresso).

What is a perfect day for you?
Perfection does not exist in this world. But ... A good day would be to go riding with my son in the mountains of New Mexico.

Where does your inspiration [for your books] come from?
It comes in any manner, by day and night, at the most impossible times, from the most unlikely corners. The emergence of an idea is the most unforeseeable and surprising event in the life of a writer, but there is no special reason.

Besides working as a writer - what would be alternative occupations for you? And why?
I work full-time as a writer. If I lived a different life, and had the appropriate talent, I would have become a composer.

Do you have a favorite author? Who is it and why?
I like many writers - Tolstoy, Wilkie Collins, Conan Doyle, Ian McEwan, Michael Crichton, Patrick O`Brian and many more.

What was the last book you read?
I just read a book named "My Journey to Lhasa" by Alexandra David-Néel. I can highly recommend it. An impressive adventure of an impressive woman.

What is a book you think everyone should read at least once in their lifetime?
"The Woman in White" by Wilkie Collins.

Which person - from novel, film or public life - would you like to meet? And what would you say to him / her?
Benjamin Franklin. We would have a charming dinner together and talk about many different things.

Which historical event would you like to have witnessed?
When Vesuvius erupted 79 BC. - From the harbor, just as Pliny the Younger.

If you could have three wishes, what would they be?
My wish would be to be free of any wishes, since such power inevitably brings ruin.

What is your life philosophy?
The universe is an estimate. I would like to know which was the first problem that had to be solved.

Do you already have the next project in mind?
Linc and I are writing a new Pendergast novel.

http://www.droemer-knaur.de/magazin/Auf+dem+roten+Teppich%3A+Douglas+Preston.7771570.html
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:39 am   Post subject: Re: Ted Simon   

Ergon wrote:
--- snip ---

Speaking of Ted Simon, I always thought he was brought on as insurance.

--- snap ---



Sorry for coming back to this again, but I found a direct quote from Ted Simon himself. According to him, he was hired after Curt Knox and Chris Mellas saw him on television discussing the case, which I understand means that he was brought to the team in the first place to stop him from detailing the evidence that pointed directly to Amanda Knox, because, let's be frank, that was what he had been doing before he was hired.

On .org there was some speculation at what time exactly he came to join Knox's team of lawyers and the article answers that too.

Quote:
Simon was not involved with Knox's original trial, where she and former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, now 27, were found guilty of sexual assault and murder.

The Italian court - two judges and six civilian jurors - unanimously found that Knox and Sollecito slashed Kercher's throat after she balked at joining a sex game.

Knox was sentenced to 26 years, Sollecito to 25. Both insisted they were innocent.

That's where Simon came in, hired after Knox's father and stepfather saw him discussing the verdict on several television news programs.

"I received this phone call from Curt [Knox] and Chris [Mellas]," Simon explained. "They asked me."

So in December 2009, Simon joined Knox's Italian lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, Luciano Ghirga, and Maria Del Grosso, to plan the appeal.



The article goes on explaining that Simon was not hired because of his "polished" television appearances and points out that he has been involved in high profile cases like Ira Einhorn for example.

I don't see why anybody would hire Ted Simon because of his involvement in the defence of Ira Einhorn given that Ira Einhorn is not enjoying his freedom in France, but instead rotting away in an American high security prison.

Quote:
Simon's polished TV appearances were not why he was hired, though he proved an articulate spokesman for the family and Knox's defense in numerous U.S. television appearances.

It was his expertise in foreign criminal law and experience with the special challenges of high-profile clients.

Simon, for example, joined the defense team for Ira Einhorn, the onetime guru-gadfly of Philadelphia's '60s counterculture, when Einhorn was arrested in France in 1997 after 16 years running from charges that he killed girlfriend Helen "Holly" Maddux in 1977.


Quote:
In Einhorn's case, Simon worked on the extradition process and the novel legal issue of whether Einhorn - who was tried and convicted in absentia in Philadelphia in 1993 - would get a new trial here after he was extradited. He got the guarantee.


"He got the guarantee." Simon makes it sound as if this was a success and the guarantee was what he initially aimed for. Wrong. The truth is he first argued that extradition should only be granted if he could get a new trial and once the U.S. was willing to grant a new trial to the French officials to make an extradition possible, Ted Simon argued vociferously against this guarantee based on a technicality, well knowing that a new trial would mean either death or lifetime without parole for his client. (Ira Einhorn had been found guilty and convicted to death in absentia. The second time around he received lifetime without parole.)

Quote:
In Knox's appeal, Simon said, he focused on the DNA used to convict her, and he found Bruce Budowle of the University of North Texas Health Science Center, the FBI's former top geneticist and an authority on DNA contamination and the hazards of interpreting low-content DNA samples.

Budowle's research provided a base for Knox's Italian DNA experts to challenge the original DNA work used by the Italian prosecutor.


Budowle was referenced extensively in Conti and Vecchiotti's report and Simon claims to have found him. So there is no doubt in my mind that the defence teams illegally interfered with Conti and Vecchiotti. Was there no Italian dna expert critical of low-copy dna they could have quoted? If that's not fishy, than I don't know what is.

Source to the article: Philly.com: Philly Lawyer Simon Has Created International Niche
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I found the first honest book review written by a Knox supporter! Only three stars for Stevie Moore and a thumbs down for the reviewer for not giving him a five star review. LOL.

Quote:
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Easy to read, September 22, 2012

By

Loretta Pirozzi (Seattle) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: Special Agent Man: My Life in the FBI as a Terrorist Hunter, Helicopter Pilot, and Certified Sniper (Kindle Edition)

I read this book because Steve Moore was/is an Amanda supporter and I wanted to support him. It was okay but nothing to write home about.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:09 pm   Post subject: PANTS ON FIRE . . .   

guermantes wrote:
Nell wrote:
Here is a link to the latest article on TJMK, including Kermit's new powerpoint as announced by The Machine earlier.

Thanks Nell for the link(s). Oh God, the MoF Afterword is riddled with so many glaring factual errors, unbelievable!

By the way, whatever happened to Preston and Spezi's upcoming book The Witch of Perugia? After the London Book Fair 2012 in March, they pretty much disappeared from the scene with promised book and all. Will it be another 'hard to believe' story full of unfounded insinuations and half-baked assertions, lies and innuendo?

Hi friends, and special thanks to Guermantes, Nell and Ergon for your kind words.

Preston crowed on CPJ.org about the millions of people who had read his and Spezi's book without finding any errors, but if you ask a million kids how many errors they find in a fast reading comic book, they too would probably say none.

Of course, it's when you start to ask questions that you see that the Afterword to The Monster of Florence book is rife with, uh, falsehoods .... and when you take your time, and especially start to compare all chapters of Preston and Spezi's English version of their fishing tale to Spezi and Preston's Italian version (Dolci Colline di Sangue) all sorts of inconsistencies start coming up. Some of those will be the subject of upcoming questions that will be posed to the Dynamic Duo, as the presentation gets bigger and bigger.

Wow, Guermantes, I didn't realise that this new book "The Witch of Perugia" was supposedly so far advanced (although there is now no sign of it). Preston said in one of his 2 or 3 emails to me until communications shut down (from my side, after he barely responded to my question to him) that Spezi had written a book "about the case" (in his language, that means the "Knox case") and he (Preston) was writing an Afterword (why doesn't he say "epilogue"?). Supposing for a minute that that is true, I doubt that they will meet any Xmas related deadlines, perhaps they'll be in time for the final appeal. Or, with any luck, their publishers will realise that the book has as much future as Raffaele's ...

All the best, K.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7192

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hi, Kermit, and thanks again for your remarks. We've all been following the promised "The Witch Of Perugia" since the London Book Fair in April. According to the Fair brochure http://www.exacteditions.com/read/publi ... 30980/6/3/ the book, represented there by William Morris Endeavour (not a shabby agency) was really 'on submission' in the US so it looks like they were looking for foreign language publishers.

Then they didn't show up in Frankfurt, for the world's largest book fair http://www.book-fair.com/en/fbf/ in October, with nary a listing for anything from Spezi or Preston, so it looks like no one's shown a real interest.

Seems it's been written already on spec (by Spezi) but hasn't found a buyer yet. Not with the Honor Bound fiasco, not with Amanda Knox's book not out yet and facing an uncertain future. So, it's deep running for them, but we'll keep our eyes open, and depth charges ready :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Within the framework of:

a man temporarily in Italy but somehow thinking he had the god-given right to place himself above the law,

and when pulled up about it,

made up some turdy little story of woe is me,
like some silly little crying whining man-girl,

Preston's where he would like to eat comes across as Cosmopolitan-sickly,

what is he?
Does he think he is a film star?

Sort of quote:

1) Oh yeah I go to New York have breakfast,

2) then I have my lunch in Paris,

3) a bottle of some wine nobody has ever heard of in the place that he is not going to be spending any time in soon, Toscana!!!!!

Right man, and sure!

After dining he's back home in bed by 8.30, cucumber face-mask n all, Hawaii shirt thrown into his washing basket that's brimming over with the damned things.

This guy must live with 25 cats and an old housekeeper, probably black, one that he picked up cheap in a sunny southern state some place, one who still speaks like in those old racist films, Yes Sir, or whatever it was that black p eople were made to say when addressing their then-masters = slave drivers.

I mean ta say, who the hell is this chump?
It's just cringe-worthy,

Bottle of bla bla bla, an ''excellent'' bottle of bla bla bla wine...

wait for it, wait, wait, wait for it in

TUSCANY,

I mean this guy, where does he get the front to say shit like that, considering the backdrop to all that he has been up to, with his colleague chum(p) Spezi?

He 'ain't gonna be getting to stay in Italy' and he sure is sore about it, as Spezi feeds his idiotic thinking, with his own brand, encouraging this make-believe world.

Spezi with the criminal contacts, who could enjoy getting informed of the most cranky twisted murders before the police had even heard a thing and then wonders why the police are not having it, wonders why the state says no Mr Spezi, you do not show up at a murder scene in the middle of nowhere before anyone else even knows about it, and then try to tell everyone that as a journalist you have the right to know these things (and tell nobody somehow you was sent a vision by God that there would be a body lying next to a tree some place and therefor were under no obligation to reveal how you KNEW about this) and be untouchable under your mighty journalistic, I'm a quite-famous-guy cloak...

I mean ta say Spezi, er, SPEZI right,
he is himself half a slice short of a sandwich, to imagine he could just do what he liked,
and then in a true type of classic I do-whatever-I-like,
as I have power stance,
he takes it upon himself to thereafter forever criticise everything to do with authority

and when he encounters Mr No-Brainer Preston,
sees again, in time,
an opportunity to further his wee personal vendetta against the state,
and Mr Preston,
who probably speaks all of one word of Italian: Grazia...
for the pizza, pasta, wine, and imaginary world I'm shaping.

This mental attitude seems to be contagious in the world.
At present (as he was mentioned here) Trump another chump, is busy tearing up Scotland, and he has been the subject of some BBC TV documentaries on this, he is shown as a very aggressive, nasty, bullying person, he has described ordinary Scottish citizens that he is trying to force away off their own land (that they owned for so long already), as filthy, as so many things that they are not, he has accidentally hd his men damage the water supply lines, the electricity cables, has after taring up the pristine surroundings for his wild golf course idea, had his workers pile up the waste right in front of the one house so that their view was even cut off, people who lived there for years, their grandparents did too, etc, and who are all respected by the local community. So Trump with his peculiar sense of Scottishness, thinks his money buys him the right to walk all over people.

Supposedly Trump will provide so may jobs (his proimise and propaganda), yet he hired Irish peope to do his dirty work and his building/destruction work, as local support for the people he is terrorising is vast and he knows it, but politics has allowed him to get his way, one professor handed his honourary degree back after the same university gave Trump one.

Journalists involved in the documentary were manhandled/abused by the police, who clearly were acting simply like some kind of Trump hired hands, anyone who had anything to do with Trump that the journalists spoke to/dealt with were like some kind of dictators in some undeveloped country (or like Chinese officials demanding that the camera be switched off in the name of censorship, etc), and all of this in a most aggressive, unnecessary way.

Well, I watched it and observing him made me feel ill, he reminded me exactly of the tones from the Knox family & supporters, that bullying way of doing things.

I already had become aware of what a terrible creep/chap the man is, when I found out the Apprentice in Britain was a part of the American one, that I'd never seen, I never liked the British one to start with, all of this big mouthed way of doing things, and this let's present things as though the only thing of value in this world is money what with he idiot Lord Suga who also thinks that having money means he's great, I mean I cannot stand people like this at the best of times but having entire shows on TV brainwashing people, and kids into thinking that this is how you need to be, a bull, big-mouthed, arrogant, smug and all the rest of it is a modern type of contagious disease, that is not helping this world to flourish at all.

No wonder all of these these mentally half-baked latch onto one another!

The only place P should be, is in jail for failing to live up to even the most rudimentary of human codes of decency because his way of earning a living involves; profitmongering on the back of Meredith's murder as he has done and continues to try to do.

No wine for the wicked.

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hi, Zorba. Waste of a cucumber, in my opinion.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Just checking in. Truly want to 'move on' because I don't believe Amanda will ever be held accountable for her role in the brutal death of Meredith. Something continues to draw me back, though.

From everything I've read/heard, Meredith was a wonderfully kind, intelligent and beautiful woman who would have been the first to help Amanda in any way if there was the need.

Amanda, from all accounts, was sneaky, conniving and thought she was entitled to anything she wanted. A child pretending to be an adult, making immature decisions which cost the life of a vibrant, loving daughter-sister-friend Meredith Kercher....

Amanda was NOT at Raffaele's all night. She was at the scene of the brutal torturous crime committed against Meredith. I know that, because Amanda gave detailed statements to that effect. Not one; not two. At least three of which we have been made aware.

There is now only the 'consolation' of Amanda having to live her life knowing what she has done. It will always be with her, vivid in her memory at the oddest times. Amanda's parents know, too. Always.

Thanks for allowing me to vent. It's hard for me right now knowing what's happened. Knowing I'll never be able to do anything about it.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Know how you feel there Emerald, and why too, only it isn't quite done yet, so at least until it is, either way, I hold out the hope, that justice will be done, and that both Knox & Sollecito, joining Guede, even in Knox's case if that only means initially (until the Italians can or cannot have her extradited from America back to Italy) being found guilty again.

I cannot see in he slightest how the lack of true expertise, as seen in Hellmann, can match up to those contesting his judgement.

If on the veritable grounds they have set out, justice cannot be seen to be one, there that Hellmann did not follow the written laws, then that would mean those written laws have no value, or are not in fact valid.

The law must be carried out in accordance with those written laws from the Penal Code, clearly, Hellmann just made up his own versions of the law, ignoring all rules.

He also had, clearly, a predetermined angle, one where we saw him announce something that meant nothing, something totally untrue and not enterable from any realistic angle conforming to law, he said, the only thing we know for sure is that Meredith was murdered, which is a ridiculous thing to say, it is as if to immediately announce that all actors, be it the law or lawyers from either side, all people who had done anything, said anything, had absolutely no value, and only he then could decide what has value, but that is not the way things work, his attitude and lack of ability to formulate events correctly and/or in accordance with the law, shows a judge who has placed his own value against and above the Italian state and all in 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: Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Hi, Zorba. Waste of a cucumber, in my opinion.



Hi Napia

Yes he should have had it with his Mc Donalds and wine out of a 5 litre carton.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hi, Emerald. I understand what you're saying, since all of us have have had much the same thoughts. But think of what PMF accomplished. We established in the public consciousness that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty, just getting away with it like OJ Simpson. That is something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Please do drop in once in a while. There's always something new going on in the case, and it's like a thriller where everyone wants to know how it turns out. And we get to learn a lot about the human condition. You have all accomplished much.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
Preston's where he would like to eat comes across as Cosmopolitan-sickly,

what is he?
Does he think he is a film star?

Sort of quote:

1) Oh yeah I go to New York have breakfast,

2) then I have my lunch in Paris,

3) a bottle of some wine nobody has ever heard of in the place that he is not going to be spending any time in soon, Toscana!!!!!

Right man, and sure!


Meet the global citizen, Presto(n).

Attachment:
Presto(n), a 'citizen of the world'.jpg


He says:

"There’s always confrontation,
You just might disagree.
You can be a world citizen and not think just like me.
We (the FOA) are all riding on the same [gravy] train
With a lot of work to do.
But, no one’s just a passenger,
Everyone’s part of the crew!"

Source: I’m a World Citizen
http://spartanburgimagery.org/id170.html


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: Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ha ha Guermantes,

Can just imagine the photo done and him saying, damn, 'what is this shit'?' as he flings it into the water, as an aside; he still manages to look everything but smart even dressed in a suit, ha ha ha

If you look at what is his right foot and to us viewing his left, there is a string attached to his foot and Spezi, unseen, is pulling it, all the way from Italy, but Jolly Roger the fantasy books writer loves it... For I go to Italy, I even can speak like them, allow me, once more; for I go to the Italy, I to drink the wine, and to purchase the house no, Si, I did, and then, the police it beat me, it torture me, what for you might ask, for da nuth thin, nuth thin, I tell you, I'm busy minding my own business messing about sticking my nose into the murder crimes severe, when the police, it come, it me beat, with stick, Si.

Now Dougy Dough did do his best at Italian lessons but the best he manages was mimicking an Italian trying to speak English after no schooling whatsoever.

Yes, I write-a the books-a, and then, the police, it lock me up, yes, policeman Mignini, it say you horrible Americano, what you want here, we are all racist and hate Americanos, honesta, dis is whatta they said it, to me-a.

I cried-a myself to sleep that night, it was not too difficile, perche I try the read my own-a booka. Spezi he the good man, know the many crooka, he might do what he likes, I say Si, do it, I help. I could have actually helped all Italy with my crime fiction skills.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hi everybody,

I've done some editing of the "Defense Closing Arguments and Rebuttals" doc for better readability and added some links and photos. It may not be perfect but it's better than what we have now - definitely worth (re)reading. I'll upload it as a .pdf and a Word doc to the "Legal Context" subforum later tonight. If anyone would be willing to do some further editing, your input would be very welcome.

It is astonishing how many points from his defense closing arguments Sollecito repeats in his book. It's as if he and Gumbel were both reading from the same script written by RS's defense lawyers.

My favorite quotes so far ;) :

Carlo Dalla Vedova wrote:
But for the alibi, you can find confirmations. We have a great element. A witness Sollecito. As Amanda is his witness.

Sollecito said I was home, we watched movie then went to sleep.

So the idea of the false alibi, which is so suggestive, is denied by the defendants themselves. Is it false? What do they say that for?


Carlo Pacelli wrote:
I understand some people here I know ... their disappointment. I may not be pleasing to you but the tone you used is not acceptable. To describe AK’s behavior, I only used the witness statements of 7 friends and all the other friends, MK’s parents etc. The outcome is that MK was bothered by Knox’s poor cleaning skills, AK bringing strange men to the house, taking drugs, keeping condoms and vibrators in full view... this is the summary from a mountain of witness statements, other than Amélie and "Roger" Rabbit.


Carlo Pacelli wrote:
This has a cause: Amanda Knox, the diabolic slanderer. She is the cause of indignation and pain suffered by PL; she is the slanderer; that wind that blows tells you to judge her with no mercy as AK slandered with no mercy. I am sure you will do that.


Okay, there will be lots more but this should be enough for now.

.PDF:

Attachment:
Defense Closing Arguments and Rebuttals (summarized by Popper).pdf


.DOCX:

Attachment:
Defense Closing Arguments and Rebuttals (summarized by Popper).docx


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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Good stuff G. THANKS!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Emerald wrote:
Just checking in. Truly want to 'move on' because I don't believe Amanda will ever be held accountable for her role in the brutal death of Meredith. Something continues to draw me back, though.

From everything I've read/heard, Meredith was a wonderfully kind, intelligent and beautiful woman who would have been the first to help Amanda in any way if there was the need.

Amanda, from all accounts, was sneaky, conniving and thought she was entitled to anything she wanted. A child pretending to be an adult, making immature decisions which cost the life of a vibrant, loving daughter-sister-friend Meredith Kercher....

Amanda was NOT at Raffaele's all night. She was at the scene of the brutal torturous crime committed against Meredith. I know that, because Amanda gave detailed statements to that effect. Not one; not two. At least three of which we have been made aware.

There is now only the 'consolation' of Amanda having to live her life knowing what she has done. It will always be with her, vivid in her memory at the oddest times. Amanda's parents know, too. Always.

Thanks for allowing me to vent. It's hard for me right now knowing what's happened. Knowing I'll never be able to do anything about it.


Hi Emerald,

I share your feelings except that I don't believe neither Raffaele Sollecito nor Amanda Knox will have any trouble living with the knowledge to have taken Meredith's life, neither are their parents bothered by this fact. To have a guilty conscience, first you need to have a conscience.

Amanda Knox didn't look very happy, one could say she even looked unwell, in the shots we have seen from her since her release. It's not a sore conscience that is nagging her, the frown in her face is disappointment over the fact that large parts of the public are still convinced she was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Whenever she looks into someone's face, she must fear to be recognised and that that person belongs to the many people who believe her to be a murderer.

When Amanda Knox arrived at the Sea-Tac airport in Seattle on 4th of October 2011, she said to the crowd of camera men "Thanks for believing in me". That says it all. She thought her "emotional" speech to the jurors had made a difference in the outcome of the trial. She believed that, like she believed in November 2007 that if she would deliver Patrick Lumumba's name, she could get out of a tight spot. She carefully described herself as another victim, that she was scared of him and hid in the kitchen, covering her ears when Meredith was attacked and screamed. Everything I have seen from Amanda Knox in court and at the airport screams fake.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

How about a new thread? This one is getting long in the tooth.
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 Oct 24, 2012 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

We're sorting through and collating all the files we collected in this segment, dgfred. So we don't want to lock the thread just yet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
Good stuff G. THANKS!


Thanks dgfred. I couldn't find a photo of Donatella Donati on the web though. Searched on the Internet for it but unsuccessfully. I'm sure everyone knows what she looks like: she is the blond lady to the right (our right) of Maresca (behind him) seen briefly @54-59 sec in this video:



She could often be seen in the courtroom, sitting in the second row next to Francesco Sollecito as captured in the above video (around the 1:14 min mark) or @30 sec in the video below:



Confident and ambitious, I suppose.

Where is Stint these days, with his vast collection of case-related photos? He would have been able to do something for us. And I miss Cape, too. She would have made mincemeat out of Sollecito and his TV appearances if she had been about. :)
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hi, guermantes. I second your comment about missing Stint and Cape. Taking a much-needed pause, I imagine.
However, I think, from what I have been reading, Sollecito did an excellent job of making mincemeat out of himself lately.

And I'd like to add that malcontent on Amazon is doing a brilliant job of exposing the ranting attacks of the Groupies.
Hats off, malcontent.
http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Bound-Journ ... Descending
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The 411 brought up the sense of smell on .org and it made me remember that I've read an article in The Age about Australian researchers who found that psychopaths have a poor sense of smell:

The Age: Psychopaths have poor sense of smell

Quote:
Psychopaths have a remarkably poor sense of smell, according to a new study.

Researchers in Australia tested a theory that psychopathy - a severe personality disorder characterised by lack of empathy, antisocial behaviour and callousness - may be linked to impaired smell ability.

Both phenomena have been independently traced to dysfunction in part of the brain called the orbito-frontal complex (OFC).

Mehmet Mahmut and Richard Stevenson of the Department of Psychology at Sydney's Macquarie University trialled the olfactory skills of 79 individuals, aged 19 to 21, who had been diagnosed as non-criminal psychopaths and lived in the community.

Using "Sniffin' Sticks" - 16 pens that contain different scents, such as orange, coffee and leather - they found the participants had problems in correctly identifying the smell, and then discriminating it against a different odour.

Those who scored highest on a standard scorecard of psychopathic traits did worst on both counts, even though they knew that they were smelling something.

The finding could be useful for identifying psychopaths, who are famously manipulative in the face of questioning, says the paper, published in the journal, Chemosensory Perception.

"Olfactory measures represent a potentially interesting marker for psychopathic traits, because performance expectancies are unclear in odour tests and may therefore be less susceptible to attempts to fake 'good' or 'bad' responses."

The OFC is a front part of the brain responsible for controlling impulses, planning and behaving in line with social norms.

Odour molecules bind to specific nerve cells in the base of the nose, which then send signals via the lateral olfactory tract to the primary olfactory cortex.

From there, the signals go to OFC via a brain organ called the mediodorsal nucleus, located in the thalamus.

The study makes clear that a poor sense of smell does not by itself mean that someone is a psychopath. Olfactory dysfunction can also occur in schizophrenia, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, it notes.

AFP



Remember what the warden and the cellmate said about Amanda Knox?

Verdict on Knox, by women who shared her life in jail by Sharon Feinstein

Quote:
But she paid no attention to her personal hygiene. She was dirty and the others in her cell complained that she smelled.

Every Monday was laundry day but she hardly ever had laundry and always let her hair get greasy. When she had to go to the tribunal I used to suggest she wash her hair, so she did.

But often she didn't wash it for a month and wore the same jumper and jeans for a week, though I’m not not sure about her underwear. She was always stretching and then running like a crazy person round the courtyard for the hours they were allowed out. She came in sweating but didn’t shower or change. She didn't look after herself.


I have read that it is common among psychopaths to neglect personal hygiene and I wonder if there is any relation?

If you google "poor personal hygiene causes" and "self-neglect" you will find that unless you are homeless, in puberty or of an advanced age, mental illness is pointed out as cause for neglecting yourself.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DanielSC


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 72

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Anyone know if Michael is ok? We haven't heard from him in while. Hope he is ok.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I see that the 411 over at .org is looking for official titles that the lovebirds might claim as their own.

I happen to like

H O T T'Amelie. Forgive me, the hour is late and other titles are un-printable.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Is this her, Donati?



_________________
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: Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

That is a family member Zorba. Donati was Maori's assistant IIRC, and not all that much in the picture except at the end where she pretty much accused the police of planting evidence. I believe this is her:
http://static2.oggi.it/wp-content/blogs ... 00y1uj.jpg
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4882

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

zorba wrote:
Is this her, Donati?]


No, that is Maria Del Grosso, Knox's lawyer.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
zorba wrote:
Is this her, Donati?]

No, that is Maria Del Grosso, Knox's lawyer.

Oh yah..that is her..looked like a family member...lol..
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 11 of 12 [ 2830 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 4 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 


29,421,501 Views