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


Last visit was: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:07 am
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:07 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 3 of 12 [ 2830 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next
Author Message

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
...
This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA...


On what basis are you making this incredible assertion?

Does working as a clerk in a fur shop now require a J.D. and years of experience as a prosecutor?



Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?

Would you like to post personal attacks while hiding behind your anonymous name? Would everyone here like to post up their profession and place of employment? Is this where you would like to take this Jackie? I'm game if you are.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
I am not desperate at all. I never expected anyone here to change their views. Those that have changed their views stopped posting here ages ago. I just decided that I would participate in the conversation today, that's all.


Yet, you keep trying. By endlessly repeating the same old talking points over and over.

And people stop posting for many different reasons, least of all because they '"changed their minds".

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


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

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Welshy wrote:
Bruce claims that RS probably only had a 'quick scan' of Filomena's room to make his determination that nothing had been stolen. The cell locations attributable to RS's phone shows that he and AK were at the cottage on 02/11/07 for at least 16 minutes before ringing his sister and 112. What on earth were he and AK doing for this length of time then? He also had a conversation with his father while at the cottage and prior to ringing his sister/112 but apparently said nothing to him about the situation there. This is inconceivable.

Incidentally, what do you think the first thing RS did when he arrived at the cottage, to this disturbing and worrying scene where he was apparently so concerned about Meredith's welfare that he tried smashing her door down? Yep that's right, spend more than 2 minutes on the phone to Vodafone topping it up.


He added money to his phone so he could call his sister in the carabinieri who told him to call 112 which he did. The 16 minutes you wonder about were spent climbing on the ledge and trying to break the door down.



Thanks for reminding us that Raffaele only called the police because someone ELSE told him to!

Amanda's mother also told her to call the police. Filomena told Amanda to call the police. Three times they had to be told before they finally did so.


Yes, it shows how naive they were. Not very calculating at all that they sought the advice of friends and family first.


Theysought the advice of friends and family first in order to build an ALIBI and also to hipefully have them call the police for them and drag them into it. They tried to involve as many people as possible. That's not naivety, that's calculation.


Interesting, because before the Massei report, the line of thought here was that Amanda and Rafaelle were busy cleaning up the scene of the crime, when they were surprised out of the blue by the police, having had no intention of alerting anyone yet.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
So, BruceFischer, the glass has straight edges which were pulled out. This, in your opinion HAD to be done from the outside? Couldn't possibly be done from the inside, right?
The white substance was not tested, according to you. It HAS to be from the outside wall, how so?
Guede, or any burglar for that matter, would have chosen a point of entry with three impediments, not knowing at each point whether they would be locked? He just hoped for the best?
Guede hung outside the window, by one hand, neatly picking glass from the window and placing it on the sill so he could stretch even farther and reach up inside the window to open the latch. How was he balancing himself to do this? Remember, at this point, the window is still closed.
There is NO glass outside. He managed not to drop any or brush any off?
No way possible that I smacked the window from the inside with the outside shutters closed? Spread a little glass and dropped the rock, where it hit the bag?
How did Guede clear all the glass when he climbed in? Where are the shards that would have clung to the bottom of his sneakers?


The answers to your questions lie in the blood and hair found on the window, Rudy's cuts on his hand, his shoe print that has the imprint of a shard of glass in it, as well as glass tracked in to the murder room.


There's no evidence Rudy was bleeding. We know Amanda was. We know Meredith was. The cuts on Rudy's hands were photographed three weeks later
and therefore could have happened anyplace, at any time and anyhow. There is no footprint from Rudy that had a shard of glass in it. There was a mark in one of his prints that the defence tried to argue was caused by glass. That cannot be demonstrated from a footprint photo. Anything could have caused the mark. You need the actual shoe with the glass still in it to demonstrate that. Your reasoning is tenuous and grasping at best.


We know Amanda was bleeding at some point in her own home. There is no proof to say when she was bleeding. The droplet of blood on the tap is not dated and is mixed with nothing.

I have seen you post Amanda's testimony to show that she dated the spot but that doesn't hold up. The droplet of blood in not dated and there is no proof that it had anything at all to do with the murder.



Yes, there is proof to say when she was bleeding. Amanda herself gave it to us, on the stand. She dated it to the evening of the murder. I know you'd prefer to forget that or make yet another excuse for her. Saying it doesn't hold up doesn't cut it. You have to explain WHY it doesn't hold up.


You and I interpret her testimony differently. We will have to agree to disagree on that. There is no scientific proof that dates that sample. The sample is mixed with nothing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?


We don't need to be experts (and not being an expert has never stopped YOU has it? I don't think you want to go down that road), anyone can see if there is enough evidence to convict...if they're being objective that is.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:


Yes, there is proof to say when she was bleeding. Amanda herself gave it to us, on the stand. She dated it to the evening of the murder. I know you'd prefer to forget that or make yet another excuse for her. Saying it doesn't hold up doesn't cut it. You have to explain WHY it doesn't hold up.


You and I interpret her testimony differently. We will have to agree to disagree on that. There is no scientific proof that dates that sample. The sample is mixed with nothing.


Oh yes, we know that. Anything that she says that helps her you parade and anything that incriminates you excuse and discard. As policy. That's agenda.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:


Yes, there is proof to say when she was bleeding. Amanda herself gave it to us, on the stand. She dated it to the evening of the murder. I know you'd prefer to forget that or make yet another excuse for her. Saying it doesn't hold up doesn't cut it. You have to explain WHY it doesn't hold up.


You and I interpret her testimony differently. We will have to agree to disagree on that. There is no scientific proof that dates that sample. The sample is mixed with nothing.


Oh yes, we know that. Anything that she says that helps her you parade and anything that incriminates you excuse and discard. As policy. That's agenda.


I think you are confusing agendas between IIP and PMF Michael.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Welshy wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Welshy wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Welshy wrote:
Bruce claims that RS probably only had a 'quick scan' of Filomena's room to make his determination that nothing had been stolen. The cell locations attributable to RS's phone shows that he and AK were at the cottage on 02/11/07 for at least 16 minutes before ringing his sister and 112. What on earth were he and AK doing for this length of time then? He also had a conversation with his father while at the cottage and prior to ringing his sister/112 but apparently said nothing to him about the situation there. This is inconceivable.

Incidentally, what do you think the first thing RS did when he arrived at the cottage, to this disturbing and worrying scene where he was apparently so concerned about Meredith's welfare that he tried smashing her door down? Yep that's right, spend more than 2 minutes on the phone to Vodafone topping it up.


He added money to his phone so he could call his sister in the carabinieri who told him to call 112 which he did. The 16 minutes you wonder about were spent climbing on the ledge and trying to break the door down.


What? 16 minutes? Do you know how small the cottage is? That's a ridiculous amount of time to wait before calling for help. Remember, AK had already explained the situation in the cottage to RS after arriving back from her shower. Why didn't he ring his sister then? Do you really think he spent 16 minutes trying to break down the door and barely made a dent on it?


And what about the conversation with his father while inside the cottage?


The time wasn't spent just trying to break the door down. I don't see why doing that and Amanda climbing the ledge wouldn't take approximately 16 minutes (on top of looking around, calling out, discussing what to do). That time would have flown by.

What was the conversation with his dad about?


You claim he topped his phone up so he could ring his sister for help. He made the top up as soon as he arrived at the cottage so why wait another 16 minutes before ringing her? Waiting that ridiculous amount of time before calling for help makes no sense in the context of the scene facing RS in that cottage and if you read his testimony no sense in the context of that either.

I don't know what the nature of the 67 second call from his father was whilst he was in the cottage. RS has never accounted for it, bit strange don't you think? Surely he would have mentioned something to his father about the worrying situation he was faced with?


Well, no, if we have no record of him being asked about it, no conclusion can be drawn about it really.

I don't get what you think he's hiding with refilling his phone minutes. All I see is that now that the "Rafaelle called 112 after the postal police arrived" myth has been debunked, something else has to take its place.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?


We don't need to be experts (and not being an expert has never stopped YOU has it? I don't think you want to go down that road), anyone can see if there is enough evidence to convict...if they're being objective that is.


Michael, Jackie made a comment about my profession stating that I was not in the position to hold an opinion. He gave Ergon a pass for having an opinion on the same topic so I asked if he was an expert. Does that make it more clear?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
dgfred wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I'm sure you guys and gals hope the cocaine dealer story ran out of steam. The only problem is we can't find out the name of the guy. Surely since he must have been a very good friend (that didn't testify on her behalf), someone in the groupie crowd must know his name. HINT, hint.
If it was just a friend being called shortly before and shortly after the murder of Meredith... it can't hurt anything to give out the name of a 'friend'. It is not like you would be giving us the name of her drug connection, or a reason behind their odd behavior and forgetfullness... Is it???


His initials are H.Y.H.
Now that you know that and it's not consistent with anyone commonly associated with Amanda what conclusions should we draw from it? Since he wasn't being investigated until two years after Amanda was arrested, how do we know he was dealing at the time he knew Amanda and how does one draw the conclusion that Amanda knew he was a drug dealer anyway?

"The investigation started from the point 12 December 2009; that afternoon various young people from Terni had gone to Perugia to buy drugs (heroin and cocaine) from the Tunisian [called H.Y.H., 21 years old]."


How does his initials clear up anything? The investigation of him 'started' from investigators of Meredith's murder seeing his number called from AK's phone BOTH before and after the murder of Meredith. You are just making it sound worse IMO... but keep at it.


You asked for a name. You have his initials. Since it's not consistent with anyone we know I'm wondering what good you think his name would do? The bottom line is the calls to someone who dealt cocaine mean nothing or the prosecution would have been all over it. Don't you think everyone Amanda knew was calling her after the murder to find out what happened?


Right, I asked for a name... not initials. How are we to know if it is consistent with 'anyone we know', or any friend she had since ZERO friends from Italy testified on her behalf.

How is the prosecution (investigating a murder) going to be 'all over' a couple of phone calls... that they can not prove are related to the murder. They were all over it as far as the guy is concerned because he was arrested for cocaine dealing after his number was FIRST noticed on AK's phone during Meredith's murder investigation. How many of her other 'friends' were arrested for their numbers being called both before and after the murder? Just the cocaine dealer probably... right? Maybe she called him just to let him know 'what happened'. You may be right about that part.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:

They sought the advice of friends and family first in order to build an ALIBI and also to hopefully have them call the police for them and drag them into it. They tried to involve as many people as possible. That's not naivety, that's calculation.


Interesting, because before the Massei report, the line of thought here was that Amanda and Rafaelle were busy cleaning up the scene of the crime, when they were surprised out of the blue by the police, having had no intention of alerting anyone yet.


That's because our interpretation of the crime scene naturally evolved as more evidence became available. It's called "following the evidence". Try it.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?


We don't need to be experts (and not being an expert has never stopped YOU has it? I don't think you want to go down that road), anyone can see if there is enough evidence to convict...if they're being objective that is.


Michael, Jackie made a comment about my profession stating that I was not in the position to hold an opinion. He gave Ergon a pass for having an opinion on the same topic so I asked if he was an expert. Does that make it more clear?



Yeah, but you don't claim to be someone simply with an opinion, do you Bruce? You claim yourself to be an authority.

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


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

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:

They sought the advice of friends and family first in order to build an ALIBI and also to hopefully have them call the police for them and drag them into it. They tried to involve as many people as possible. That's not naivety, that's calculation.


Interesting, because before the Massei report, the line of thought here was that Amanda and Rafaelle were busy cleaning up the scene of the crime, when they were surprised out of the blue by the police, having had no intention of alerting anyone yet.


That's because our interpretation of the crime scene naturally evolved as more evidence became available. It's called "following the evidence". Try it.


Excpet the inferences being made about the phone calls could have been made when the call logs were posted here back in April 2010, nearly five months before the Massei translation was posted.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:

I don't get what you think he's hiding with refilling his phone minutes. All I see is that now that the "Rafaelle called 112 after the postal police arrived" myth has been debunked, something else has to take its place.


If you think so. I don't think it has. I think an argument was made and Amanda and Raffaele were simply given the benefit of the doubt on it. I remain unconvinced.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:


Thanks for reminding us that Raffaele only called the police because someone ELSE told him to!

Amanda's mother also told her to call the police. Filomena told Amanda to call the police. Three times they had to be told before they finally did so.


And when they finally did so it was to say "nothing had been taken".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
So, BruceFischer, the glass has straight edges which were pulled out. This, in your opinion HAD to be done from the outside? Couldn't possibly be done from the inside, right?
The white substance was not tested, according to you. It HAS to be from the outside wall, how so?
Guede, or any burglar for that matter, would have chosen a point of entry with three impediments, not knowing at each point whether they would be locked? He just hoped for the best?
Guede hung outside the window, by one hand, neatly picking glass from the window and placing it on the sill so he could stretch even farther and reach up inside the window to open the latch. How was he balancing himself to do this? Remember, at this point, the window is still closed.
There is NO glass outside. He managed not to drop any or brush any off?
No way possible that I smacked the window from the inside with the outside shutters closed? Spread a little glass and dropped the rock, where it hit the bag?
How did Guede clear all the glass when he climbed in? Where are the shards that would have clung to the bottom of his sneakers?


The answers to your questions lie in the blood and hair found on the window, Rudy's cuts on his hand, his shoe print that has the imprint of a shard of glass in it, as well as glass tracked in to the murder room.


There's no evidence Rudy was bleeding. We know Amanda was. We know Meredith was. The cuts on Rudy's hands were photographed three weeks later
and therefore could have happened anyplace, at any time and anyhow. There is no footprint from Rudy that had a shard of glass in it. There was a mark in one of his prints that the defence tried to argue was caused by glass. That cannot be demonstrated from a footprint photo. Anything could have caused the mark. You need the actual shoe with the glass still in it to demonstrate that. Your reasoning is tenuous and grasping at best.


The police surmised the cuts were from the blade slipping while he stabbed Meredith, and Rudy accounted for them as coming from defending himself from the mystery man.


Er, no they didn't. Where and when do you think the police surmised this? Don't get what the FOAKers surmised and what the police surmised mixed up.

Rudy claimed he got the cuts fighting off the murderer. This makes it just as likely they were self-inflicted in order to make up that account in order to appear innocent.

None of Rudy's blood was found at the crime scene. Only Amanda's and Meredith's blood was found.

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


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

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
Right, I asked for a name... not initials. How are we to know if it is consistent with 'anyone we know', or any friend she had since ZERO friends from Italy testified on her behalf.


We are aware of many of the friends and acquaintances Amanda had in Italy. None of them match up with the initials. Since it would be a new name I wonder how that would help you.

dgfred wrote:
How is the prosecution (investigating a murder) going to be 'all over' a couple of phone calls... that they can not prove are related to the murder. They were all over it as far as the guy is concerned because he was arrested for cocaine dealing after his number was FIRST noticed on AK's phone during Meredith's murder investigation.


By asking him if he sold cocaine to Amanda. That's what you all want to know isn't it?

dgfred wrote:
How many of her other 'friends' were arrested for their numbers being called both before and after the murder? Just the cocaine dealer probably... right? Maybe she called him just to let him know 'what happened'. You may be right about that part.


She received nearly eighty calls following the few days after the murder. It's entorely possible he wanted to know what happened. One thing is for sure though. If he was her dealer, it makes much less sense that Rudy would have been involved with her that night since most of the arguments I've seen have them meeting up with Rudy to score drugs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?


We don't need to be experts (and not being an expert has never stopped YOU has it? I don't think you want to go down that road), anyone can see if there is enough evidence to convict...if they're being objective that is.


Michael, Jackie made a comment about my profession stating that I was not in the position to hold an opinion. He gave Ergon a pass for having an opinion on the same topic so I asked if he was an expert. Does that make it more clear?



Yeah, but you don't claim to be someone simply with an opinion, do you Bruce? You claim yourself to be an authority.


That is false. I have never claimed to be an authority.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
dgfred wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I'm sure you guys and gals hope the cocaine dealer story ran out of steam. The only problem is we can't find out the name of the guy. Surely since he must have been a very good friend (that didn't testify on her behalf), someone in the groupie crowd must know his name. HINT, hint.
If it was just a friend being called shortly before and shortly after the murder of Meredith... it can't hurt anything to give out the name of a 'friend'. It is not like you would be giving us the name of her drug connection, or a reason behind their odd behavior and forgetfullness... Is it???


His initials are H.Y.H.
Now that you know that and it's not consistent with anyone commonly associated with Amanda what conclusions should we draw from it? Since he wasn't being investigated until two years after Amanda was arrested, how do we know he was dealing at the time he knew Amanda and how does one draw the conclusion that Amanda knew he was a drug dealer anyway?

"The investigation started from the point 12 December 2009; that afternoon various young people from Terni had gone to Perugia to buy drugs (heroin and cocaine) from the Tunisian [called H.Y.H., 21 years old]."


How does his initials clear up anything? The investigation of him 'started' from investigators of Meredith's murder seeing his number called from AK's phone BOTH before and after the murder of Meredith. You are just making it sound worse IMO... but keep at it.


You asked for a name. You have his initials. Since it's not consistent with anyone we know I'm wondering what good you think his name would do? The bottom line is the calls to someone who dealt cocaine mean nothing or the prosecution would have been all over it. Don't you think everyone Amanda knew was calling her after the murder to find out what happened?


Right, I asked for a name... not initials. How are we to know if it is consistent with 'anyone we know', or any friend she had since ZERO friends from Italy testified on her behalf.

How is the prosecution (investigating a murder) going to be 'all over' a couple of phone calls... that they can not prove are related to the murder. They were all over it as far as the guy is concerned because he was arrested for cocaine dealing after his number was FIRST noticed on AK's phone during Meredith's murder investigation. How many of her other 'friends' were arrested for their numbers being called both before and after the murder? Just the cocaine dealer probably... right? Maybe she called him just to let him know 'what happened'. You may be right about that part.


You are demanding answers to questions in order to support your theory. This is backwards thinking. This was not a hot button topic in court. The mysterious drug dealer is an argument born on the internet. If you want the argument to have legs, you need to support it with proof.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
So, BruceFischer, the glass has straight edges which were pulled out. This, in your opinion HAD to be done from the outside? Couldn't possibly be done from the inside, right?
The white substance was not tested, according to you. It HAS to be from the outside wall, how so?
Guede, or any burglar for that matter, would have chosen a point of entry with three impediments, not knowing at each point whether they would be locked? He just hoped for the best?
Guede hung outside the window, by one hand, neatly picking glass from the window and placing it on the sill so he could stretch even farther and reach up inside the window to open the latch. How was he balancing himself to do this? Remember, at this point, the window is still closed.
There is NO glass outside. He managed not to drop any or brush any off?
No way possible that I smacked the window from the inside with the outside shutters closed? Spread a little glass and dropped the rock, where it hit the bag?
How did Guede clear all the glass when he climbed in? Where are the shards that would have clung to the bottom of his sneakers?


The answers to your questions lie in the blood and hair found on the window, Rudy's cuts on his hand, his shoe print that has the imprint of a shard of glass in it, as well as glass tracked in to the murder room.


There's no evidence Rudy was bleeding. We know Amanda was. We know Meredith was. The cuts on Rudy's hands were photographed three weeks later
and therefore could have happened anyplace, at any time and anyhow. There is no footprint from Rudy that had a shard of glass in it. There was a mark in one of his prints that the defence tried to argue was caused by glass. That cannot be demonstrated from a footprint photo. Anything could have caused the mark. You need the actual shoe with the glass still in it to demonstrate that. Your reasoning is tenuous and grasping at best.


The police surmised the cuts were from the blade slipping while he stabbed Meredith, and Rudy accounted for them as coming from defending himself from the mystery man.


Er, no they didn't. Where and when do you think the police surmised this? Don't get what the FOAKers surmised and what the police surmised mixed up.

Rudy claimed he got the cuts fighting off the murderer. This makes it just as likely they were self-inflicted in order to make up that account in order to appear innocent.

None of Rudy's blood was found at the crime scene. Only Amanda's and Meredith's blood was found.


So he cuts himself weeks before getting caught? Makes no sense for someone on the lam, trying to appear normal.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:


Since Amanda worked in Le Chic because she NEEDED money, I'm afraid it's YOUR position that's swaying in the wind.


I go to work everyday. It doesn't mean that I don't have money in the bank. My position has not changed. I am very clear with my views. Others here change their views to fit the conversation at hand. You will see that my position never changes. There is no need to change my position because I back up what I post with facts.

From last night to today, it is very clear that some posters never looked at the photographs of the break-in. They had blind faith that it was staged. Not knowing the bag had clothes in it, not knowing the bag was ripped. Its okay if people want to side with Massei and take his word for it. We don't have to agree. But it's clear that some are learning as they go. You will not see that from me. My position has not changed.


You go to work every day because you NEED money. You may have money in the bank, but you still need to go to work. Ergo, having money in the bank doesn't mean that you don't need money. There, I turned it around for you to where it should be.

Amanda needed money. Hence why, she worked at Le Chic.

Our conclusions are not based on blind faith, they are based on the evidence. Nearly all of the photos you have posted we have already seen and the others you have shown show nothing NEW.

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


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

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

From Massei:


In answer to a specific question posed by Raffaele Sollecito's defence, he
declared having seen the photos of Rudy Guede's hands sent by the German police,
in which signs of "healing of the skin in a very advanced stage...of tiny scratches
which were present on the little finger of the right hand, the second phalange of the
middle finger of the right hand and the palm of the right hand" (page 54), all injuries
compatible with inflicting a knife wound with the right hand.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:

Tranmanontano's story was found to have been completely made up by Judge Micheli, nice try.


But not Massei. Or Hellman. And Micheli seems to not find him credible because the MO was too similar to what Rudy allegedly did when attacking Meredith???



Because they were unable to question him or read Micheli's report. Note, your precious Tranmanontano didn't testify in Massei or Hellmann's courts. Therefore, it remains, Tranmanontano can be discarded.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
And yet Amanda the rock climber couldn't make the climb to Meredith's window.

Stop mucking about. If anyone is going to break into the cottage they are going to break in via the obvious and easy entry point, where the two REAL break-ins happened. Stop trying to sell us a bridge. Nobody is ever going to buy it.

Tell me, when you go into your own house, do you climb in through the window or do you go in through your front door?


Clearly she doesn't think like a criminal then...

Weren't bars put on the window after the murder?


Just not enough experience.

Bars were put on the window to make potential tenants feel more secure.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:


Since Amanda worked in Le Chic because she NEEDED money, I'm afraid it's YOUR position that's swaying in the wind.


I go to work everyday. It doesn't mean that I don't have money in the bank. My position has not changed. I am very clear with my views. Others here change their views to fit the conversation at hand. You will see that my position never changes. There is no need to change my position because I back up what I post with facts.

From last night to today, it is very clear that some posters never looked at the photographs of the break-in. They had blind faith that it was staged. Not knowing the bag had clothes in it, not knowing the bag was ripped. Its okay if people want to side with Massei and take his word for it. We don't have to agree. But it's clear that some are learning as they go. You will not see that from me. My position has not changed.


You go to work every day because you NEED money. You may have money in the bank, but you still need to go to work. Ergo, having money in the bank doesn't mean that you don't need money. There, I turned it around for you to where it should be.

Amanda needed money. Hence why, she worked at Le Chic.


So this proves that Amanda took Meredith's the money? I have to be honest, you lost me there Michael.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
There is a lot of speculation about Amanda's bank statements. I have never requested to see them and I do not have them. People here are creating theories based on no proof whatsoever about her finances. The burden of proof is on you. You demand bank statements to disprove your theories. This is backwards thinking.


Actually, the figures came from Charlie Wilkes who obtained them from Chris Mellas. Good enough for me.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:

Bars were put on the window to make potential tenants feel more secure.



I agree.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Is Jackie still online? I thought we were all going to disclose our personal information. Like I said, I am game if all of you are. No one objected to Jackie's comment so I guess it's on the table.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Time to go pick up the youngest from swimming. I think Tuesday will be over when I return home.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
It solves HER rent money problem. And she isn't going to think for a moment that stealing Meredith's money will prevent the rent from being paid. She knew Meredith would get the money to replace it by simply having to take more out of the bank. Amazing things cash machines.


How could Amanda have a rent money problem with 4000 bucks in the bank???
My point is that if she really was worried about not making rent, then taking your roommate's doesn't solve the problem. You're still short on rent as a group of renters. Either way, I think other's arguments here that the money was stolen as part of the staging would make more sense - if only Rafaelle hadn't said nothing was stolen, then that might make sense.



Your argument is ridiculous. You could just as well use it to argue Amanda didn't murder Meredith...'Amanda didn't murder Meredith...she needed her to pay the rent'. Nonsense. Your flatmate will find the money to pay the rent or you will find a new flatmate who can pay it.

But since Meredith was DEAD, the rent wasn't going to get paid was it, so it didn't matter from Amanda's perspective if she took it, did it!

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?


We don't need to be experts (and not being an expert has never stopped YOU has it? I don't think you want to go down that road), anyone can see if there is enough evidence to convict...if they're being objective that is.


Michael, Jackie made a comment about my profession stating that I was not in the position to hold an opinion. He gave Ergon a pass for having an opinion on the same topic so I asked if he was an expert. Does that make it more clear?



Yeah, but you don't claim to be someone simply with an opinion, do you Bruce? You claim yourself to be an authority.


That is false. I have never claimed to be an authority.


Not in direct words.

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


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

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:

Tranmanontano's story was found to have been completely made up by Judge Micheli, nice try.


But not Massei. Or Hellman. And Micheli seems to not find him credible because the MO was too similar to what Rudy allegedly did when attacking Meredith???



Because they were unable to question him or read Micheli's report. Note, your precious Tranmanontano didn't testify in Massei or Hellmann's courts. Therefore, it remains, Tranmanontano can be discarded.


What are you talking about, Tramontano was cited as part of Rudy's history in both Massei and Hellman's reports.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:

They sought the advice of friends and family first in order to build an ALIBI and also to hopefully have them call the police for them and drag them into it. They tried to involve as many people as possible. That's not naivety, that's calculation.


Interesting, because before the Massei report, the line of thought here was that Amanda and Rafaelle were busy cleaning up the scene of the crime, when they were surprised out of the blue by the police, having had no intention of alerting anyone yet.


That's because our interpretation of the crime scene naturally evolved as more evidence became available. It's called "following the evidence". Try it.


Excpet the inferences being made about the phone calls could have been made when the call logs were posted here back in April 2010, nearly five months before the Massei translation was posted.


Why don't you go back and see exactly what we said about those phone logs?

The phone logs alone don't prove that they called the police before they arrived.

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


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

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
It solves HER rent money problem. And she isn't going to think for a moment that stealing Meredith's money will prevent the rent from being paid. She knew Meredith would get the money to replace it by simply having to take more out of the bank. Amazing things cash machines.


How could Amanda have a rent money problem with 4000 bucks in the bank???
My point is that if she really was worried about not making rent, then taking your roommate's doesn't solve the problem. You're still short on rent as a group of renters. Either way, I think other's arguments here that the money was stolen as part of the staging would make more sense - if only Rafaelle hadn't said nothing was stolen, then that might make sense.



Your argument is ridiculous. You could just as well use it to argue Amanda didn't murder Meredith...'Amanda didn't murder Meredith...she needed her to pay the rent'. Nonsense. Your flatmate will find the money to pay the rent or you will find a new flatmate who can pay it.

But since Meredith was DEAD, the rent wasn't going to get paid was it, so it didn't matter from Amanda's perspective if she took it, did it!


If you find reason for Amanda to steal Meredith's money when she had plenty of her own, how do argue that Rudy had no reason to steal it, considering his DNA was on the purse, he was the one asking his friend to wire him money, he had to squat in a nursery in Milan instead of a hotel, and was train hopping in Germany! Yet, clearly, Amanda was the only one with reason to take the money.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:

They sought the advice of friends and family first in order to build an ALIBI and also to hopefully have them call the police for them and drag them into it. They tried to involve as many people as possible. That's not naivety, that's calculation.


Interesting, because before the Massei report, the line of thought here was that Amanda and Rafaelle were busy cleaning up the scene of the crime, when they were surprised out of the blue by the police, having had no intention of alerting anyone yet.


That's because our interpretation of the crime scene naturally evolved as more evidence became available. It's called "following the evidence". Try it.


Excpet the inferences being made about the phone calls could have been made when the call logs were posted here back in April 2010, nearly five months before the Massei translation was posted.


Why don't you go back and see exactly what we said about those phone logs?

The phone logs alone don't prove that they called the police before they arrived.


Well, I asked Welshy what his/her point was and didn't get an answer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Cakeeater


Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:02 pm

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

'Night everyone :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
She received nearly eighty calls following the few days after the murder. It's entorely possible he wanted to know what happened. One thing is for sure though. If he was her dealer, it makes much less sense that Rudy would have been involved with her that night since most of the arguments I've seen have them meeting up with Rudy to score drugs.


How many of those were from friends and family back in Seattle and from her flatmates and Raffaele?

It depends WHAT drugs, doesn't it? And for the record, the idea that she met up with Rudy that night to score drugs is merely a 'speculation' here, not a hard theory. I don't think she did, as Rudy wasn't a dealer from any evidence I've seen. But, Rudy 'did' know people who were. His role could have been as a 'fixer'.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Er, no they didn't. Where and when do you think the police surmised this? Don't get what the FOAKers surmised and what the police surmised mixed up.

Rudy claimed he got the cuts fighting off the murderer. This makes it just as likely they were self-inflicted in order to make up that account in order to appear innocent.

None of Rudy's blood was found at the crime scene. Only Amanda's and Meredith's blood was found.


So he cuts himself weeks before getting caught? Makes no sense for someone on the lam, trying to appear normal.


Where do you get 'weeks' from? How are you dating the cuts?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
From Massei:


In answer to a specific question posed by Raffaele Sollecito's defence, he
declared having seen the photos of Rudy Guede's hands sent by the German police,
in which signs of "healing of the skin in a very advanced stage...of tiny scratches
which were present on the little finger of the right hand, the second phalange of the
middle finger of the right hand and the palm of the right hand" (page 54), all injuries
compatible with inflicting a knife wound with the right hand.


And this demonstrates 'what', as the point you are trying to make isn't clear with this passage?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:


Since Amanda worked in Le Chic because she NEEDED money, I'm afraid it's YOUR position that's swaying in the wind.


I go to work everyday. It doesn't mean that I don't have money in the bank. My position has not changed. I am very clear with my views. Others here change their views to fit the conversation at hand. You will see that my position never changes. There is no need to change my position because I back up what I post with facts.

From last night to today, it is very clear that some posters never looked at the photographs of the break-in. They had blind faith that it was staged. Not knowing the bag had clothes in it, not knowing the bag was ripped. Its okay if people want to side with Massei and take his word for it. We don't have to agree. But it's clear that some are learning as they go. You will not see that from me. My position has not changed.


You go to work every day because you NEED money. You may have money in the bank, but you still need to go to work. Ergo, having money in the bank doesn't mean that you don't need money. There, I turned it around for you to where it should be.

Amanda needed money. Hence why, she worked at Le Chic.


So this proves that Amanda took Meredith's the money? I have to be honest, you lost me there Michael.



Straw man. I'm not putting that argument to prove Amanda took Meredith's money, but to refute your argument that Amanda didn't take Meredith's money because she didn't need money.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:

Tranmanontano's story was found to have been completely made up by Judge Micheli, nice try.


But not Massei. Or Hellman. And Micheli seems to not find him credible because the MO was too similar to what Rudy allegedly did when attacking Meredith???



Because they were unable to question him or read Micheli's report. Note, your precious Tranmanontano didn't testify in Massei or Hellmann's courts. Therefore, it remains, Tranmanontano can be discarded.


What are you talking about, Tramontano was cited as part of Rudy's history in both Massei and Hellman's reports.



On the basis of his POLICE STATEMENT only. He never testified in Massei or Hellmann's courts. The defence claimed they 'couldn't find him' and so didn't provide him for the stand. That's because they knew he was bullshit...as Micheli did, the only judge who did question him.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
Cakeeater wrote:
Michael wrote:
It solves HER rent money problem. And she isn't going to think for a moment that stealing Meredith's money will prevent the rent from being paid. She knew Meredith would get the money to replace it by simply having to take more out of the bank. Amazing things cash machines.


How could Amanda have a rent money problem with 4000 bucks in the bank???
My point is that if she really was worried about not making rent, then taking your roommate's doesn't solve the problem. You're still short on rent as a group of renters. Either way, I think other's arguments here that the money was stolen as part of the staging would make more sense - if only Rafaelle hadn't said nothing was stolen, then that might make sense.



Your argument is ridiculous. You could just as well use it to argue Amanda didn't murder Meredith...'Amanda didn't murder Meredith...she needed her to pay the rent'. Nonsense. Your flatmate will find the money to pay the rent or you will find a new flatmate who can pay it.

But since Meredith was DEAD, the rent wasn't going to get paid was it, so it didn't matter from Amanda's perspective if she took it, did it!


If you find reason for Amanda to steal Meredith's money when she had plenty of her own, how do argue that Rudy had no reason to steal it, considering his DNA was on the purse, he was the one asking his friend to wire him money, he had to squat in a nursery in Milan instead of a hotel, and was train hopping in Germany! Yet, clearly, Amanda was the only one with reason to take the money.


There are lots of reasons people steal...didn't you know that?

Rudy's DNA on the handbag was what had him acquitted of the theft. The DNA was in bloody fingerprints. The positioning of the fingerprints showed he picked it ip (to move it) but didn't open it or go inside it.

He asked to be wired money because he had no source of money in Germany and he'd been there for three weeks...he did in Perugia.

He squatted in the nursery because he got to Milan too late to get a hotel, not because he had no money. As a side note, when my girlfriend and I drove to Italy and drove around the country, we often stopped overnight in a place and slept in the car. We did that not because we had no money, but because we didn't want to waste our money on hotels and instead spend it on the things we wanted to spend it on.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
We don't need to be experts (and not being an expert has never stopped YOU has it? I don't think you want to go down that road), anyone can see if there is enough evidence to convict...if they're being objective that is.


Michael, Jackie made a comment about my profession stating that I was not in the position to hold an opinion. He gave Ergon a pass for having an opinion on the same topic so I asked if he was an expert. Does that make it more clear?



Yeah, but you don't claim to be someone simply with an opinion, do you Bruce? You claim yourself to be an authority.


That is false. I have never claimed to be an authority.


Not in direct words.


Do you consider yourself to be an authority when it comes to this case?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFisher wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be an authority when it comes to this case?


Yes, because I've done my homework. The difference between you and I, is that you have an agenda, I don't.

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


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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFisher wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be an authority when it comes to this case?


Yes, because I've done my homework. The difference between you and I, is that you have an agenda, I don't.

he can be an "authority" because he has the case files

bruce's agenda is $$$$$
he may as well be selling the case files he gained illicitly to the press
he's making money out of a murder
Top Profile 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFisher wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be an authority when it comes to this case?


Yes, because I've done my homework. The difference between you and I, is that you have an agenda, I don't.


I will note that you consider yourself to be an authority.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFisher wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be an authority when it comes to this case?


Yes, because I've done my homework. The difference between you and I, is that you have an agenda, I don't.

he can be an "authority" because he has the case files

bruce's agenda is $$$$$
he may as well be selling the case files he gained illicitly to the press
he's making money out of a murder



Just to demonstrate the agenda, Bruce and his followers are now expanding into other cases. It doesn't really seem to matter whether the people in those cases are guilty or innocent, the only requirement seems to be:

1. That the accused/convicted is American

2. That they are in a foreign country

So, the root of the agenda appears to be $ AND nationalism. Nasty mix.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFisher wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be an authority when it comes to this case?


Yes, because I've done my homework. The difference between you and I, is that you have an agenda, I don't.

he can be an "authority" because he has the case files

bruce's agenda is $$$$$
he may as well be selling the case files he gained illicitly to the press
he's making money out of a murder


ttrroonniicc, your comments are off the wall. I don't think you offer anything whatsoever to move the case forward. If I posted the same nonsense I would be given a warning. Our group works to correct wrongful convictions. You should do a little research before throwing around baseless claims.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

That concludes FOAKer Tuesday for this week. Thank you to all those of you that took part in the spirit it was intended and thank you to the staff that worked so hard today. Regular PMF members can of course, continue to discuss the case.




Normal service will resume shortly.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFisher wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be an authority when it comes to this case?


Yes, because I've done my homework. The difference between you and I, is that you have an agenda, I don't.

he can be an "authority" because he has the case files

bruce's agenda is $$$$$
he may as well be selling the case files he gained illicitly to the press
he's making money out of a murder



Just to demonstrate the agenda, Bruce and his followers are now expanding into other cases. It doesn't really seem to matter whether the people in those cases are guilty or innocent, the only requirement seems to be:

1. That the accused/convicted is American

2. That they are in a foreign country

So, the root of the agenda appears to be $ AND nationalism. Nasty mix.


Really? Here is our website. Please look at the featured cases: www.injustice-anywhere.org

Your statements are absolutely false Michael.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I think people can judge, Bruce. Goodnight :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

424 posts today! Bloody hell.

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


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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Is Jackie still online? I thought we were all going to disclose our personal information. Like I said, I am game if all of you are. No one objected to Jackie's comment so I guess it's on the table.


See, that is the kind of stuff that makes you repulsive to most people. Talk all you want on your personal information if you like. If not, why not stay on topic and keep debating... as if anyone believes that is what you are actually doing here.

Like you, Mr Website starter/bookwriter/forensic expert/star poster/etc can't tell if someone is online or not. Really? Gee wiz.

That is like AK saying she didn't know how to delete outgoing messages on her phone.

Or that two 20+ year old people don't call police after being advised to do so by at least 3 rational people... 2 being family.

Instead one tries to bust open the door... and can not do it nw) . Not concerned enough ya think? Too many doobies? Didn't pay attention in karate class? Is a weak punk? What's your excuse here?

The other tries to look into the room from the balcony... are you kidding me? Now wouldn't that qualify as a 'wall-climber' to some extent? Certainly not afraid of heights.

Was the panic so intense that the two did not think of trying Meredith's phones from just outside the door to see if she was actually in the room? If not, why wasn't that attempted? This should be a good one!

Why didn't AK leave a message on one of Meredith's phones... or both? No need huh?

How did RS know that 'nothing had been taken' when talking on the phone to police? Psychic, seer, very observant, weak of body but not of mind? Take your pick? Or you could say again he was jotting (talking) out theories/LIES because he was scared or something.

Why would RS say AK went back to do laundry, but AK say she never used the washing machine?

That should give you something to spout about next Tuesday at least.

Is it interesting at all to you that you/groupies have to make up sooo many excuses, and far-out
explanations/reasoning of AK/RS's statements and behaviors? It is to me. There are a bunch of them... that is for sure.

hoop-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
424 posts today! Bloody hell.


People that missed today will be ages catching up on the postings. Cape will be :shock: .

Get well soon! hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Yes, get well soon cape, and all the best to absent PMF'ers :-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
Michael wrote:
424 posts today! Bloody hell.


People that missed today will be ages catching up on the postings. Cape will be :shock: .

Get well soon! hugz-)

Maybe a quick summary will help? Just for fun ;)

- The rock is not 9lbs but much lighter.
- Rudy swung a rock at the window with closed shutters just hoping for the best. At the same time he is an experienced burglar because he had stolen stuff in his backpack or something. Repeat Rudy's extensive burglar history 100 times.
- Mention old debunked myths about Rudy knowing which window was broken before it was in the papers, when Italian posters have shown it already was in Italian national newspapers at the time of his Skype call.
- AK and RS are too intelligent to do this, and at the same time AK and RS are too stupid to do that. Almost in the same sentence...lol...
- Rudy is a free solo climber.
- There is dust on a folded sweater on the floor under (that is normal) the rock. The dust came from the outside wall so it must have come from Rudy's shoe. It is evidence because I say so.
- There is a 'scuff mark' on the wall (there are many but please ignore all the others since they are not above the window).
- There is a trace on the window which might have been blood. We know Meredith's blood was all over the place, we know Amanda left 2 traces in that room, we know Amanda was bleeding that night, yet it must have been Rudy's because he had a cut on his hand a few weeks later in Germany. The brown hair was Rudy's black hair..huh?
- The money, the money. She got plenty of money, she need no money, she was working just for fun, no we don't show any banking statements.
- Amanda got the mop the next day to clean up water stains. Forget what they said themselves.

I probably still missed a bunch since I got bored. No offense :) I thought Napia5's posts were incredibly funny. Just use simple logic and the whole burglar scenario becomes completely ridiculous. Well done.


Last edited by max on Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Don't forget "we have experts, and you have none" :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I had to think of the 'lighter rock' when I read this article. Did they ever weigh the rock? Who knows it is a little lighter after all? This is important stuff. People make mistakes. Might have been 8lbs ;)

Dinosaurs weighed 21 per cent less than previous estimates, say scientists
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Making the tours! First it was Bongiorno and now it is mr. Hampikian. Do they really think it will influence the SC?

http://www.julienews.it/notizia/cyber-s ... sip_5.html
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

please delete


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Slideshow. Knox is number 4. Yah, they are not happy. Funny comment (not mine):
- Amanda Knox shouldn't be on this list.
Reply: It makes more sense than the list she made last week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/0 ... 63898.html
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
Making the tours! First it was Bongiorno and now it is mr. Hampikian. Do they really think it will influence the SC?

http://www.julienews.it/notizia/cyber-s ... sip_5.html


Thanks max. Here is a quick Google trans:

05/06/2012

"The Genetics of Innocence: DNA lessons from the Amanda Knox case" is the theme of the meeting to be held tomorrow at the Institute of Genetics and Biophysics of the National Research Council with Greg Hampikian, molecular geneticist and a renowned expert in forensic genetics at Boise State University, involved in the resolution of court cases of broad appeal to public opinion.

Hampikian will explain how new technologies for the analysis of genomic DNA can be used and applied to solving forensic cases, even if controversial.

Starting from the discussion of specific cases, like that of Amanda Knox, with a critical approach, the biologist will explain how the techniques of forensic DNA analysis, however sophisticated, are not infallible and it is not possible to obtain incontrovertible results from the analysis of samples.

Currently Prof. Hampikian also directs the international project "Idaho Innocence Project" to promote the spread of genetic testing in justice; he will discuss, therefore, the importance of scientific data that may have some degree of ambiguity and can be interpreted erroneously.

Hampikian will explain how this can also depend on contextual information that is provided to biologists on forensic cases to be examined, which can trigger the so-called cognitive bias or prejudice resulting from the conditioning exercised by knowledge of the details of the cases treated.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks guermantes. Mmhh..contextual information. I am sure mr. H. can give a great lecture about DNA but why does it have to be about the MEREDITH KERCHER case? He has already shown he knows nothing about the context and doesn't seem to care. I am afraid he is going to follow the FOA book, have a go at Stefanoni and her team, repeat a 100 times there is no evidence against AK, cash in a few euros, give vague answers to difficult questions, and off he goes. Why doesn't he go into his lab and figure out how easy it is to create a diluted blood sample that reacts positively to luminol but negatively to TMB? Too easy mr. H? JMO.
Top Profile 

Offline flybye

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:22 am

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael, Ergon I was hoping to see a good debate. But all I can see is bullshit from you two.
Btw what's w/ these stupid childlish warning. GROW THE FUCK UP!

picture of a pumpkin
You have been Warned by a Moderator
Reason: For obvious reasons.



Note
You have been BANNED!!
Reason: After review, I have upgraded the sanction from a Formal Warning to a Ban. Arriving on the board simply to throw obscene abuse at members of staff is not acceptable on any level.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
Slideshow. Knox is number 4. Yah, they are not happy. Funny comment (not mine):
- Amanda Knox shouldn't be on this list.
Reply: It makes more sense than the list she made last week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/0 ... 63898.html


Wow, Max. This was a bit over the top, even for the HuffPo! Read it this morning. Only 95 comments and only two of the faithful have responded so far. Somebody's slipping.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
max wrote:
Making the tours! First it was Bongiorno and now it is mr. Hampikian. Do they really think it will influence the SC?

http://www.julienews.it/notizia/cyber-s ... sip_5.html


Thanks max. Here is a quick Google trans:

05/06/2012

"The Genetics of Innocence: DNA lessons from the Amanda Knox case" is the theme of the meeting to be held tomorrow at the Institute of Genetics and Biophysics of the National Research Council with Greg Hampikian, molecular geneticist and a renowned expert in forensic genetics at Boise State University, involved in the resolution of court cases of broad appeal to public opinion.

Hampikian will explain how new technologies for the analysis of genomic DNA can be used and applied to solving forensic cases, even if controversial.

Starting from the discussion of specific cases, like that of Amanda Knox, with a critical approach, the biologist will explain how the techniques of forensic DNA analysis, however sophisticated, are not infallible and it is not possible to obtain incontrovertible results from the analysis of samples.

Currently Prof. Hampikian also directs the international project "Idaho Innocence Project" to promote the spread of genetic testing in justice; he will discuss, therefore, the importance of scientific data that may have some degree of ambiguity and can be interpreted erroneously.

Hampikian will explain how this can also depend on contextual information that is provided to biologists on forensic cases to be examined, which can trigger the so-called cognitive bias or prejudice resulting from the conditioning exercised by knowledge of the details of the cases treated.


Whoa, max and guermantes, it's way too early in the morning for this.

I just hate it when I am left stumped over my morning coffee.

Here's why I am a bit confused.

1. Mr. Hampikian is a geneticist, yes?
2. He states that the techniques for study are not infalllible and it is not possible to obtain incontrovertible results from
a study of samples.
3. He also states that he will also discuss the importance of scientific data that mat have some degree of ambiguiity and
can be interpreted incorrectly.
4. He goes on to say that this can depend upon contextual information that is provided which can trigger the so called
cognitive bias or prejudice resulting from the conditioning exercised by knowledge of the details of the cases treated.

Given 1,2,3 and 4, isn't he basically saying that I shouldn't believe a word he says? What am I missing?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I have banned new member 'Winston'. Troll.

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


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

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Thanks Michael for deleting winston`s troll post in which he implied: The spiderman climb is theoretically possible -> the break-in is real and you can forget all the other things, which are clearly incompatible with a real break-in.
I would love to see any person doing this circus act (i.e. climbing the wall), without leaving any evidence, that the wall was ever climbed, as was the case in via della Pergola.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael, if you have a moment at some point, would you give me an avatar, please?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

There you go Napia, I hope you like it :) If not, let me know and I'll change it.

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BOOM!!!! Right in your face!!!!! Perfect. Thank you. That's me!!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I can give you a louder one if you want :)

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
I can give you a louder one if you want :)


LOL, no, I think that honor goes to cape! Hope she's well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

RoseMontag wrote:
Ergon wrote:
geebee2, if you read what RoseMontag wrote, Candace Dempsey says the rock was 8.8 lbs. Do you disagree?



Serendipitously, the ladies shot put also weighs 8.8 lbs, and the record throw is over 73 feet.


I estimated the rock to be 5-10 Kg but I was clearly wrong. I estimated the size from the cropped photographs that were showing only the part of the rock. The correct wt is apparently 8.8 lbs or 4 Kgs (as I figure out from the discussions).

Italians use metric system and the original weight must have been in Kgs and not in Lbs.

The shot put is usually iron and spherical and will have minimal air resistance. Many of these 'shot putters' have been reported to be on drugs (of a different kind). Throwing a round ball 25 meters in a horizontal direction is quite a different game than throwing a rough stone 10 meter high (I do not know the exact point from where it was thrown).

It appears that the stone (or rock) hit the middle part of the glass pane. I do not know the size (width) of the windows the stone "clearly" cleared the wooden frame. The aim must have been excellent. It must have been reasonably dark around the time of the year.

Where the rock landed in the room? I have seen several photos of the rock by now but they are useless to estimate the horizontal distance of the landed rock from the wall. This is a very critical distance and it must have been measured and reported.

The "scratches" (someone has marked with an arrow lest we miss it!) on the outside shutters are minimal and may or may not be causes by the rock.

When someone enters by the window, he/she lands on the floor with a thud.

The rock landed on the floor and tipped a paper bag and also made a few small fragments (broken one). Did the rock leave any mark on the floor where it landed?

Ok, we had lots of discussions on the state of the (external) shutters - I am just curious about the (inside) wooden covers on the glass pane. One "always" closes these ones so that the inside is not visible from outside.

I guess from the (hi-res) photos that the usual resident was "obsessed" about cleanliness. I guess when she left the floor was as clean as it can be.

Any info, Rose Dienstag?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Welshy


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:27 pm

Posts: 30

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Well, I asked Welshy what his/her point was and didn't get an answer.[/quote]

Apologies Cakeater, I appear to live on a different continent to you and occasionally require sleep. The point is you claim RS toppped his phone up so he can contact his sister and request her help due to the circumstances he discovered in the cottage, why then does he wait 16 minutes after making the top up to contact her? The cell locations show he tops up at the cottage so what's he doing in the cottage for the next 16 minutes? Read what RS says concerning his arrival at the cottage in the context of the 16 minute delay in requesting help, he claims to have been shocked and worried immediately upon entry but he spends over 16 minutes wandering around the crime scene. Do you seriously believe AK's 'ledge balancing' and 'calling out' accounts for this delay? We know the door kicking doesn't of course because he barely puts a dent in it. It's an extraordinary amount of time.
Also, why does RS have a 67 second conversation with his father while wandering around the cottage and say nothing to him about the circumstances he discovered there? It's literally minutes before the call to his sister requesting 'help'.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Just having another one of those passing thoughts.
Does anyone recall if anyone asked Amanda what lights were on when she came home in the morning?
If we are to believe Guede as sole murderer, he was there in the darkness of night.
Did he lock Meredith's door in total darkness and then find his way directly out the front door? Didn't stumble over anything in the process? Found her bedrooom door key and the key to the front door in darkness?
Curious, this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

No lights. She didn't use the bathroom lightswitch because it had blood smears on it. She didn't notice her lamp (which was her only light sourse) wasn't in her room. She claimed to have used the sunlight from the balcony/kitchen area and didn't need any other interior lighting. Anyone that can walk into a cold unlocked cottage, notice blood on the floor and still prance around naked wouldn't let a little lack of lighting bother them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

dgfred wrote:
No lights. She didn't use the bathroom lightswitch because it had blood smears on it. She didn't notice her lamp (which was her only light sourse) wasn't in her room. She claimed to have used the sunlight from the balcony/kitchen area and didn't need any other interior lighting. Anyone that can walk into a cold unlocked cottage, notice blood on the floor and still prance around naked wouldn't let a little lack of lighting bother them.


Amazing fella, that Guede. Able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, AND can see in total darkness.
The devil is in the details.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:05 pm   Post subject: NEW PMF POLL CREATED!   

NEW PMF POLL CREATED!

As you are aware, PMF stages FOAKer Tuesday one day a week. This has received a mixed response from regular members and FOAKers alike. Over the past few weeks we have had much complaining from the FOAKers that the staff are restricting them to only one day of posting. Therefore, we shall let the members decide. Should the FOAKers have their posting day extended to two days a week, or should it remain restricted to only one day a week?

The rules for voting are as follows. Please read carefully before voting:

Rules for voting: Only non-FOAKer regular PMF members who have at least one post in their post count and have been members for at least one month are eligible to vote in this poll. Non-elligible votes will not be counted in the final tally. Voters can change their vote whilst the poll remains open. The Poll will remain open for 7 days, at the end of which the final result will be announced.


VOTE HERE: FOAKER TUESDAY


If any regular members wish to debate the poll, please feel free to do so here in the Main Discussion thread.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
If you want the argument to have legs, you need to support it with proof.


I agree completely. However, you've made numerous claims which you have never supported with proof. For example, on Injustice in Perugia you made the following claims:

"The Italian supreme court ruled that the interrogation of Amanda Knox was inadmissible in the trial. The court stated that the interrogation was illegal because Amanda did not have an attorney present."

Do you have any proof that the Italian Supreme Court ruled the interrogation of Amanda Knox was inadmissible in the trial?

Do you have any proof the Italian Supreme Court stated that the interrogation was illegal?

Thanks in advance.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Well, BruceFischer, I've re-read all of your comments. I've tried to get a picture in my mind, a picture of what you say the evidence and facts present.
I see that you really want it to be Guede coming through the window, how convenient to your argument it would be if it could be proven that Guede entered through the window to commit the murder, and, frankly, I don't see it.
The evidence is strong for staging. The evidence is strong that the three of them committed the murder.

If I follow your presentation, and your theories, a good bit of what you present is speculation, and it is speculation based upon your premise that Guede acted alone, and you present what you call facts to support this theory.

However, there is no physical evidence to support your claim that it was Guede.

YOU need the break in to be real to support your lone wolf theory. And that physical proof does not exist.

To prove this to you, using your theories about the rock etc., I give you an alternate theory.
Some 15 year old kid, up to mischief, walked past the cottage at 3 in the morning the night of the murder, and chucked a rock. The broken window had nothing to do with the murder.
You cannot put Guede through that window with evidence. You just want it to be true.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

News about mr H. or Bongiorno making the tours, and then a bunch of FOA people trying to flood message boards is usually an indication of something coming up in the courts. So I am not surprised to see some real news today. Seems like the appeal has been accepted but no date set yet.

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/regioni/ ... 92724.html
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... day_moved/
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The news that the appeal was accepted and assigned and then this picture of Amanda with the article...funny Italians :)

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/ ... knox.shtml
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Well, I vote for restricting FOAKER TUESDAY viewtopic.php?f=17&t=390 to Tuesdays only. And I say this as someone who really wasn't sure it was a good idea to begin with. Funny, but as a debating society member at school, college and universities, it had been my firm belief that one could debate anything, openly, respectfully, and always, responding to the argument and not the person. I have always tried to debate that way, but that requires the other side to treat me and my argument in like manner. It requires good faith, civility, and honest debate. It requires that one listen to opposing views, to keep an open mind, and, accept that one might be wrong on a particular point, or opinion.

Those principles seem quite quaint now. The Internet spawns sock puppets, trolls, and anonymous posters who can display their bad manners, outright lies, and social dysfunction without fear of real consequence; warn or ban them, and back they come under another name with anonymizer software to disguise their identities. Allow them to spam a forum, and they think they've 'won'. I saw this on Wikipedia, Huffington Post, Gather, Sharon Feinstein and Chelsea Hoffmann's blogs, CPJ, JREF, and Amazon review pages, and all that does, is make a site unmanageable and turn off long time contributors.

But my misgivings were when I was a member of PMF. As a moderator, I would support that decision and try to keep the flow going, but I would aggressively police any effort to disrupt this forum. Our purpose isn't really to 'debate' the other side, it is to examine and fairly present all the evidence and allow people to make up their own mind, it is a cause to obtain justice for Meredith Kercher.

It seems like such a long time, but I just realized I've only been a moderator for four months. Wow! Anyhow, I now appreciate Michael opening up the comments to the FOA, not because they've disproven any of my misgivings, but, in a battle of ideas, the behaviour and demeanour of the debaters also shows up the validity of their arguments, and in this, they have provided ample evidence of the lengths they would go to try and 'win'.

This is what I mean. Here is a post from Bruce Fischer's site http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/ ... 126&t=1936 or http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/ ... t1936.html "Hate Sites in justice cases" where they make every effort to what, associate the whole PMF community as "Holocaust deniers", and here, is Bruce Fischer himself, showing a video in which Peggy Ganong, the admin of PMF.ORG, is presented as Adolph Hitler. That is so offensive that if it were up to me I would cancel FOAKER Tuesdays altogether.

As it is, I am only a short time staff member, and I have only one vote, so I vote for allowing them to post on Tuesdays only, as long as they present evidence, and stay on topic. This isn't license for dishonest debate, and they are here on forbearance, whiny whingeing about how 'unfair' we are be damned.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
News about mr H. or Bongiorno making the tours, and then a bunch of FOA people trying to flood message boards is usually an indication of something coming up in the courts. So I am not surprised to see some real news today. Seems like the appeal has been accepted but no date set yet.

http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/regioni/ ... 92724.html
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... day_moved/


Great news, max! I was expecting some news around this time!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
...
This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA...


On what basis are you making this incredible assertion?

Does working as a clerk in a fur shop now require a J.D. and years of experience as a prosecutor?



Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?

Would you like to post personal attacks while hiding behind your anonymous name? Would everyone here like to post up their profession and place of employment? Is this where you would like to take this Jackie? I'm game if you are.


1) The meaning of your dubious assertion ("...This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA...") is clear with or without knowledge of the fact that it was made "in reference to Ergon" - you have not been quoted unfairly;

2) I have no idea as to whether Ergon is "an expert" but, rest assured, in the event that he/she ever dares to make an assertion about legal matters that's anywhere near as ridiculous as the one you just made, I'll be sure to challenge him/her as well;

3) You have not answered my question; &

4) After bearing witness to the tribulations that Ms. Ganong and Mr. Quenelle were subjected to at the hands of an unscrupulous, jug-eared internet jackass, I'm not exactly keen to surrender my anonymity.

Indeed, I can't think of anything more vexing than having to face the futility of spending 50-100K in order to win a judgment against a potentially penniless defendant.

Someone out there is really quite clever when it comes to chilling the debate.



PS What kind of an "author" writes a phrase like "anonymous name"? 8-)
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
...
This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA...


On what basis are you making this incredible assertion?

Does working as a clerk in a fur shop now require a J.D. and years of experience as a prosecutor?



Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?

Would you like to post personal attacks while hiding behind your anonymous name? Would everyone here like to post up their profession and place of employment? Is this where you would like to take this Jackie? I'm game if you are.


1) The meaning of your dubious assertion ("...This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA...") is clear with or without knowledge of the fact that it was made "in reference to Ergon" - you have not been quoted unfairly;

2) I have no idea as to whether Ergon is "an expert" but, rest assured, in the event that he/she ever dares to make an assertion about legal matters that's anywhere near as ridiculous as the one you just made, I'll be sure to challenge him/her as well;

3) You have not answered my question; &

4) After bearing witness to the tribulations that Ms. Ganong and Mr. Quenelle were subjected to at the hands of an unscrupulous, jug-eared internet jackass, I'm not exactly keen to surrender my anonymity.

Indeed, I can't think of anything more vexing than having to face the futility of spending 50-100K in order to win a judgment against a potentially penniless defendant.

Someone out there is really quite clever when it comes to chilling the debate.



PS What kind of an "author" writes a phrase like "anonymous name"? 8-)


Bruce Fischer's offer to reveal his profession and place of employment is disingenuous; most posters on PMF know that he's a fur coat salesman and a number of them know where he works. It should be noted that Fischer falsely claimed on Gather that he was located in New York and spelt his name "Fisher", so he wasn't exactly honest or open about his background.

The FOA have attempted to find out the identities of some of the posters on PMF and TJMK. Steve Moore claimed that SomeAlibi wasn't a lawyer. I'd like to know how he could possibly know this. Couldn't he find any lawyers called SomeAlibi in the White Pages?

Some groupies have repeatedly called a couple of posters on PMF and TJMK at their places of work and hassled them. No-one wants to put up with such moronic behaviour.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Machine wrote:
...
Bruce Fischer's offer to reveal his profession and place of employment is disingenuous; most posters on PMF know that he's a fur coat salesman and a number of them know where he works. It should be noted that Fischer falsely claimed on Gather that he was located in New York and spelt his name "Fisher", so he wasn't exactly honest or open about his background...


Well, we all make mistakes. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. In fact, I'd like to offer Bruce the use of this avatar, free of charge, for the remainder of his time here:

Edited by moderator. Bruce Fischer is a member here, like any other. Except for voting on FOAKER Tuesdays :)

Ergon


ETA: Fair enough, Ergon, but you have to admit: that av rang true ;-)


Last edited by Jackie on Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
The news that the appeal was accepted and assigned and then this picture of Amanda with the article...funny Italians :)

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/ ... knox.shtml


Yes. Awesome news there max. th-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I agree with Ergon and vote Tuesday is plenty for the F'ers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dollycat


Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:59 pm

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hi all - I have emerged following a lie-down in a dark room post-Jubilee celebrations. Her Maj was radiant and we have just about recovered from Will.i.am calling her “Your Highness” *shudder* - blimmin Americans….. :D

Thrilled to see we had a visit from Bruce, how exciting……….not! Same old FOA chatter *yawn* - common sense and logic fly out of into the window….

Big cheers to Ergon and all the PMF’ers who did us proud.

I voted Tuesdays only for FOAkers – one day is still too much JMO.

RIP Meredith
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Machine wrote:
Some groupies have repeatedly called a couple of posters on PMF and TJMK at their places of work and hassled them.


Hi TM. Who was this done to?

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Some groupies have repeatedly called a couple of posters on PMF and TJMK at their places of work and hassled them.


Hi TM. Who was this done to?


Miss Represented and Tara.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Some groupies have repeatedly called a couple of posters on PMF and TJMK at their places of work and hassled them.


Hi TM. Who was this done to?


Miss Represented and Tara.


This is beyond sick.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Oh, yeah, while I'm here, I forgot something.

BruceFischer, if the white powder on the clothes on the floor is a shoeprint, where is the shoeprint with white powder on the sill?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:07 pm   Post subject: BRUCE FISCHER'S REVIEW OF "MEREDITH"   

Our newest member Bruce Fischer has just published a review of John Kercher's book "Meredith" at http://www.groundreport.com/US/The-Aman ... gh/2945940
"Amanda Knox Case and The Norfolk Four Highlight Irreparable Damage Caused By Wrongful Convictions" ~ Bruce Fischer May 08, 2012

Fischer has written a contentious review that I invite our regular members to read, and critique any points they wish. Here's what I can come up for now.

- He concludes there are similarities between the Norfolk 4 and Amanda Knox in terms of lack of evidence which places the accused at the crime scene.

I disagree. There was literally NO evidence in the case of the Norfolk 4, except their supposed 'confessions'. That case is contentious because we are led to believe that FOUR separate servicemen were coerced into signing false confessions for the rape and murder of a navy wife. On the other hand there is ample forensic and other evidence that places Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene, and while any one can trawl the internet to come up with cases that seem similar, that does not make them the same. Also, Knox did not confess to a crime, she accused an innocent man. In what way is that similar to the Norfolk Four?

- He raises the specter of false confessions.
Quote:
"Of course Amanda Knox never confessed to committing any crime,‭ but ‬the prepared statements that she signed placed her at the scene of the crime so they served the same purpose as a confession for the prosecution.‭

In both cases,‭ ‬the families of the victims were left to struggle with the phenomenon of false confessions.‭ ‬It is a subject that many have difficulty believing.‭ ‬How could anyone possibly incriminate themselves if they were innocent‭? ‬Its a valid question,‭ ‬and one that has been written about extensively by experts like Richard Leo in the Norfolk case and and Saul Kassin in the Knox case.‭

Saul Kassin is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and Massachusetts Professor of Psychology at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts. Like Leo, Kassin is a well-respected expert in false confessions.

Saul Kassin reviewed the Amanda Knox case for the defense on appeal. He concluded that Amanda's confession should be treated with caution.

“Looking at this case as a whole,‭ ‬it appears that Amanda Knox was immediately identified as a suspect and presumed her guilty.‭ ‬After three days of denials and interrogations,‭ ‬she is said to have given a confession embodied in two statements.‭ ‬During these sessions Ms.‭ ‬Knox did not have an attorney present and the statements taken were not recorded.‭ ‬As a factual matter,‭ ‬both statements were incorrect,‭ ‬raising questions about the process by which they were taken and Ms.‭ ‬Knox’s mental state at the time.

Basic psychological research shows that lay people and experts have a natural tendency to interpret ambiguous evidence according to existing beliefs.‭ ‬Studies‭ (‬as well as real life cases in the U.S.‭) ‬also specifically show that the presence of a confession,‭ ‬because it creates a strong belief,‭ ‬can contaminate latent fingerprint judgments,‭ ‬eyewitness identifications,‭ ‬and interpretations of other types of evidence.‭ ‬In light of these research findings,‭ ‬the courts would be advised to review the case against Ms.‭ ‬Knox with a full awareness that the confession itself‭—‬and the perceptions and evidence it may have influenced—should be treated with caution.”


This is the sort of expert that the burgeoning "Innocence Industry" trots out to defend anyone they decide is the victim of unfair prosecution. I am familar with Professor Kassin's work on Trait Psychology and illusory prejudice but feel his advertisement as the "expert on false confessions" makes him er, somewhat vulnerable to accusations of bias. That he should take statements provided by the defense and decide that she may have been coerced beggars belief, not only because he never interviewed Amanda, but an um, impartial referee might try to look at the prosecution argument as well, before he hops on the Innocence bandwagon? I wonder if he appreciates he is in effect saying that coercion somehow makes physical evidence unreliable? I appreciate the work of genuine Innocence Projects, but this has started as the media driven Amanda Project, to be brutally honest, and is attended by, media groupies.

- Lastly, Bruce makes much of John Kercher's supposed '35-40 errors' and blames it all on TJMK, and our own The Machine. I invite them to respond here. I will reply to one, specific claim he makes:

Quote:
"Kercher claims that bleach was bought the morning after the murder by Knox. He even mentions evidence of bleach receipts."


Simply, not true: From the Kindle edition of "Meredith" Speaking of the shopkeeper Quintavalle:

"He claimed that when he opened up the shop, she entered and went to the section where the cleaning products were kept. Though he testified that he was not certain what it was that she had bought, the police who made a search of Sollecito’s home testified that they had found a receipt for cleaning products from the same shop. After the murder police found several bottles of bleach in Raffaelle’s flat, but his cleaner confirmed that she had never seen bleach there before"

Before Fischer looks at John Kercher's errors, perhaps he should look to his own?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:

Yes, I have a new "self serving" career of volunteering to do what I can to help others that have been wrongfully convicted. View it anyway you like.


Here's how I view it: the Knox/Sollecito is not a wrongful conviction case. You've just been meddling in public opinion via social media to pervert a system of justice. Knox/Sollecito's verdicts are not yet final. The Idaho Innocence Project received an admonishment for their breach of ethics in the Knox case because Project Innocence philosophy is never take on cases until all appeals have been exhausted. The PR firm that takes credit for your so called grassroots organisation started working for the Knox family 3 days after she confessed. Your timing is inappropriate to a wrongful conviction case, resulting in a wrong to Meredith Kercher and her family. And then there's the fact that Knox is innocent like OJ is innocent, it's amazing anyone buys your FOAKtales.
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Someone is building an army of one tweet twits.



There's literally thousands of bot accounts that have been created & all tweet the same message. I guess that's what it takes to trend Amanda Knox on twitter.


Last edited by louiehaha on Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

louiehaha wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:

Yes, I have a new "self serving" career of volunteering to do what I can to help others that have been wrongfully convicted. View it anyway you like.


Here's how I view it: the Knox/Sollecito is not a wrongful conviction case. You've just been meddling in public opinion via social media to pervert a system of justice. Knox/Sollecito's verdicts are not yet final. The Idaho Innocence Project received an admonishment for their breach of ethics in the Knox case because Project Innocence philosophy is never take on cases until all appeals have been exhausted. The PR firm that takes credit for your so called grassroots organisation started working for the Knox family 3 days after she confessed. Your timing is inappropriate to a wrongful conviction case, resulting in a wrong to Meredith Kercher and her family. And then there's the fact that Knox is innocent like OJ is innocent, it's amazing anyone buys your FOAKtales.


louiehaha, wish I'd said this. You hit the nail on the head.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: BRUCE FISCHER'S REVIEW OF "MEREDITH"   

Ergon wrote:
Our newest member Bruce Fischer has just published a review of John Kercher's book "Meredith" at http://www.groundreport.com/US/The-Aman ... gh/2945940
"Amanda Knox Case and The Norfolk Four Highlight Irreparable Damage Caused By Wrongful Convictions" ~ Bruce Fischer May 08, 2012

Fischer has written a contentious review that I invite our regular members to read, and critique any points they wish. Here's what I can come up for now.

- He concludes there are similarities between the Norfolk 4 and Amanda Knox in terms of lack of evidence which places the accused at the crime scene.

I disagree. There was literally NO evidence in the case of the Norfolk 4, except their supposed 'confessions'. That case is contentious because we are led to believe that FOUR separate servicemen were coerced into signing false confessions for the rape and murder of a navy wife. On the other hand there is ample forensic and other evidence that places Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene, and while any one can trawl the internet to come up with cases that seem similar, that does not make them the same. Also, Knox did not confess to a crime, she accused an innocent man. In what way is that similar to the Norfolk Four?

- He raises the specter of false confessions.
Quote:
"Of course Amanda Knox never confessed to committing any crime,‭ but ‬the prepared statements that she signed placed her at the scene of the crime so they served the same purpose as a confession for the prosecution.‭

In both cases,‭ ‬the families of the victims were left to struggle with the phenomenon of false confessions.‭ ‬It is a subject that many have difficulty believing.‭ ‬How could anyone possibly incriminate themselves if they were innocent‭? ‬Its a valid question,‭ ‬and one that has been written about extensively by experts like Richard Leo in the Norfolk case and and Saul Kassin in the Knox case.‭

Saul Kassin is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and Massachusetts Professor of Psychology at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts. Like Leo, Kassin is a well-respected expert in false confessions.

Saul Kassin reviewed the Amanda Knox case for the defense on appeal. He concluded that Amanda's confession should be treated with caution.

“Looking at this case as a whole,‭ ‬it appears that Amanda Knox was immediately identified as a suspect and presumed her guilty.‭ ‬After three days of denials and interrogations,‭ ‬she is said to have given a confession embodied in two statements.‭ ‬During these sessions Ms.‭ ‬Knox did not have an attorney present and the statements taken were not recorded.‭ ‬As a factual matter,‭ ‬both statements were incorrect,‭ ‬raising questions about the process by which they were taken and Ms.‭ ‬Knox’s mental state at the time.

Basic psychological research shows that lay people and experts have a natural tendency to interpret ambiguous evidence according to existing beliefs.‭ ‬Studies‭ (‬as well as real life cases in the U.S.‭) ‬also specifically show that the presence of a confession,‭ ‬because it creates a strong belief,‭ ‬can contaminate latent fingerprint judgments,‭ ‬eyewitness identifications,‭ ‬and interpretations of other types of evidence.‭ ‬In light of these research findings,‭ ‬the courts would be advised to review the case against Ms.‭ ‬Knox with a full awareness that the confession itself‭—‬and the perceptions and evidence it may have influenced—should be treated with caution.”


This is the sort of expert that the burgeoning "Innocence Industry" trots out to defend anyone they decide is the victim of unfair prosecution. I am familar with Professor Kassin's work on Trait Psychology and illusory prejudice but feel his advertisement as the "expert on false confessions" makes him er, somewhat vulnerable to accusations of bias. That he should take statements provided by the defense and decide that she may have been coerced beggars belief, not only because he never interviewed Amanda, but an um, impartial referee might try to look at the prosecution argument as well, before he hops on the Innocence bandwagon? I wonder if he appreciates he is in effect saying that coercion somehow makes physical evidence unreliable? I appreciate the work of genuine Innocence Projects, but this has started as the media driven Amanda Project, to be brutally honest, and is attended by, media groupies.

- Lastly, Bruce makes much of John Kercher's supposed '35-40 errors' and blames it all on TJMK, and our own The Machine. I invite them to respond here. I will reply to one, specific claim he makes:

Quote:
"Kercher claims that bleach was bought the morning after the murder by Knox. He even mentions evidence of bleach receipts."


Simply, not true: From the Kindle edition of "Meredith" Speaking of the shopkeeper Quintavalle:

"He claimed that when he opened up the shop, she entered and went to the section where the cleaning products were kept. Though he testified that he was not certain what it was that she had bought, the police who made a search of Sollecito’s home testified that they had found a receipt for cleaning products from the same shop. After the murder police found several bottles of bleach in Raffaelle’s flat, but his cleaner confirmed that she had never seen bleach there before"

Before Fischer looks at John Kercher's errors, perhaps he should look to his own?


According to Barbie Nadeau, the police found a receipt for bleach at Sollecito's apartment:

"Several days later, when Raffaele was arrested, police searched his apartment and found a receipt for Ace brand bleach, purchased the morning 4, 2007, at 8:15" (Angel Face, page 54).

Unlike Bruce Fischer, Barbie attended every court session in Perugia except for two. She also has access to the 10,000 pages of evidence. Bruce Fischer set up a website about the case that is absolutely riddled with factual errors.

I'm looking forward to reading his responses to these two questions:

Do you have any proof that the Italian Supreme Court ruled the interrogation of Amanda Knox was inadmissible in the trial?

Do you have any proof the Italian Supreme Court stated that the interrogation was illegal?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

louiehaha wrote:
Someone is building an army of one tweet twits.
...
There's literally thousands of bot accounts that have been created & all tweet the same message. I guess that's what it takes to trend Amanda Knox on twitter.


Thanks louiehaha for bringing this to our attention. Indeed, lots of spammy and repetitive tweets from "Amanda Knox" and her fans. A little boring, isn't it? Like, when groupies repeat themselves, over and over and over and over and over and over, you know? :) This is called echolalia or "parroting".

Attachment:
Amanda Knox Twitter 3 Oct.JPG


Attachment:
Amanda Knox Twitter-1.JPG


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

If someone has the time, could you please give me a brief education on this Twittering?
What are they trying to accomplish?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Although I have no direct proof of the non-existence of the bleach receipt, I can't imagine it wouldn't have been mentioned in the Massei report if it really had been from November 4th. I have never seen any picture of it. There might have been a receipt of cleaning supplies but I suspect it was from another date. If there had been this bleach receipt then why would Inspector Volturno testify that they were investigating where this bleach had been bought?

From Hellmann:
Quote:
Well [praticamente], the first verification I made had to do with two bottles of Ace bleach that were seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s house on November 16, 2007. Immediately after they were seized, I went around the stores in the area of Raffaele Sollecito’s house, trying to understand where they could have been bought

What is more important and was described in the Massei report is that there was a strong smell of bleach on November 6th. That one of the bleach bottles was open and bleach had been used. And IIRC the cleaning lady had stated that she never used bleach.

From Massei:
Quote:
Armando Finzi, chief inspector of the Flying Squad of Perugia, said that on the morning of November 6 he was ordered by Dr. Profazio to perform a search of the house of Raffaele Sollecito in Corso Garibaldi (number 110). Before entering the house, they all put on gloves and shoes covers. There was also the deputy chief of police Chiacchiera, Passeri, Ranauro, Camarda, Rossi and Sisani. In the house there was a strong smell of bleach.

Since I am on the topic of bleach, the argument Massei makes about the impossibility of the luminol traces being bleach is (not surprisingly) contradicted in Hellmann's report.

From Massei:
Quote:
The argument concerning bleach is different: in cleaning the house, such a product might indeed have been spread about in the various rooms. But in actual fact, it was not known when and by whom such widespread and extensive cleaning, and which had involved these various rooms, had been carried out. Furthermore, no one entering the house had declared that they had noticed any smell of bleach, unlike what, on the contrary, had occurred with reference to Raffaele Sollecito's house on the occasion of the entry there on November 6th. Furthermore, if the presence of bleach had been spread throughout the house via some cleaning activity (carried out, it is not known by whom, in the various rooms) which had affected these various rooms, then many more traces ought to have been highlighted as Luminol-positive than were actually found.

I bolded the last part because this is such simple logic that it is astounding Hellmann comes to another conclusion.

From Hellmann:
Quote:
Secondly, taking into account [premesso che] that there are bleaches with no smell or even perfumed – luminol reacts to other cleaners as well anyway – it is not impossible to suppose who may have performed the cleaning of the house. Four girls lived together in the house, and it appears reasonable to believe that they, possibly in turns, accomplished the task as needed, the more so since the house was visited by other people as well, whether friends or boyfriends, and so it was even more prone to getting dirty.

The limited number of footprints detected can be explained by a treading [which took place] at different times and by the use of bleach in only particularly dirty areas [punti].

So Hellmann contradicts Massei by saying the luminol positive spot in Filomena's room could in fact have been bleach. He even mentions odorless bleach. He even mentions that only certain dirty spots were cleaned with this odorless bleach. I have a few simple questions:
- where was this bottle of odorless bleach in the cottage?
- did the girls really clean their rooms (in turns) with bleach?
- did the girls really only clean certain dirty spots with this stuff?
These questions could be answered by asking someone like Filomena herself, but as we know Hellmann's court wasn't interested in recalling her as a witness. Instead Hellmann made this bleach story up all by himself, and based on nothing.

And Hellmann is not done yet:
Quote:
With a little common sense it is useful, on the other hand, to remember that the girls lived together in that house, that they were all friends, and who knows how many times they went up and down barefoot in the various rooms, as often young people do, leaving their traces here and there, even superimposing them by chance, possibly on bleach, but without excluding some other possibilities, such as a stain of fruit juice or of vegetable stock.

Leaving all possibilities open he also mentions that there could have been a fruit juice or vegetable stain on Filomena's floor. The 'who knows' is almost funny if it weren't so sad. Filomena would know, but he does not ask her. He contradicts Stefanoni who said DNA does not just fall off you, by implying walking around barefooted would automatically make DNA fall off you.

So lets summarize:
- There were just 2 luminol positive spots found on the floor of Filomena's room. A room of lets say approx. 20m2.
- None of the 2 spots contained the DNA of the girl who lived in that room. Both spots contained the DNA of Meredith. One spot contained the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda mixed together.
- Stefanoni explains DNA does not just fall off you
- We don't know if the girls ever set (bare)foot in Filomena's room
- We don't know if they ever cleaned with bleach (let alone only certain spots)

Given these points, I like to ask any mathematician to calculate what are the chances that it just so happened that there are 2 bleach (or fruit juice) stains in Filomena's that just so happened to contain not her DNA but of 2 other girls who lived in other rooms? What are the chances that these 2 luminol spots were not blood and not related to the murder? I came up with zero percent.

I wonder what Filomena thought after reading Hellmann's report?
Top Profile 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hello My darlings :)

I'm ALMOST over the worst time of my life. I'm so sorry that I haven't been here, ( and NOT because I've changed my mind :)

The dentist and I decided to do periodntal work ( shiver, shiver)..and by next week, I'm done. I'm better, ( but much poorer) because I don't have dental insurance. The good news is, Magnum Ice cream bars no longer have me in fear..

So, now, I will spend the weekend , reading everything I've missed. I caught a glimpse, and saw Bruce. Hi, Bruce.

Do you know, just glimpsing quickly as I scrolled, I thought..nice. A real debate. It's the reason Michael opened up the Board..for Tuesdays.

I'm hoping it's been civil, ( I have to read up) and I'm HOPING it's not the same rigmarole as ..ala...JREF?

As I said, I'm not going anywhere. I'm BAAACKKK....But only after I've caught up. I hope I never have to go through this again. Natural childbirth was a BREEZE compared to this.

See you later. hugz-)

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Oh, Hello Machine. I was leaving, because it's late and *saw* you. I always think of you as THE MACHINE WITH A HEART. Lovely to see you...setting the record straight. Later.

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

OK. I need to leave and just saw my best pal Jackie and his avatar. Lolling myself to bed. Jackie, you know how much I adore you, right? LMAO.

Fur In Chicago. ( stifled laughter)......Beware of PETA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Right. Sorry for so many posts in a short while. I decided to start reading..from page 1 of this thread.

Right off, I see a Tom Wells ( FIRST time poster, ANYWHERE.........RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!......Please.

I need a pump up here. I CANNOT afford to grind ( my coming new toothies) to bits. Hmm.......Do I wait for next week, for my new strong toofs..and read then? or, ?

I think I'm in for a hell of a ride. I think I better wait. BREATHE...BREATHE........

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

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

capealadin wrote:
OK. I need to leave and just saw my best pal Jackie and his avatar. Lolling myself to bed. Jackie, you know how much I adore you, right? LMAO.

Fur In Chicago. ( stifled laughter)......Beware of PETA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well, hello there gorgeous - nice to see you back in action!
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
If someone has the time, could you please give me a brief education on this Twittering?
What are they trying to accomplish?


Napia, there is a cottage industry that deals in bulk twitter accounts. Here is one of many sites that sell them, although with all the idle thumb-twiddling computer monkeys who “have her back” it’s possible that they make their own, easy to do with a script.

Bulk Twitter Accounts

They are used for marketing purposes, in this case to market the illusion that Amanda Knox (#amandaknox) is on the public’s mind. Hundreds of thousands of bulk accounts can be handled by the same script/bot.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

louiehaha wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
If someone has the time, could you please give me a brief education on this Twittering?
What are they trying to accomplish?


Napia, there is a cottage industry that deals in bulk twitter accounts. Here is one of many sites that sell them, although with all the idle thumb-twiddling computer monkeys who “have her back” it’s possible that they make their own, easy to do with a script.

Bulk Twitter Accounts

They are used for marketing purposes, in this case to market the illusion that Amanda Knox (#amandaknox) is on the public’s mind. Hundreds of thousands of bulk accounts can be handled by the same script/bot.


Thanks for your reply, louiehaha. I want to make sure that I understand this. Are you saying that someone can purchase any amount of accounts, and 'tweet' something, and it will look as if all of these 'people' are tweeting something in support of Knox, when it is actually ONE person? Do I have this right? That's what these tweets are?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

guermantes wrote:
A little boring, isn't it?


It is.

She's a follaback girl: @knox_amanda
following 9,000 with 8,300 followers
(building an account using a follow-back list, you follow me, I follow you...ridiculous!!)
Top Profile 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
louiehaha wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
If someone has the time, could you please give me a brief education on this Twittering?
What are they trying to accomplish?


Napia, there is a cottage industry that deals in bulk twitter accounts. Here is one of many sites that sell them, although with all the idle thumb-twiddling computer monkeys who “have her back” it’s possible that they make their own, easy to do with a script.

Bulk Twitter Accounts

They are used for marketing purposes, in this case to market the illusion that Amanda Knox (#amandaknox) is on the public’s mind. Hundreds of thousands of bulk accounts can be handled by the same script/bot.


Thanks for your reply, louiehaha. I want to make sure that I understand this. Are you saying that someone can purchase any amount of accounts, and 'tweet' something, and it will look as if all of these 'people' are tweeting something in support of Knox, when it is actually ONE person? Do I have this right? That's what these tweets are?


Napia, Yes, I believe that's exactly what's happening. They are bulk accounts, most don't even have followers. They all tweet the same cryptic message which leads me to believe it's all from the same script/macro.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

louiehaha wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
louiehaha wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
If someone has the time, could you please give me a brief education on this Twittering?
What are they trying to accomplish?


Napia, there is a cottage industry that deals in bulk twitter accounts. Here is one of many sites that sell them, although with all the idle thumb-twiddling computer monkeys who “have her back” it’s possible that they make their own, easy to do with a script.

Bulk Twitter Accounts

They are used for marketing purposes, in this case to market the illusion that Amanda Knox (#amandaknox) is on the public’s mind. Hundreds of thousands of bulk accounts can be handled by the same script/bot.


Thanks for your reply, louiehaha. I want to make sure that I understand this. Are you saying that someone can purchase any amount of accounts, and 'tweet' something, and it will look as if all of these 'people' are tweeting something in support of Knox, when it is actually ONE person? Do I have this right? That's what these tweets are?


Napia, Yes, I believe that's exactly what's happening. They are bulk accounts, most don't even have followers. They all tweet the same cryptic message which leads me to believe it's all from the same script/macro.


Please forgive me, as I tend to act like a dog with a bone until I'm sure I get something. Please bear with me.
I would have missed this completely if it hadn't been pointed out.
I can anonymously create the ILLUSION of all of these supporters, this high number, and this number can be used in statements to prove support, and these accounts cannot be traced back to actual people?
If this is what is happening, I can't get my head around this. I'm sitting here in a funk.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Hi Napia5. There also is software that can create multiple online identities that can be controlled by one person. Dr. Cass Sunstein, who now works for the White House, actually wrote a 2003 paper which suggests using this very technique in social media to influence public opinion. It is now used by the Pentagon and the oil industry, and as a tool of American foreign policy. And yes, its use by PR agencies became such an issue that some of them actually pledged NOT to use sock puppet techniques.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Great post, louiehaha! From your link:

"Who We Are
Buy Bulk Accounts is a small group of Internet Marketers who have been purchasing email and social media accounts for years. After having more than a few bad experiences we figured we could do it better. Having built up a network of trusted suppliers and finding out who provides the highest quality accounts we saw an opportunity to resell these accounts at competitive prices. Because BuyBulkAccounts.com buys in such high quantities and brings so many customers to our suppliers we are able to negotiate great prices with them and we pass those savings on to you"

I'll say! They sell 500 Twitter accounts for $35 USD, more for Yahoo and Hotmail accounts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

What ever happened to integrity?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline capealadin


User avatar


Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am

Posts: 4089

Highscores: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

A quick post to say thanks for the lovely pm's. I will get up to speed over the weekend, and will FOR SURE be here by Tuesday. co-) mul-)

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Great to see that you're on the mend Cape! :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Let's have that rock in scale:


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

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Just to say, as everyone is aware, the staged break-in is key to the case. For me, it's the smoking gun in this case. Therefore, it's not surprising that the FOAKers desperately want to debunk it.

However...it should be noted that they raised the topic here recently because they wanted to divert the discussion away from the bra imprint on the floor!

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Note:

Members have just 4 days left to vote in the PMF poll: viewtopic.php?p=97820#p97820

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Just to say, as everyone is aware, the staged break-in is key to the case. For me, it's the smoking gun in this case.


I agree that the staged break-in is key to the case. It defies belief that Judge Hellman ignored the corroborative testimony of several eyewitness who noted that there were shards of glass on top of objects and clothes in Filomena's room. It was something that Judge Massei emphasised in his report.

"One last aspect which bears repeating is the presence, noted and checked by several witnesses, of pieces of glass on top of the objects and clothing in Romanelli'ʹs room." (The Massei report, page 53.)

The judges at the Italian Supreme have no choice, but to invalidate or revoke Judge Hellman's verdict because he acted illegally, violated the procedure code and failed to apply Italian law correctly.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

On top of the staged break-in, all the other evidence in this case is just icing on the cake.

As for the High Court, the way they should go is clear. It must be sent back to the court of appeal. The way they will go is another matter entirely, but I hope...

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


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

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Not only Justice must be done, it must also appear to be done.

It is a very important philosophy in the sense that people must have faith the system of justice. If people's faith is not preserved, the system collapses. The victim will have no one to look up for if we permit the rich and the powerful to get away everytime with serious crime. Therefore we must take into consideration the social repurcussions of the judgement.

Both the rock and the money trail constitute important aspects of the crime, albeit indirectly. For examples, drug dealers won't accept credit card but the monthly expenses will reflect this. It is quite common that people do uncommon things while under the influence of drugs and we cannot find any rational reason for their actions. The obvious reason is that they become irrational.

My greatest gripe with Hellman is that he is referring to the two white kids as "good", the black one is the only "criminal" involved and the victim is mixed race and hence quietly forgotten. This is not the way to deliver justice and I am happy to see that an appeal has been made.

The Italian flatmates were meticulous in their cleaning habits. All the DNA evidences found in her room was therefore relatively fresh.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

max wrote:
Although I have no direct proof of the non-existence of the bleach receipt, I can't imagine it wouldn't have been mentioned in the Massei report if it really had been from November 4th. I have never seen any picture of it. There might have been a receipt of cleaning supplies but I suspect it was from another date. If there had been this bleach receipt then why would Inspector Volturno testify that they were investigating where this bleach had been bought?

From Hellmann:
Quote:
Well [praticamente], the first verification I made had to do with two bottles of Ace bleach that were seized at Raffaele Sollecito’s house on November 16, 2007. Immediately after they were seized, I went around the stores in the area of Raffaele Sollecito’s house, trying to understand where they could have been bought

What is more important and was described in the Massei report is that there was a strong smell of bleach on November 6th. That one of the bleach bottles was open and bleach had been used. And IIRC the cleaning lady had stated that she never used bleach.

From Massei:
Quote:
Armando Finzi, chief inspector of the Flying Squad of Perugia, said that on the morning of November 6 he was ordered by Dr. Profazio to perform a search of the house of Raffaele Sollecito in Corso Garibaldi (number 110). Before entering the house, they all put on gloves and shoes covers. There was also the deputy chief of police Chiacchiera, Passeri, Ranauro, Camarda, Rossi and Sisani. In the house there was a strong smell of bleach.

Since I am on the topic of bleach, the argument Massei makes about the impossibility of the luminol traces being bleach is (not surprisingly) contradicted in Hellmann's report.

From Massei:
Quote:
The argument concerning bleach is different: in cleaning the house, such a product might indeed have been spread about in the various rooms. But in actual fact, it was not known when and by whom such widespread and extensive cleaning, and which had involved these various rooms, had been carried out. Furthermore, no one entering the house had declared that they had noticed any smell of bleach, unlike what, on the contrary, had occurred with reference to Raffaele Sollecito's house on the occasion of the entry there on November 6th. Furthermore, if the presence of bleach had been spread throughout the house via some cleaning activity (carried out, it is not known by whom, in the various rooms) which had affected these various rooms, then many more traces ought to have been highlighted as Luminol-positive than were actually found.

I bolded the last part because this is such simple logic that it is astounding Hellmann comes to another conclusion.

From Hellmann:
Quote:
Secondly, taking into account [premesso che] that there are bleaches with no smell or even perfumed – luminol reacts to other cleaners as well anyway – it is not impossible to suppose who may have performed the cleaning of the house. Four girls lived together in the house, and it appears reasonable to believe that they, possibly in turns, accomplished the task as needed, the more so since the house was visited by other people as well, whether friends or boyfriends, and so it was even more prone to getting dirty.

The limited number of footprints detected can be explained by a treading [which took place] at different times and by the use of bleach in only particularly dirty areas [punti].

So Hellmann contradicts Massei by saying the luminol positive spot in Filomena's room could in fact have been bleach. He even mentions odorless bleach. He even mentions that only certain dirty spots were cleaned with this odorless bleach. I have a few simple questions:
- where was this bottle of odorless bleach in the cottage?
- did the girls really clean their rooms (in turns) with bleach?
- did the girls really only clean certain dirty spots with this stuff?
These questions could be answered by asking someone like Filomena herself, but as we know Hellmann's court wasn't interested in recalling her as a witness. Instead Hellmann made this bleach story up all by himself, and based on nothing.

And Hellmann is not done yet:
Quote:
With a little common sense it is useful, on the other hand, to remember that the girls lived together in that house, that they were all friends, and who knows how many times they went up and down barefoot in the various rooms, as often young people do, leaving their traces here and there, even superimposing them by chance, possibly on bleach, but without excluding some other possibilities, such as a stain of fruit juice or of vegetable stock.

Leaving all possibilities open he also mentions that there could have been a fruit juice or vegetable stain on Filomena's floor. The 'who knows' is almost funny if it weren't so sad. Filomena would know, but he does not ask her. He contradicts Stefanoni who said DNA does not just fall off you, by implying walking around barefooted would automatically make DNA fall off you.

So lets summarize:
- There were just 2 luminol positive spots found on the floor of Filomena's room. A room of lets say approx. 20m2.
- None of the 2 spots contained the DNA of the girl who lived in that room. Both spots contained the DNA of Meredith. One spot contained the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda mixed together.
- Stefanoni explains DNA does not just fall off you
- We don't know if the girls ever set (bare)foot in Filomena's room
- We don't know if they ever cleaned with bleach (let alone only certain spots)

Given these points, I like to ask any mathematician to calculate what are the chances that it just so happened that there are 2 bleach (or fruit juice) stains in Filomena's that just so happened to contain not her DNA but of 2 other girls who lived in other rooms? What are the chances that these 2 luminol spots were not blood and not related to the murder? I came up with zero percent.

I wonder what Filomena thought after reading Hellmann's report?



This is despite the fact that the flatmates testified under oath that they never used bleach products in the apartment and no such products were found in the cottage. Moreover, luminol testing wasn't performed until the 18 Nov and since bleach dissipates after 24 hours, it is impossible that the traces were caused by bleach. This Hellmann would have known if he was an experienced criminal judge and had bothered to read the testimony of the housemates.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

chami wrote:
Both the rock and the money trail constitute important aspects of the crime, albeit indirectly. For examples, drug dealers won't accept credit card but the monthly expenses will reflect this. It is quite common that people do uncommon things while under the influence of drugs and we cannot find any rational reason for their actions. The obvious reason is that they become irrational.


Seemingly normal people from respectable backgrounds have committed horrific and senseless murders when they weren't under the influence of drugs.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bottom line: Evidence, facts, and testimony all add up to place the three of them there. Simple.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

A question for Knox and Sollecito:
If your pot-smoking caused amnesia, how do you know you DIDN'T do it and just "forgot'?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Let's have that rock in scale:

Look at the ungainly proportions of the rock. I doubt any one could have thrown it with any degree of accuracy, let alone the shot putting, mantle climbing Rudy. The figure of 8.8 lbs = 4 kgs by FOA Candace Dempsey also seems just about right. Since the defense NEVER pulls figures out of their hats ;) I assume that is correct?

Bottom line is there is no evidence the outer shutters were open, or that someone could have climbed up to the window. The Massei court saw the defense lawyer fail in his attempt and rightly concluded the break in was staged. Hellmann, who had little criminal experience, concludes Rudy could have climbed through.

I am still waiting for Ron Hendry's reconstruction of the purported rock throwing. It's been four years, after all. I'm also waiting to see defense specialist Pasquale's video. You know, actual experiments? IIP says it has experts, then fails to provide their findings in an open forum.

Here, our files are open for anyone to read. There, you have to register, and they've not even released the entire set of documentation to their own members. But then, this is the defense that fired its forensic specialist when he said the DNA was a match :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

chami wrote:
Not only Justice must be done, it must also appear to be done.

It is a very important philosophy in the sense that people must have faith the system of justice. If people's faith is not preserved, the system collapses. The victim will have no one to look up for if we permit the rich and the powerful to get away everytime with serious crime. Therefore we must take into consideration the social repurcussions of the judgement.

Both the rock and the money trail constitute important aspects of the crime, albeit indirectly. For examples, drug dealers won't accept credit card but the monthly expenses will reflect this. It is quite common that people do uncommon things while under the influence of drugs and we cannot find any rational reason for their actions. The obvious reason is that they become irrational.

My greatest gripe with Hellman is that he is referring to the two white kids as "good", the black one is the only "criminal" involved and the victim is mixed race and hence quietly forgotten. This is not the way to deliver justice and I am happy to see that an appeal has been made.

The Italian flatmates were meticulous in their cleaning habits. All the DNA evidences found in her room was therefore relatively fresh.


Sadly, the Supreme Court has come up with many perverse judgments when it concerned the rich and powerful, so one can only hope for the best when this case is heard in due course.

This is not to say we are any less immune. Juian Assange in the UK, Citizens United in the US, and numerous 'security risk' cases in Canada show how selectively the courts behave at times. Justice, as we well know, does not always fall down gently upon us, but if that makes us angry enough to try and change it, then all the better for us and future generations.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:10 pm   Post subject: BELATED REPLY TO ZORBA   

zorba wrote:
Ergon wrote:
One of the mainstays of the efforts to demonize PM Giliano Mignini as a satanism obsessed prosecutor was the writer Doug Preston, who had his own reasons to promote that trope, something much overused by the FOA nowadays.

Preston was overheard discussing with his co-writer Mario Spezi on The Monster of Florence what appeared to be an attempt to plant evidence in Mignini's ongoing investigation of the MOF (Source, Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face)

The CPJ , The Committee to Protect Journalists organization, next got involved in sending letters to the President of Italy denouncing Mignini, on specious grounds, for 'persecuting' 'journalist' Francesco Sforza (Sfarzo) the pro-Amanda Knox blogger. It appears that Doug Preston may have used his connections with CPJ, a supposedly independent organization, to get that ball rolling. Did the CPJ make any effort to conduct an investigation before they made that blind accusation? Of course not.

Perhaps his public battle has now resulted in his Monster of Florence movie, once supposed to be released in 2012 with Tom Cruise, then 2013 with George Clooney, now being in development limbo? (Per IMDB)

Another thing that might give future movie producers pause. As Kermit at PMF.Org pointed out, Preston's co-writer, Mario Spezi, may have 'borrowed' the research of the late English crime writer Magdalen Nabb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_of_Florence to arrive at the same suspect as she did. Her book, The Monster of Florence came out 12 years prior to Preston's, yet he does not give her any acknowledgment that I can find.

I see that Preston and Spezi will be promoting their upcoming book on the murder of Meredith Kercher soon. I will remind everyone it seems that much of the attacks on the Italian justice system and defense of Amanda Knox that we will be seeing in the next year are motivated by, not a quest for justice, but, commercial self-interest.



Quote:
Yes, agree with bolded and underlined.


Hi, zorba, I wanted to write a proper reply to your detailed points but got sidelined, sorry. You raise so many good points many of us have considered before I will try to respond in like manner

Quote:
For those just criticising it without any context, are mainly Americans, who are in one way or another, maybe even directly, connected to Knox, and, where America itself has a legal system that can least of all be held up as an example of a good, successful system, then those criticising the Italian system only because of Knox, are fooling nobody with any real knowledge or brains.


Exactly! From their justifications of torture, legitimization of corporate money to subvert democracy, and failure to respect the constitution the US is hardly a shining example of a judicial system one should emulate or criticize another country's whole system. I just added the UK and Canada to that sorry list, btw.

Quote:
In any society, one must question why it is, people turn to crime, and it is not as simple as saying everyone is bad, wicked and evil, though some are all of these adjectives.


I couldn't agree more, zorba. We ignore root causes at our peril, and name calling is just an excuse to wash our hands and not come up with solutions. Poverty, lack of good parenting, and criminal psychology all offer clues. We need to step away from moralistic generalizations when it comes to describing criminal behaviour and mental illness.

Quote:
Even when people do become wicked, as well as rotten to the core, those with skills (expertise) need to examine what formed the basis of these people going so wrong, yes they need locking away, certainly when they are going to harm members of any given society, but in order to create societies where less of the bad takes place, simply locking people up will never change a thing.


Agreed. Can these people be rehabilitated, or must we lock them away forever? I favour justice, but not punishment, and I also say that the long term survival of society requires we come up with a different way of looking at things. Or, as we say in medicine, look to prevention, and not cure.

Quote:
In America most prison policy is very much focused on harsh punishment, with little rehabilitation. For instance, in some other countries, a more intelligent approach is taken, where it can be, where instead of locking people up for silly little things, as is done in Britain and America as well as many, very many countries, including Australia and Canada, it is thought that it is better to punish people financially and to also have culprits be confronted with what they are doing, so if young kids wreck a train, make them take part in repairing it, all summer long sometimes, and have them meet the ordinary people, perhaps people/workers without lots of education, so not especially people who are by any means superior to them, who are tasked with having to repair all of the damage the kids do. A kid seeing this, seeing that the man fixing all the damage is just an ordinary person and that you as a hooligan, are damaging stuff which actually belongs to you too, as it is public property, seems to change people's minds.


In America the prison system is a business. It creates a pool of low paid labour (35 cents an hour) who produce large amounts of goods. It has a higher rate of incarceration than any other country, it is applied disproportionately to the poor and the different races, and the system requires a steady influx of 'criminals' to provide both profit, but also, social engineering.

Quote:
Locking a kid away, and not looking into what is happening at home and why youths do certain things doesn't help prevent further damage. By locking them away and putting a stamp on them - the same thing with older people when they too are locked away - means they have even more trouble fitting in later on and getting jobs. This adds up to the fact that your policies create more of what you do not llike, want or need in society.


Yes, we need to understand why Knox and Sollecito did what they did. The answers we come up with would be a reflection of ourselves as a society. But I also believe that in their case, if they get away with it, they will have not learned anything. And, looking at Knox, I know her life will get worse, not better. She would have benefited more from serving her sentence, in Italy. This brings up another anomaly. if found guilty, she may be required to serve a sentence in the US, rather than Italy. Given that she might end up in a country club US prison, I doubt she will learn very much there.

Quote:
If people cannot do a thing, cannot get any work, then seeing as how they are people with needs, they are going to be forced to do criminal things or starve and perish on the street, if they have perhaps no family, no-one who can help them, what are they to eat, where are they to live if they cannot get any money from anywhere? Where they will live is nowhere, or else if they live somewhere (a home), then they may need to pay for it with crime. And to me, seeing as how in America, socially, it seems that life is very hard for many people who fall out of the boat, where society doesn't provide for people, where people have the worst medical care schemes (meaning they have nothing, no health care) found anywhere in so-called Western societies, then it's no wonder America has so much crime and so much heavy-duty crime.


Yes, ordinary kids can benefit from learning a trade, by getting loving, firm, kindness and discipline, by being reintegrated into society when they're proven to be safe. As to the mentally ill and the psychopathic nasties, they require longer terms of incarceration, but, in humane settings. I agree that most prisons in the US are truly horrible places, that is soul killing to the people inside and the society that creates such conditions.

Quote:
No amount of idiotic postings by a bunch of nasties, online, attached to Knox, is going to change the truth of the matter in this light. Those falsely pointing the finger at others, as is with Knox's little helpers, are at best a bunch of ill-informed hypocrites with bundles of ulterior motives for doing what they do and then some. They are human blood suckers, leaches, parasites.


They do have psychological issues of their own, true. It's not that they believe what they do, but the cognitive dissonance that prevents them from recognizing what other, more stable people, do.

Quote:
From what I have seen in America; if you are behave badly, for any reaso, you go to jail you bad, bad, terrible person.
In reality many are not bad, they are needy, they are in trouble with trying to survive, or any number of situations any person could potentially face in life at some time, for even the best fall, and often very hard.The prisons are then awful, with extremes of abuse from both co-prisoners and prison staff alike. Is a person to come out of there changed, only as a result of fear? Fear of having to spend time in there again, when on the outside, the stamp now on you won't wash off and you cannot get work anywhere because of that.


Answered above.

Quote:
I think those people attached to Knox in Seattle must live in dreamland, trying as they do to make out that everywhere else is so bad, when in reality conditions in American prisons are far worse than any country in the Western world; prisoners run the show & conditions are so bad, like prisoners not being fed properly, this only leads to a need in prison for dealing in illegal substances, bullying & abuse, etc, it shows how unenlightened those behind such regimes are because punishing people by giving them inadequate food and suchlike is not going to help change people, all it means is that in the prisons, through these bad policies, conditions are created that are a benefit to the hardest bullies, it all enco urages bullying and bad behaviour. Criminals come out worse than when they went in. This isn't something that is found only in America, it's true anywhere. In the end, if you weren't real bad to start with; you probably will be as mean as shit by the time you get out, if you do get out at all.

That's another thing, how in America you can go in for a nothingness (petty crimes = probably committed in many cases out of dire necessity = but not always), and end up in trouble in prison and end up not getting out.

In other countries, this situation is safeguarded against, unless you do really bad things, but then it is not simply up to the prison staff to dish out punishment as they see fit, those doing wrong in prison have to go to the courts again.

So in countries where prison staff are free to add time onto prison sentences according to their own discretion, those prisons are thus turned into kangaroo courts, in that there is no court at all, just individuals punishing people according to their own whims and fancies.


The only thing I would add to this Zorba, is that 'those attached to Knox in Seattle' are her parents. Do they really believe she's innocent, or, do they really believe their own lies? They may have sprung her from Capanne prison, but now, she's in a prison of her own in Seattle. It really is all about karma, but, justice will be done.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Machine wrote:
chami wrote:
Both the rock and the money trail constitute important aspects of the crime, albeit indirectly. For examples, drug dealers won't accept credit card but the monthly expenses will reflect this. It is quite common that people do uncommon things while under the influence of drugs and we cannot find any rational reason for their actions. The obvious reason is that they become irrational.


Seemingly normal people from respectable backgrounds have committed horrific and senseless murders when they weren't under the influence of drugs.


I know. But we still want a motive. We still try to "justify" their actions somehow. So we conclude that such people are not "normal". It is a lousy argument but is widely accepted. Just think of the "bureaucrat" or the "politician" who just kills 100 innocents with a telephone call and then goes out for his lunch with family. It is not only "normal" and "common" but is also acceptable (to many).

The money and power is also a kind of drug. It distorts your normal thinking.

I consider "normal people" committing "horrific and senseless murders" is, well, kind of oxymoron. If you lack empathy, you are not normal (well, that is the way I see it).

Truth can wait: he is used to it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

chami wrote:
The Machine wrote:
chami wrote:
Both the rock and the money trail constitute important aspects of the crime, albeit indirectly. For examples, drug dealers won't accept credit card but the monthly expenses will reflect this. It is quite common that people do uncommon things while under the influence of drugs and we cannot find any rational reason for their actions. The obvious reason is that they become irrational.


Seemingly normal people from respectable backgrounds have committed horrific and senseless murders when they weren't under the influence of drugs.


I know. But we still want a motive. We still try to "justify" their actions somehow. So we conclude that such people are not "normal". It is a lousy argument but is widely accepted. Just think of the "bureaucrat" or the "politician" who just kills 100 innocents with a telephone call and then goes out for his lunch with family. It is not only "normal" and "common" but is also acceptable (to many).

The money and power is also a kind of drug. It distorts your normal thinking.

I consider "normal people" committing "horrific and senseless murders" is, well, kind of oxymoron. If you lack empathy, you are not normal (well, that is the way I see it).

Truth can wait: he is used to it.


There is no justification for their actions. There are no mitigating circumstances. I think Knox, Sollecito and Guede had different motives for being at the cottage that night. Mignini's scenario is probably as close to the truth as we're ever going to get.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Let's have that rock in scale:

is it SANE to break-in by throwing such a size rock from the grassy knoll?
then clamber down climb up the whitewashed wall without leaving a single
leveraging scuff mark on the wall - get in the window without a single trace
leaving glass in the frame and in a line on the ledge

again - the distance .. the break-in started from that position
visible from the road - by throwing that size rock off the fenced corner position

this photo indicates that distance (later photo during building work)



Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

True, The Machine, but was it just a hazing, or was there a satanic element involved? He wanted to include that in the case before Massei, and Comodi shot that down.

The fact she took the knife to the cottage, is established. That she had motive, I would say yes. It was jealousy, IMHO. That they were high on drugs, is something most of us are agreed on, or we could run another poll ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I really ride the fence on the drug issue. Partially because of my lack of any real first-hand knowledge.
I've known people who have abused all sorts of substances, some with tragic results. I've read stories of people,
(one in particular in Florida recently) that have pushed a person into a psychotic state with horrific results.
But three people, at the same time? We know that the knife strongly is strongly indicative of some form of intent.
"Under the influence of drugs" to me sounds as if the drugs were a major factor in an act that would otherwise not have happened. I don't know if I believe this.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
True, The Machine, but was it just a hazing, or was there a satanic element involved? He wanted to include that in the case before Massei, and Comodi shot that down.

The fact she took the knife to the cottage, is established. That she had motive, I would say yes. It was jealousy, IMHO. That they were high on drugs, is something most of us are agreed on, or we could run another poll ;)


Countless journalists have claimed that Mignini said Meredith was killed as part of satanic ritual or sacrificial rite. None of them have ever provided a verbatim quote from Mignini to support their claims. In fact, Mignini has expressly denied making this claim in a number of media interviews.

He denied claiming that Meredith was killed in a sacrificial rite in his letter to Linda Byron:

“On the “sacrificial rite” question, I have never said that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a “sacrificial rite”.

He also made it quite clear that he has never claimed that Meredith was killed as part of a satanic rite in his interview with Drew Griffin on CNN:

1’03” CNN: You’ve never said that Meredith’s death was a satanic rite?

1’08” Mignini: I have never said that. I have never understood who has and continues to say that. I read, there was a reporter – I don’t know his name, I mention it because I noticed it – who continues to repeat this claim that, perhaps, knowing full well that it’s not like that.

I have never said that there might have been a satanic rite. I’ve never said it, so I would like to know who made it up.

I wouldn't be surprised if Knox and Sollecito had taken dangerous drugs on the night of the murder. Mignini stated at the trial that Sollecito and Knox ran with a crowd who often used stupefying drugs. You could argue that Sollecito's hobbies - knives, drugs, hardcore pornography and violent Manga comics featuring murder and rape - were the inspiration behind the crime.

I believe that Amanda Knox hated Meredith and this hatred was fuelled by jealousy. There doesn't have to be one motive. I think Knox, Sollecito and Guede had different motives.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Yes. this I can see. Not drug-induced, but drug-enhanced.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

We have discussed hard drugs a few times before, but as far as regular use goes the hair analysis shows that they were not regular users. From Nadeau's book:

Quote:
As for Amanda and Raf, when they were finally arrested, on November 6, only the slightest unidentifiable trace of narcotics was found through hair samples not even enough to identify the substance.

I am not sure if Barbie means they both tested positive or just Amanda. Either way there was apparently some drug that left minor traces and it is possible that the traces were so minor because the test was done so shortly after the murder. This then could have been 'something new' they tried on that night. Maybe that explains both Amanda's and Rudy's stomach problems that they refer to? But had they been regular users then this would have shown in their hair samples.
Top Profile 

Offline indie


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

GO ITALY!




Just wanted to say hi to all friends far and wide! I just got back from a wedding in India and I cannot tell you how many times I thought of Meredith and how I bet her mum would have loved to add some flavors of India in Meredith's future wedding.

I have been trying to keep up with the new developments. I remain respectful of the Italian justice system.

A special hi to Michael and Guermantes my two old-time buddies hugz-)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:47 pm   Post subject: THE ROCK   

In case the FOAK come back, here's something they couldn't quite be quit of :)

Here's the rock, again. Image
From the previous photo posted by Michael I estimate its dimensions to be 20x15x12 cms, close enough to the 8.8 lbs reported by Dempsey. The investigators reported that such rocks were all over the slope right by the cottage.

Questions: How was the rock transported to the cottage? Probably in a bag of some kind. Why, because it's heavy, but also, otherwise the rubbing action would have lodged some DNA from exfoliated skin cells. I assume, but am not sure if it was done, the rock had been tested.

Could it have been thrown in from the outside? No, because that theory is tied in with Rudy climbing in through the window, which has been disproven already, and, the placement of the bag in relation to the window is all wrong. I'll have to get the drawing of Filomena's room but working from memory, wonder how the rock was thrown through the window, bounced from the inside shutter, then landed inside the bag because even if that had happened, the tear is on the wrong side, away from the inside shutter

Just asking :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

There also appears to be a bit of glass UNDER the blue clothing. Just to the left of the other piece of glass right up against the clothes. Wonder how that got there?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Indie wrote:
A special hi to Michael and Guermantes my two old-time buddies


Great to see you Indie! The wedding sounds like it was great :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
There also appears to be a bit of glass UNDER the blue clothing. Just to the left of the other piece of glass right up against the clothes. Wonder how that got there?


One must remember, the room was disturbed by Filomena to check if anything had been stolen and to get her computer, before those photos were taken.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
There also appears to be a bit of glass UNDER the blue clothing. Just to the left of the other piece of glass right up against the clothes. Wonder how that got there?


One must remember, the room was disturbed by Filomena to check if anything had been stolen and to get her computer, before those photos were taken.


I doubt she touched or moved the bag with the rock or the tossed clothing though. She looked for her laptop, designer sunglasses, and drawer with a box of jewelry.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

John Kercher has this to say about Knox:
"She had always been considered studious but, according to some students, she led a ‘double life’. Whilst some saw her as being academically conscientious, others portrayed her quite differently. One of her contemporaries, talking to the Daily Mail, said: ‘We all liked to smoke a bit of pot, and go out and get trashed at weekends, but she really used drink and drugs. By that, I mean that she didn’t simply take stuff to get high and have fun. It was like she wanted to get away from herself, as if she had some chemical imbalance she could only cope with by getting wasted."

Kercher, John (2012-04-26). Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth (Kindle Locations 1347-1351). Hachette Littlehampton. Kindle Edition.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon wrote:
Michael wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
There also appears to be a bit of glass UNDER the blue clothing. Just to the left of the other piece of glass right up against the clothes. Wonder how that got there?


One must remember, the room was disturbed by Filomena to check if anything had been stolen and to get her computer, before those photos were taken.


I doubt she touched or moved the bag with the rock or the tossed clothing though. She looked for her laptop, designer sunglasses, and drawer with a box of jewelry.


Yes, but she would have disturbed the ground...kicking glass and clothing around simply by necessity to walk around. And she was picking things up and shaking glass off them. Her laptop, along with other things, was on the floor. My comment wasn't to explain the positioning of the rock in the bag, but the fact some of the glass is under items. It must also be remembered, that the stagers would have been kicking glass around too.

This is an important point, as the FOAKers love to try and make out the positioning of the glass in the photos is identical to when the supposed break-in took place, in order to attempt to support arguments that the rock came in through the window using glass distribution, completely ignoring the fact that the crime scene was disturbed before forensics got there.

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael, this is exactly the reason that I try to be careful with my posts, and, sometimes speak in a short-hand that I understand, forgetting that I need to be more specific when presenting what I see.

First, I guess I should ask: How did we get the picture, above. Where did it come from?

I originally went to page 1 of this thread, to Geebee's link to rock pictures in his Kermit presentation.
His picture rock4.jpg shows the rock in bag in an earlier picture than shown above, and it appears that the bag with rock are resting on a portion of the clothing.

This to me indicates glass, clothing, rock, in that order. So the rock would have been LAST to land in this scenario.

I came to this conclusion based on the series of pictures presented. The rock was moved slightly after forensics arrived, if these are legitimate crime scene photos.
I say this because the picture from Geebee shows the rock cracked, but intact, and AFTER this picture was taken, the pieces fell from the rock and landed on the floor, which would indicate some form of movement to me.

Certainly it is possible that things were disturbed. I don't discount t his possibility. I am only trying to put words to what I see in the pictures presented.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
First, I guess I should ask: How did we get the picture, above. Where did it come from?


The FOAKers...I think.


Napia5 wrote:
I originally went to page 1 of this thread, to Geebee's link to rock pictures in his Kermit presentation.
His picture rock4.jpg shows the rock in bag in an earlier picture than shown above, and it appears that the bag with rock are resting on a portion of the clothing.

This to me indicates glass, clothing, rock, in that order. So the rock would have been LAST to land in this scenario.

I came to this conclusion based on the series of pictures presented. The rock was moved slightly after forensics arrived, if these are legitimate crime scene photos.
I say this because the picture from Geebee shows the rock cracked, but intact, and AFTER this picture was taken, the pieces fell from the rock and landed on the floor, which would indicate some form of movement to me.


Yes, it is important to understand that the forensics people moved things around too. Once they have recorded photographically the original positioning of items, then they are free to move items in order to get a better view of others so that they too can be recorded. After all, evidence can be hidden beneath things, or in the case of the bag, partially inside things. But, the original positioning of items is important as it gives us a timeline for the order in which evidence was distributed. For example, if an item is beneath another item, then that (in most cases) was laid down before the item that is on top of it. Crime scene reconstruction of the timeline from the photos becomes difficult, because that timeline was disturbed by Filomena. And that's not a possibility, it's a fact.

What we don't get with these photos are the forensic explanatory notes made for each photo, providing context. There would have been some sort of commentary or explanation that came with them in the forensic report and we don't have that (neither do the FOAKers). This makes life a little more difficult.

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Of course we need the forensic explanation in terms of context for 100% accuracy in the debate.
The picture above clearly shows the edge of an evidence marker.
Rock4.jpg from Geebee shows no marker.
I have no context here. Do I know if this picture was cropped? Do I know when it was taken? No.
I am attempting a good-faith debate, but I guess I really don't know much at all in terms of Geebee's picture.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranel


Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:57 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
First, I guess I should ask: How did we get the picture, above. Where did it come from?


Fishy and co. have rock photos in their gallery on this page:

Filomena's Bedroom: Rock used by Rudy Guede to break window
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PhotoGallery3.html
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Aranel


Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:57 am

Posts: 36

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
What we don't get with these photos are the forensic explanatory notes made for each photo, providing context. There would have been some sort of commentary or explanation that came with them in the forensic report and we don't have that (neither do the FOAKers). This makes life a little more difficult.


I wish we had access to those reports. :(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Aranel wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
First, I guess I should ask: How did we get the picture, above. Where did it come from?


Fishy and co. have rock photos in their gallery on this page:

Filomena's Bedroom: Rock used by Rudy Guede to break window
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PhotoGallery3.html



Talk about using a loaded title for them!

Well, that's how propaganda works.

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


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

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

geebee2 wrote:
As there has been discussion of the break-in today, I am mentioning that I have made my own analysis of the rock here : http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/The+Rock

I only made this yesterday and today, it's still evolving a bit.

Ergon's idea about someone swinging the rock in a bag while inside is novel to me. I'm not sure it can be entirely excluded, that's the thing about staging theories, you can always hypothesise that a clever person has arranged all the evidence with nearly infinite foresight, but I don't find it likely at all. Who would ever think of such a thing? It's possible the burglary was staged, but if it was, the simplest explanation is that someone went outside, opened the external shutters ( if they were not already open ) and chucked the rock through the window. It could also have been done in a much more elaborate manner, but any intelligent person would try to make it as realistic as possible, and the way to do that is to do it "for real".

The argument that using a bag to swing a rock through the window would make it less noisy doesn't seem right to me - the sound comes from the glass breaking, and it's going to make a breaking glass noise however you do it.

Another reason I doubt the break-in was staged is that the stager(s) would have had to carefully check that it was actually possible to climb up into Filomena's bedroom, before breaking the glass. It's not exactly immediately obvious, and if you have just committed a bloody murder, I really don't think you would be making such careful observations and calculations. Perhaps Rudy, having some experience of breaking and entering, could have staged it with his accumulated knowledge, but how would Amanda and Raffaele know about breaking into places? Why would they even have thought of such a thing in such a stressful situation?

Staging theories by their nature are impossible to disprove - but to make them plausible you need some concrete evidence. It's unfortunate that the Italian police didn't retain the glass ( which would conclusively prove from which direction the rock came, see link below ), but the impact mark on the inner shutter indicates to me it certainly came from the outside.

One other point : at high velocities, a bullet or small stone can make a small hole in glass, but a large rock travelling at modest speed will not. The mode of fracturing is different, see http://www.santoshraut.com/forensic/glass.fractures.htm

I'm posting today because it is a bank holiday in the UK today, and the weather isn't great. I don't expect to make this a regular event.


You have made several interesting calculations with interesting results.

Please consider my points and observations:

1. Is the window at the eye-level from the point where you are assuming that the rock was thrown? Otherwise you will need a vertical component to the initial velocity.

2. The mark on the wood you are assuming that was caused by the rock? They appear old to me. Anyway, the rock would have retained the small wooden fibers that were scraped from the wood.

3. The rock falls dead down inside the room - this means that the velocity of the rock is zero (or close to zero) at impact or immediately afterwards. This is important else the rock would have traveled further from the wall.

4. That the rock falls just below the window means that the rock approached the window almost perpendicular direction.

5. The mass of the rock is 4 Kg. It must have been weighed otherwise the figure of 8.8 lbs would not come out of nothing.

6. The rock broke upon impact on the floor and several fragments were produced. Was a mark on the floor noticed? A rock of this size falling and breaking into several pieces will leave some dust mark on the floor and some minor damage to floor is expected.

7. You use "elastic" and "inelastic" not in the scientific way. This creates avoidable confusion.

8. Look very carefully at Rock7.jpg picture. If the damage is caused by the rock, the rock has hit the wood in the opposite direction as you predict. In my opinion, this is a very likely evidence that the rock was hit from the inside.

9. impact on the sideways calculations are wrong. If the two bodies hit (off their centre of mass) then the calculations need more information. I refer you to Goldstein, classical mechanics for details.

10. If the internal shutters were closed and they open as a result of being hit with the rock, then you need to treat this as a centre of mass problem. There will be considerable backscatter in the scenario you are proposing.


I am very happy that you are trying to do some scientific analysis. I am just pointing out some errors and suggestions for improvements.

What's the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer?
A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Of course we need the forensic explanation in terms of context for 100% accuracy in the debate.
The picture above clearly shows the edge of an evidence marker.
Rock4.jpg from Geebee shows no marker.
I have no context here. Do I know if this picture was cropped? Do I know when it was taken? No.
I am attempting a good-faith debate, but I guess I really don't know much at all in terms of Geebee's picture.


The funny thing is, they accuse us of lack of good faith debate.

They assume we haven't checked out the 'evidence' on their sites, then if we don't agree with their conclusions, we're 'biased'.

Oh, and we have 'closed minds' so it isn't worth it 'debating' us. Yet here they are, on Tuesdays, and they vote for Wednesdays as well ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

chami wrote:
geebee2 wrote:
As there has been discussion of the break-in today, I am mentioning that I have made my own analysis of the rock here : http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/The+Rock

I only made this yesterday and today, it's still evolving a bit.

Ergon's idea about someone swinging the rock in a bag while inside is novel to me. I'm not sure it can be entirely excluded, that's the thing about staging theories, you can always hypothesise that a clever person has arranged all the evidence with nearly infinite foresight, but I don't find it likely at all. Who would ever think of such a thing? It's possible the burglary was staged, but if it was, the simplest explanation is that someone went outside, opened the external shutters ( if they were not already open ) and chucked the rock through the window. It could also have been done in a much more elaborate manner, but any intelligent person would try to make it as realistic as possible, and the way to do that is to do it "for real".

The argument that using a bag to swing a rock through the window would make it less noisy doesn't seem right to me - the sound comes from the glass breaking, and it's going to make a breaking glass noise however you do it.

Another reason I doubt the break-in was staged is that the stager(s) would have had to carefully check that it was actually possible to climb up into Filomena's bedroom, before breaking the glass. It's not exactly immediately obvious, and if you have just committed a bloody murder, I really don't think you would be making such careful observations and calculations. Perhaps Rudy, having some experience of breaking and entering, could have staged it with his accumulated knowledge, but how would Amanda and Raffaele know about breaking into places? Why would they even have thought of such a thing in such a stressful situation?

Staging theories by their nature are impossible to disprove - but to make them plausible you need some concrete evidence. It's unfortunate that the Italian police didn't retain the glass ( which would conclusively prove from which direction the rock came, see link below ), but the impact mark on the inner shutter indicates to me it certainly came from the outside.

One other point : at high velocities, a bullet or small stone can make a small hole in glass, but a large rock travelling at modest speed will not. The mode of fracturing is different, see http://www.santoshraut.com/forensic/glass.fractures.htm

I'm posting today because it is a bank holiday in the UK today, and the weather isn't great. I don't expect to make this a regular event.


You have made several interesting calculations with interesting results.

Please consider my points and observations:

1. Is the window at the eye-level from the point where you are assuming that the rock was thrown? Otherwise you will need a vertical component to the initial velocity.

2. The mark on the wood you are assuming that was caused by the rock? They appear old to me. Anyway, the rock would have retained the small wooden fibers that were scraped from the wood.

3. The rock falls dead down inside the room - this means that the velocity of the rock is zero (or close to zero) at impact or immediately afterwards. This is important else the rock would have traveled further from the wall.

4. That the rock falls just below the window means that the rock approached the window almost perpendicular direction.

5. The mass of the rock is 4 Kg. It must have been weighed otherwise the figure of 8.8 lbs would not come out of nothing.

6. The rock broke upon impact on the floor and several fragments were produced. Was a mark on the floor noticed? A rock of this size falling and breaking into several pieces will leave some dust mark on the floor and some minor damage to floor is expected.

7. You use "elastic" and "inelastic" not in the scientific way. This creates avoidable confusion.

8. Look very carefully at Rock7.jpg picture. If the damage is caused by the rock, the rock has hit the wood in the opposite direction as you predict. In my opinion, this is a very likely evidence that the rock was hit from the inside.

9. impact on the sideways calculations are wrong. If the two bodies hit (off their centre of mass) then the calculations need more information. I refer you to Goldstein, classical mechanics for details.

10. If the internal shutters were closed and they open as a result of being hit with the rock, then you need to treat this as a centre of mass problem. There will be considerable backscatter in the scenario you are proposing.


I am very happy that you are trying to do some scientific analysis. I am just pointing out some errors and suggestions for improvements.

What's the difference between a good lawyer and a great lawyer?
A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.


Chami, you make some great points! I would like to ask about your #6.
The rock appears to br broken on the TOP of the rock, not at the point of impact. I really see this in Geebee's #4 picture.
Wouldn't this be in line with swinging the rock into the glass and perhaps hitting the shutter, causing the rock to fracture? If the rock were dropped down after this, the pieces wouldn't travel very far if they separated, which appears to have happened.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

James Higham has written an excellent piece about the case on his blog:

http://nourishingobscurity.com/2012/06/ ... ws-closer/

Bruce Fischer has made yet another unsubstantiated claim in the comments section. I've reposted the two questions below that I asked Bruce Fischer on here last week:

Do you have any proof that the Italian Supreme Court ruled the interrogation of Amanda Knox was inadmissible in the trial?

Do you have any proof the Italian Supreme Court stated that the interrogation was illegal?
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

So, is Giulia Buongiorno handling Raffaele's case at the Supreme Court? I think she only was a junior counsel when she represented an Italian President the last time around.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Michael wrote:
BruceFisher wrote:
Do you consider yourself to be an authority when it comes to this case?


Yes, because I've done my homework. The difference between you and I, is that you have an agenda, I don't.

he can be an "authority" because he has the case files

bruce's agenda is $$$$$
he may as well be selling the case files he gained illicitly to the press
he's making money out of a murder



Just to demonstrate the agenda, Bruce and his followers are now expanding into other cases. It doesn't really seem to matter whether the people in those cases are guilty or innocent, the only requirement seems to be:

1. That the accused/convicted is American

2. That they are in a foreign country

So, the root of the agenda appears to be $ AND nationalism. Nasty mix.


Good morning Michael,

We didn't have a chance to talk about this last week. Were you able to visit Injustice-Anywhere.org to see that you were mistaken?

Here is the list of our featured cases. Only one case out of six deals with an American serving time in a foreign prison.

Jason Puracal ­­­- currently in a Nicaraguan prison

Ryan Ferguson - currently in an American prison

Kirstin Blaise Lobato - currently in an American prison

Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay - currently in an American prison

Hank Skinner - currently in an American prison

Jeffrey Havard - currently in an American prison




Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Machine wrote:
James Higham has written an excellent piece about the case on his blog:

http://nourishingobscurity.com/2012/06/ ... ws-closer/

Bruce Fischer has made yet another unsubstantiated claim in the comments section. I've reposted the two questions below that I asked Bruce Fischer on here last week:

Do you have any proof that the Italian Supreme Court ruled the interrogation of Amanda Knox was inadmissible in the trial?

Do you have any proof the Italian Supreme Court stated that the interrogation was illegal?


Good Morning The Machine,

I have to say that I surprised that after all of this time, with all of the information available on InjusticeinPerugia.org, that you feel the questions posted above are the most pressing. You frequently mention that IIP has many errors. In my opinion, your list of errors is very weak.

When it comes to the admissibility of the written statements, you are technically correct. The interrogation itself was never ruled illegal. The information gathered from the interrogation was ruled illegally obtained.

I am no longer doing regular updates on the Injustice in Perugia website. The detail that you mention is of little importance at this point. Amanda and Raffaele are free. I now dedicate my time to working on Injustice-Anywhere.org to bring more attention to wrongful conviction cases that have not been corrected. You will see that most people that worked on the Knox/Sollecito case have moved on.

Hellmann wrote: "This Corte di Assise di Appello, while confirming the ruling [ordinanza] of the first-level Corte di Assise on this point, has nevertheless specified that, while they are usable with respect to the crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, they cannot be usable with respect to the other crimes against Meredith Kercher to the extent that, as the Corte di Cassazione has also confirmed (ruling no. 990/08, dated 4-01-2008), they are subject to absolute nullification in this regard as having been given in the absence of an attorney by a person who had already assumed the role of a suspect."




Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Machine,

I have a few questions for you.

Was Amanda Knox arrested for a loud party before going to Italy?

Did Raffaele call the police before the Postal Police arrived?

Was there a shoe print matching Amanda Knox found on the pillow in the murder room?

Was a shoe print matching Raffaele Sollecito found in the murder room?

Were you aware that samples were taken at Raffaele's apartment showing mixed DNA from Amanda and Raffaele?

Can you present a bleach receipt that you repeatedly mention from November, 4, 2007?

You recently mentioned that Amanda most likely sustained a nose injury during the struggle causing heavy bleeding which led to the droplet of blood on the tap in the bathroom. Why didn't investigators find Amanda's blood in the murder room if she was bleeding as you suggest?

Did Amanda and Raffaele use the mop seen outside the cottage in an attempt to clean up the crime scene?

Do you think Rudy Guede received a fair punishment for the crime?


Thanks in advance




Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Ergon, your comments are in quotes.

Quote:
Look at the ungainly proportions of the rock. I doubt any one could have thrown it with any degree of accuracy, let alone the shot putting, mantle climbing Rudy. The figure of 8.8 lbs = 4 kgs by FOA Candace Dempsey also seems just about right. Since the defense NEVER pulls figures out of their hats ;) I assume that is correct?


Do you think the investigator that bagged the rock had extremely large hands?
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/publishImages/window~~element213.jpg

Funny to see the rock getting bigger as we went from last Tuesday to today. It's time to look at the rock again and bring it back down to size.

Quote:
Bottom line is there is no evidence the outer shutters were open, or that someone could have climbed up to the window. The Massei court saw the defense lawyer fail in his attempt and rightly concluded the break in was staged. Hellmann, who had little criminal experience, concludes Rudy could have climbed through.


There is no evidence that the shutters were closed. No one saw anyone fail to climb through the window because no one tried. The lawyer that climbed up the security bars would not have been permitted to enter the crime scene. No one ever stated at trial that Guede could not have climbed through the window. Massei did not say that the attorney failed to enter the cottage, therefore the break-in was staged.

Quote:
I am still waiting for Ron Hendry's reconstruction of the purported rock throwing. It's been four years, after all. I'm also waiting to see defense specialist Pasquale's video. You know, actual experiments? IIP says it has experts, then fails to provide their findings in an open forum.


The video is online for all to see. We have it posted on the IIP YouTube page and it is linked on the IIP download page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ38uzwD2Is&list=UUxgHJybP2HvgrDAYg6oOt7A&index=6&feature=plcp

The video is not fantastic but it does show one significant detail. The rock hits the shutter and falls downward to the floor, just as I have described. You mentioned that the bag was ripped on the wrong side. That is not the case. The rock fell downward into the bag, knocking it over, tearing the bag as it hit the floor. The rip in the bag is exactly where it would be expected to be.

Quote:
Here, our files are open for anyone to read. There, you have to register, and they've not even released the entire set of documentation to their own members. But then, this is the defense that fired its forensic specialist when he said the DNA was a match :)


http://www.injusticeinperugia.org requires no registration and contains vast amounts of information. Your suggestion that we hide information is completely false. I had to register to comment on this forum. You have to register to comment on our forum. Everything on the forum is viewable to all members.




Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
...I now dedicate my time to working on Injustice-Anywhere.org to bring more attention to wrongful conviction cases that have not been corrected...


Who better than a fur shop clerk to spot reversible error?
Top Profile 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
...
This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA...


On what basis are you making this incredible assertion?

Does working as a clerk in a fur shop now require a J.D. and years of experience as a prosecutor?



Please don't take my comments out of context. My comment was made in reference to Ergon stating that there was enough evidence to convict in Heavey's court. Is Ergon an expert?

Would you like to post personal attacks while hiding behind your anonymous name? Would everyone here like to post up their profession and place of employment? Is this where you would like to take this Jackie? I'm game if you are.


1) The meaning of your dubious assertion ("...This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA...") is clear with or without knowledge of the fact that it was made "in reference to Ergon" - you have not been quoted unfairly;

2) I have no idea as to whether Ergon is "an expert" but, rest assured, in the event that he/she ever dares to make an assertion about legal matters that's anywhere near as ridiculous as the one you just made, I'll be sure to challenge him/her as well;

3) You have not answered my question; &

4) After bearing witness to the tribulations that Ms. Ganong and Mr. Quenelle were subjected to at the hands of an unscrupulous, jug-eared internet jackass, I'm not exactly keen to surrender my anonymity.

Indeed, I can't think of anything more vexing than having to face the futility of spending 50-100K in order to win a judgment against a potentially penniless defendant.

Someone out there is really quite clever when it comes to chilling the debate.
PS What kind of an "author" writes a phrase like "anonymous name"? 8-)



Ergon's statement: " the evidence presented by the investigators would have been enough to convict in Judge Heavey's courtroom"

My statement: "This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA."

Looks to me like Ergon and I both gave personal opinions. You chimed in to attack me because you don't like me. I get it.

Our statements were of little importance. You decided to take the opportunity to discuss my profession. Then in your second response, you commented on my looks. That's how you work Jackie. You attack people's looks in order to make your point. You have done so repeatedly. I'm not sure why a young confident lawyer like yourself would need to resort to such tactics.

You have posted my picture in your avatar and called me a "jug-eared internet jackass." Is that really appropriate to do to a member of this forum?

You are an attorney Jackie. You are aware of the fact that the truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim.

Everything I’ve written about Quennell and Ganong is absolutely true, and they both know that. I am not an attorney but IIP has several.

Why have you concluded that I am a "clerk?" It doesn't matter at all to me, I am just curious.




Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Some groupies have repeatedly called a couple of posters on PMF and TJMK at their places of work and hassled them.


Hi TM. Who was this done to?


Miss Represented and Tara.


This is beyond sick.


Napia5, The Machine is not presenting the facts. Please do the research. I know you won't believe me. The information I present in this post is available online. Please look at the actual facts.

I have no idea if anyone called Tara. If anyone from IIP or FOA made that call, I have not heard about it. We certainly do not condone that type of behavior.

Miss Represented created a blog titled "Lies My Mother Told Me" in which she discussed the Amanda Knox case while representing herself as a psychologist with "many years of experience." She ironically referred to herself as "Miss Represented" on her blog while using her false credentials to provide analysis of Amanda‘s behavior in court.

The truth is Miss Represented had no clinical psychology experience and no credentials as a psychologist, which requires an advanced degree at the time of her writing.

When Miss Represented's lies were exposed she quickly took her blog offline saying that she was no longer involved with the case.

Here is a post that discusses the conversation from JREF:
As for Miss Represented, after she was outed as a fraud on JREF she took down her blog and left a comment with one line insinuating harassment "I will not have people harassing me at my place of work." As Rolfe on JREF points out though "Well, none of us would put up with that. However, has anyone harassed you at your place of work?" and "Spartacus, Miss Represented did not state that she has been harassed at work. Take careful note of her choice of words." Spartacus comments "The more probable explanation is that she was embarrased to be exposed and threw that in there for sympathy points. Or maybe being exposed as an internet fraud causes trouble with her employer?" and Malkmus adds "She got embarrassed, removed the proof of her fraudulence, and took the easy way out with a vague insinuation of being harassed."

If anyone had wanted to cause problems for Ellie Ewing it would have been pretty easy after what she did, but no one did anything. This is not the case with what PMF/TJMK have done to supporters. The Machine, aka HarryRag, did write to Steve Moore's employer Pepperdine. It's extremely hypocritical of them to make accusations about supporters when there is proof in hand of their own actions.

The conversation on JREF about Miss Represented is pretty interesting if anyone wants to read it. It starts at post #3465 and runs about 3 pages:


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=87


Here is an excerpt from my blog that details some of the activities that have been witnessed by members of PMF/TJMK:

Michael Krom is a professor at Leeds University in London. Meredith had attended Leeds University before going to Perugia to further her studies. Michael has been an active supporter of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. His voice was heard in Italy when he was quoted by Oggi magazine.

A PMF poster named Zorba wrote a long letter to the Vice Chancellor and several other higher ups in Leeds University calling for disciplinary proceedings against Michael. Zorba‘s letter prompted the university secretary to write a short note to Michael stating that he was not speaking on behalf of the university but rather as a private individual. The secretary included the fact that professors at the university are free to express their views.

Michael Krom was not deterred by the failed attempt to adversely affect his employment and has never toned down his support. He has been in close contact with Raffaele Sollecito and has been active in helping Raffaele get a fresh start.

Michael Wiesner is a grade school teacher in Hawaii that found himself on the guilter radar when I posted a video online that he and his class created about the Amanda Knox case. Michael used the case as a case study in his classroom allowing his students to debate the issues and to design presentations detailing their views.

Shortly after I posted the video from Michael‘s class, The Anti-Knox group launched an all out attack on Michael and his school. Attempts were made to contact students in his class, the address of the school was posted online, and a photo of the school‘s principal was posted on TJMK.

Michael Wiesner has the full support of his employer but I made the decision to remove the video from the Injustice in Perugia blog because I felt it was wrong to ask the school to deal with the unnecessary distraction presented by the guilters.

Retired FBI Agent Steve Moore has been heavily targeted by the guilters for speaking on behalf of Amanda and Raffaele. Even worse, his family has come under attack. Steve's daughter had her Facebook account cloned in an attempt to impersonate her online. Letters were also sent to Steve‘s former employer in an attempt to interfere with his employment. One of the letters was written by The Machine. One conversation on PMF regarding Steve Moore‘s past in infiltrating a white supremacist group highlighted just how ridiculous Peggy Ganong and her group can be. During that conversation, Ganong actually insinuated that Steve might be a white supremacist himself. When later questioned about her comment, she stood by her statement.




Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5,

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.

No one on either side can prove who broke the window in Filomena's room. The suggestion of staging was crucial to the prosecution's case because they would have absolutely no explanation for an actual break-in while accusing Amanda and Raffaele of the crime.

Even if you could possibly prove staging (which you can't), you can't prove who did it.

The evidence in the murder room pointing to Guede as the lone killer, would lead one to reasonably conclude that he broke Filomena's window. There is no evidence in the murder room pointing to anyone other that Guede.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5,

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.


What about the bath-mat footprint impossibly belonging to Guede Bruce?
You are dealing with the break-in as real because you have more flexibility about that issue.
I've asked you this before you wouldn't answer (because it's hugely problematic to you)

How did a naked footpring of "Guede", set in Meredith Kerchers blood arrive on the bath-mat
without any other naked footprints in the bathroom.

This is problematic for you as it fits with the entire cleanup / staging. Sollecito and Knox
spent time from that Saturday night until their discovery Sunday morning. Cleaning. Fixing.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5,

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.


What about the bath-mat footpring impossibly belonging to Guede Bruce?
You are dealing with the break-in as real because you have more flexibility about that issue.
I've asked you this before you wouldn't answer (because it's hugely problematic to you)

How did a naked footpring of "Guede", set in Meredith Kerchers blood arrive on the bath-mat
without any other naked footprints in the bathroom.

This is problematic for you as it fits with the entire cleanup / staging. Sollecito and Knox
spent time from that Saturday night until their discovery Sunday morning. Cleaning. Fixing.


Here is my opinion on the bathmat: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

This statement is false: "What about the bath-mat footpring impossibly belonging to Guede"

The accusation that Jim Lovering doctored the photos of the bathmat are also false. All he did was size the photos to the same scale for comparison purposes. Every photo presented on IIP is authentic.

Photos of the bathroom are also available in the IIP gallery: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PhotoGallery.html
If you want to enlarge photos in the gallery, save them to your computer, then enlarge.

I have been accused of cropping photos to alter the appearance of the bathroom. Once again false.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5,

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.


What about the bath-mat footpring impossibly belonging to Guede Bruce?
You are dealing with the break-in as real because you have more flexibility about that issue.
I've asked you this before you wouldn't answer (because it's hugely problematic to you)

How did a naked footpring of "Guede", set in Meredith Kerchers blood arrive on the bath-mat
without any other naked footprints in the bathroom.

This is problematic for you as it fits with the entire cleanup / staging. Sollecito and Knox
spent time from that Saturday night until their discovery Sunday morning. Cleaning. Fixing.


Here is my opinion on the bathmat: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

not interested in the measurements you're too flexible on the measurements
your big problem is if Guede, how did it get there. Why aren't there any other corresponding
footprints in the bathroom. Guede cleaned? Who cleaned Bruce?

can only maybe be back in 12 hours - not ducking out of any response you may bring up


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5,

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.

No one on either side can prove who broke the window in Filomena's room. The suggestion of staging was crucial to the prosecution's case because they would have absolutely no explanation for an actual break-in while accusing Amanda and Raffaele of the crime.

Even if you could possibly prove staging (which you can't), you can't prove who did it.

The evidence in the murder room pointing to Guede as the lone killer, would lead one to reasonably conclude that he broke Filomena's window. There is no evidence in the murder room pointing to anyone other that Guede.



There is no evidence of only one murderer. There is evidence of three. Two have gotten away, but the Supreme Court can still correct this injustice.

Amanda Knox bled the night of the murder and her and Meredith's blood resulted in mixed blood samples. There are footprints made in the victim's blood revealed by Luminol compatible with Amanda's and the bloody footprint on the bathmat is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito's foot, but not with Rudy's, Amanda's or Meredith's. Raffaele Sollecito left his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. They both lied to police about their whereabouts of the murder night and their alibi is contradicted by evidence.

The reason why Amanda Knox insisted to police in the "burglary" without even mentioning Meredith's locked door is because the fake burglary was a crucial part of their story to derail the investigation right from the start.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5,

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.


What about the bath-mat footpring impossibly belonging to Guede Bruce?
You are dealing with the break-in as real because you have more flexibility about that issue.
I've asked you this before you wouldn't answer (because it's hugely problematic to you)

How did a naked footpring of "Guede", set in Meredith Kerchers blood arrive on the bath-mat
without any other naked footprints in the bathroom.

This is problematic for you as it fits with the entire cleanup / staging. Sollecito and Knox
spent time from that Saturday night until their discovery Sunday morning. Cleaning. Fixing.


Here is my opinion on the bathmat: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

not interested in the measurements you're too flexible on the measurements
your big problem is if Guede how did it get there. Why aren't there any other corresponding
footprints in the bathroom. Guede cleaned? Who cleaned Bruce?

can only maybe be back in 12 hours - not ducking out of any response you may bring up


The link I posted details how I think the print ended up on the bathmat.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
The link I posted details how I think the print ended up on the bathmat.

Please outline your theory here, for convenience and the thread.

To start with, there aren't any bloody footprints of Guede leading to or out of the bathroom
just those heading (shod) straight out the front door. No time to trawl through your website
outline it here. A singular footprint on the bathmat because there was a cleanup.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5,

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.

No one on either side can prove who broke the window in Filomena's room. The suggestion of staging was crucial to the prosecution's case because they would have absolutely no explanation for an actual break-in while accusing Amanda and Raffaele of the crime.

Even if you could possibly prove staging (which you can't), you can't prove who did it.

The evidence in the murder room pointing to Guede as the lone killer, would lead one to reasonably conclude that he broke Filomena's window. There is no evidence in the murder room pointing to anyone other that Guede.



There is no evidence of only one murderer. There is evidence of three. Two have gotten away, but the Supreme Court can still correct this injustice.

Amanda Knox bled the night of the murder and her and Meredith's blood resulted in mixed blood samples. There are footprints made in the victim's blood revealed by Luminol compatible with Amanda's and the bloody footprint on the bathmat is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito's foot, but not with Rudy's, Amanda's or Meredith's. Raffaele Sollecito left his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. They both lied to police about their whereabouts of the murder night and their alibi is contradicted by evidence.

The reason why Amanda Knox insisted to police in the "burglary" without even mentioning Meredith's locked door is because the fake burglary was a crucial part of their story to derail the investigation right from the start.


There were no mixed blood samples.

No footprints were proven to be made in blood other than the bathmat. the only prints made in blood came from Guede's shoes.

The footprint on the bathmat actually looks more like Guede's but it's inconclusive.

C&V further discredited the already discredited bra clasp.

Amanda and Raffaele maintain to this day that they were at Raffaele's on the night of the murder.

You have every right to believe anything you like but you have no facts to back up your beliefs.



Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
The link I posted details how I think the print ended up on the bathmat.

Please outline your theory here, for convenience and the thread.

To start with, there aren't any bloody footprints of Guede leading to or out of the bathroom
just those heading (shod) straight out the front door. No time to trawl through your website
outline it here. A singular footprint on the bathmat because there was a cleanup.


Any suggestion as to how the print was deposited on the bathmat is pure speculation. The print is inconclusive and does nothing to prove guilt of anyone. Here is a possible scenario.

It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.

The outline of the foot is incomplete. The heel extends off the edge of the mat, and parts appear to be missing in the upper right and lower left quadrants. Under the scenario described above, these missing elements can be explained as areas where the towel was dry or where the foot extended beyond the edge of the towel.

I believe that Guede cleaned up, then returned to the murder room, covered Meredith, took her things including her keys, locked her door and left. He stepped in blood as he was leaving, his prints can be seen exiting the cottage.




Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
...
Ergon's statement: " the evidence presented by the investigators would have been enough to convict in Judge Heavey's courtroom"

My statement: "This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA."

Looks to me like Ergon and I both gave personal opinions. You chimed in to attack me because you don't like me. I get it.

Our statements were of little importance. You decided to take the opportunity to discuss my profession. Then in your second response, you commented on my looks. That's how you work Jackie. You attack people's looks in order to make your point. You have done so repeatedly. I'm not sure why a young confident lawyer like yourself would need to resort to such tactics.

You have posted my picture in your avatar and called me a "jug-eared internet jackass." Is that really appropriate to do to a member of this forum?

You are an attorney Jackie. You are aware of the fact that the truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim.

Everything I’ve written about Quennell and Ganong is absolutely true, and they both know that. I am not an attorney but IIP has several.

Why have you concluded that I am a "clerk?" It doesn't matter at all to me, I am just curious.




1) Why did you automatically assume that you are the "jug-eared internet jackass" in question?

2) I'm sorry that you were offended by the term "salesclerk" - how would you like me to describe to your "profession"? Perhaps my source has overlooked something. I'm all ears (no pun intended): Enlighten me. Enlighten us.

3) From time to time I poke fun at the publicity hounds in this case. Do you object to people making fun of public figures? It must be painful for you to watch late night TV. (BTW, do you think anyone really buys this 'Nancy Boy Routine' of yours?)

4) If by "[IIP] attorney" you are referring to "anglolawyer", I think you'd be better off getting advice from someone that's done a little more than spend 2 years at a stand-alone diploma mill that doesn't even require an entrance exam.
Top Profile 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
...
Ergon's statement: " the evidence presented by the investigators would have been enough to convict in Judge Heavey's courtroom"

My statement: "This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA."

Looks to me like Ergon and I both gave personal opinions. You chimed in to attack me because you don't like me. I get it.

Our statements were of little importance. You decided to take the opportunity to discuss my profession. Then in your second response, you commented on my looks. That's how you work Jackie. You attack people's looks in order to make your point. You have done so repeatedly. I'm not sure why a young confident lawyer like yourself would need to resort to such tactics.

You have posted my picture in your avatar and called me a "jug-eared internet jackass." Is that really appropriate to do to a member of this forum?

You are an attorney Jackie. You are aware of the fact that the truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim.

Everything I’ve written about Quennell and Ganong is absolutely true, and they both know that. I am not an attorney but IIP has several.

Why have you concluded that I am a "clerk?" It doesn't matter at all to me, I am just curious.




1) Why did you automatically assume that you are the "jug-eared internet jackass" in question?

2) I'm sorry that you were offended by the term "salesclerk" - how would you like me to describe to your "profession"? Perhaps my source has overlooked something. I'm all ears (no pun intended): Enlighten me. Enlighten us.

3) From time to time I poke fun at the publicity hounds in this case. Do you object to people making fun of public figures? It must be painful for you to watch late night TV. (BTW, do you think anyone really buys this 'Nancy Boy Routine' of yours?)

4) If by "[IIP] attorney" you are referring to "anglolawyer", I think you'd be better off getting advice from someone that's done a little more than spend 2 years at a stand-alone diploma mill that doesn't even require an entrance exam.


Play games like a child if you must Jackie. We all know who you were talking about.

My profession has no bearing on our discussion and I was not offended at all by your comments. Nothing you say can offend me. I know you are trying really hard to do so but your childish comments mean nothing to me. You have it wrong when it comes to my position of course but it's not important. I was just curious how you reached your conclusion.

I posted my photo here. Does anyone really think I have big (jug) ears? I am so self conscious! :)

Anglolawyer is a great guy but he is not one of the IIP lawyers that I am referring to. You sure do like to criticize others when it comes to their professions, maybe you would like to post up your credentials.

I have no problem with poking fun at public figures. Your comments are made for a third grade playground and most are not directed at "public figures." You make fun of people's weight, their ears, and their teeth. Good stuff Jackie! You are better than Letterman!



Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Time for bed. I have a busy day so I won't be participating much here. I think I answered everything that was mentioned from last Tuesday until today. I look forward to reading the responses later today.


Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Nell wrote:
There is no evidence of only one murderer. There is evidence of three. Two have gotten away, but the Supreme Court can still correct this injustice.

Amanda Knox bled the night of the murder and her and Meredith's blood resulted in mixed blood samples. There are footprints made in the victim's blood revealed by Luminol compatible with Amanda's and the bloody footprint on the bathmat is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito's foot, but not with Rudy's, Amanda's or Meredith's. Raffaele Sollecito left his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. They both lied to police about their whereabouts of the murder night and their alibi is contradicted by evidence.

The reason why Amanda Knox insisted to police in the "burglary" without even mentioning Meredith's locked door is because the fake burglary was a crucial part of their story to derail the investigation right from the start.


There were no mixed blood samples.

No footprints were proven to be made in blood. the only prints made in blood came from Guede's shoes.

The footprint on the bathmat actually looks more like Guede's but it's inconclusive.

C&V further discredited the already discredited bra clasp.

Amanda and Raffaele maintain to this day that they were at Raffaele's on the night of the murder.

You have every right to believe anything you like but you have no facts to back up your beliefs.


Mixed blood samples

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

Dr. Luciano Garofano in Darkness Descending:

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

Page 371

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

Page 372

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

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



Footprints made in blood

From the Massei report:

Quote:
English translation, page 347

• finding 1 present in the bedroom of Amanda Knox; this is the print of right foot, most likely imprinted in a deposit of haematic substance, in which are clearly visible (cf. attached [to the report], following perspective correction): the big toe or 1st toe (which measures 22mm in width); the 3rd toe or middle toe (17mm in length); the metatarsus (80mm wide); a portion of the plantar arch. This finding was considered useful for negative comparisons and the comparison led the technicians to express an opinion of compatibility with Amanda Knox’s right foot

• finding 2, present in the corridor in the direction of [facing] the exit. Finding 2 corresponds to the print of a right foot, most likely imprinted in a deposit of haematic substance, useful for negative comparison. The print next to it, made by a left foot, also facing the exit, was not considered useful for any comparison since it does not clearly present general characteristics. The dimensions of this print of a right foot (cf. page 16 of the attached [to the report] which corrects the perspective), after having positioned the Robbins grid [ruled grid in centimetres], are: big toe 28mm wide; metatarsus 95mm wide and 55 long; heel 58mm wide, with a total length of the luminal-positive print of 245mm, where the length of Raffaele Sollecito’s right sole- print is equal to 244mm (with the big toe being 30mm wide, the width of the metatarsus, taken from the base to the green dots positioned at the end of the right and left outlines, being 96mm, with height 57mm – cf. table 16 cited - and width of the heel of 57mm)

• finding 7: this is the print of a foot most likely imprinted in a deposit of haematic substance, since the Luminol was positive; it was found in the corridor in front of the door to Meredith Kercher’s room, and was pointed towards the entrance. It is considered useful for negative comparisons. The dimensions of the Luminol-positive print (photo 51, main album) show 22.4mm width for the big toe; 78mm width for the metatarsus; 43mm width of the heel, compared to the corresponding measurements from Amanda Knox’s sole-print (cf. photo 44 on page 5669, main album) at: 22mm with regard to the width of the big toe; 76.7mm the width of the metatarsus; 43mm the width of the heel.


English translation, page 348

Moving to the conclusions on the matter, the Rinaldi-Boemia consultancy (the Luminol-positive prints considered usable had the outlines of the foot absolutely defined, explained Dr. Rinaldi) expressed itself as being:

• in favour of the compatibility of the prints in findings 1 (inside Amanda’s room) and 7 (corridor just outside Meredith Kercher’s room) with the right foot of Amanda Knox
• in favour of the compatibility of the print in finding 2 (the only useable one of the two parallel prints, the one on the right) with the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito.



The bloody footprint on the bathmat

Rudy Guede's foot is incompatible with the measurements taken from the bloody footprint. For details refer to the Massei report or the expert opinion of Dr. Rinaldo and chief inspector Boemia who analysed the print and compared the measurements of all suspects to the print. Rudy Guede was incompatible.


Conti & Vecchiotti report

The experts Conti and Vecchiotti Hellmann chose to rely on didn't have the experience or qualification to match the original experts from the first trial. Their appointment to judge better qualified experts remains a mystery.


AK's and RS's alibi

Their stories have been discredited by their own phone logs and computer activity logs. They started lying as early as 2nd of November, before Meredith's body was even discovered.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Nell wrote:
There is no evidence of only one murderer. There is evidence of three. Two have gotten away, but the Supreme Court can still correct this injustice.

Amanda Knox bled the night of the murder and her and Meredith's blood resulted in mixed blood samples. There are footprints made in the victim's blood revealed by Luminol compatible with Amanda's and the bloody footprint on the bathmat is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito's foot, but not with Rudy's, Amanda's or Meredith's. Raffaele Sollecito left his DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. They both lied to police about their whereabouts of the murder night and their alibi is contradicted by evidence.

The reason why Amanda Knox insisted to police in the "burglary" without even mentioning Meredith's locked door is because the fake burglary was a crucial part of their story to derail the investigation right from the start.


There were no mixed blood samples.

No footprints were proven to be made in blood. the only prints made in blood came from Guede's shoes.

The footprint on the bathmat actually looks more like Guede's but it's inconclusive.

C&V further discredited the already discredited bra clasp.

Amanda and Raffaele maintain to this day that they were at Raffaele's on the night of the murder.

You have every right to believe anything you like but you have no facts to back up your beliefs.


Mixed blood samples

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

Dr. Luciano Garofano in Darkness Descending:

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

Page 371

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

Page 372

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

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



Footprints made in blood

From the Massei report:

Quote:
English translation, page 347

• finding 1 present in the bedroom of Amanda Knox; this is the print of right foot, most likely imprinted in a deposit of haematic substance, in which are clearly visible (cf. attached [to the report], following perspective correction): the big toe or 1st toe (which measures 22mm in width); the 3rd toe or middle toe (17mm in length); the metatarsus (80mm wide); a portion of the plantar arch. This finding was considered useful for negative comparisons and the comparison led the technicians to express an opinion of compatibility with Amanda Knox’s right foot

• finding 2, present in the corridor in the direction of [facing] the exit. Finding 2 corresponds to the print of a right foot, most likely imprinted in a deposit of haematic substance, useful for negative comparison. The print next to it, made by a left foot, also facing the exit, was not considered useful for any comparison since it does not clearly present general characteristics. The dimensions of this print of a right foot (cf. page 16 of the attached [to the report] which corrects the perspective), after having positioned the Robbins grid [ruled grid in centimetres], are: big toe 28mm wide; metatarsus 95mm wide and 55 long; heel 58mm wide, with a total length of the luminal-positive print of 245mm, where the length of Raffaele Sollecito’s right sole- print is equal to 244mm (with the big toe being 30mm wide, the width of the metatarsus, taken from the base to the green dots positioned at the end of the right and left outlines, being 96mm, with height 57mm – cf. table 16 cited - and width of the heel of 57mm)

• finding 7: this is the print of a foot most likely imprinted in a deposit of haematic substance, since the Luminol was positive; it was found in the corridor in front of the door to Meredith Kercher’s room, and was pointed towards the entrance. It is considered useful for negative comparisons. The dimensions of the Luminol-positive print (photo 51, main album) show 22.4mm width for the big toe; 78mm width for the metatarsus; 43mm width of the heel, compared to the corresponding measurements from Amanda Knox’s sole-print (cf. photo 44 on page 5669, main album) at: 22mm with regard to the width of the big toe; 76.7mm the width of the metatarsus; 43mm the width of the heel.


English translation, page 348

Moving to the conclusions on the matter, the Rinaldi-Boemia consultancy (the Luminol-positive prints considered usable had the outlines of the foot absolutely defined, explained Dr. Rinaldi) expressed itself as being:

• in favour of the compatibility of the prints in findings 1 (inside Amanda’s room) and 7 (corridor just outside Meredith Kercher’s room) with the right foot of Amanda Knox
• in favour of the compatibility of the print in finding 2 (the only useable one of the two parallel prints, the one on the right) with the right foot of Raffaele Sollecito.



The bloody footprint on the bathmat

Rudy Guede's foot is incompatible with the measurements taken from the bloody footprint. For details refer to the Massei report or the expert opinion of Dr. Rinaldo and chief inspector Boemia who analysed the print and compared the measurements of all suspects to the print. Rudy Guede was incompatible.


Conti & Vecchiotti report

The experts Conti and Vecchiotti Hellmann chose to rely on didn't have the experience or qualification to match the original experts from the first trial. Their appointment to judge better qualified experts remains a mystery.


AK's and RS's alibi

Their stories have been discredited by their own phone logs and computer activity logs. They started lying as early as 2nd of November, before Meredith's body was even discovered.



I already know that you side with the prosecution Nell. Posting up the opinions of the prosecution's experts does very little at this point.

Massei stops short of saying mixed blood.

According to Greg Hampikian, Luciano Garofano's analysis is wrong.

We will never agree Nell. The prosecution was proven wrong on appeal. The Supreme Court will not look at the evidence we disagree on. We have conflicting experts. Wrongful conviction cases leave questions forever unanswered.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
...My profession has no bearing on our discussion...


Your "profession" (or lack thereof) is directly relevant to an evaluation of your assertion that "...This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA."

According to my source, you work in a fur shop.

Is that information incorrect?
Top Profile 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:

4) If by "[IIP] attorney" you are referring to "anglolawyer", I think you'd be better off getting advice from someone that's done a little more than spend 2 years at a stand-alone diploma mill that doesn't even require an entrance exam.


Just to raise one point, you obviously don't understand the English system for training lawyers. The 'diploma mill' you are referring to is one of a limited number of law schools around the country which all solicitors must attend for either one year or two following their undergraduate course. It's one year if you do law as an undergraduate degree, two years if you don't.

Following that the newly trained lawyer would need to do two years in practice before being considered fully qualified.

I don't know why you would want to spout off about this topic in a misguided attempt to put someone down when you don't know the first thing about it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Time for bed. I have a busy day so I won't be participating much here. I think I answered everything that was mentioned from last Tuesday until today. I look forward to reading the responses later today.





I am just curious: Why do you include an awry looking fish under every comment you post?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
...My profession has no bearing on our discussion...


Your "profession" (or lack thereof) is directly relevant to an evaluation of your assertion that "...This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA."

According to my source, you work in a fur shop.

Is that information incorrect?


I stated an opinion, just like Ergon did. Does Ergon's profession back his statements?

Like I said, my profession has no bearing on this case. I am a furrier, and have been for 19 years. There is no need to discuss all aspects of the job with you. There are many aspects of managing a business. I am aware that my profession has its critics, just like the cattle industry. I have no intention of debating that with you. It is a business that is well accepted in Chicago and New York and less so out west. With that said, if you would like to post up personal information about yourself, I am game. You go first.




Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Time for bed. I have a busy day so I won't be participating much here. I think I answered everything that was mentioned from last Tuesday until today. I look forward to reading the responses later today.





I am just curious: Why do you include an awry looking fish under every comment you post?


The cute fish was posted here in an attempt to offend me (didn't work). I like Nemo so I took it as my signature.



Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

According to Greg Hampikian, Luciano Garofano's analysis is wrong.

--- snap ---

I remember Greg Hampikian only from having lunch in Italy with Chris Mellas. To my knowledge, he didn't attend the trial and he didn't have a chance to evaluate the genetic evidence himself. His opinion has no merit.


BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

The prosecution was proven wrong on appeal.

--- snap ---

... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

According to Greg Hampikian, Luciano Garofano's analysis is wrong.

--- snap ---

I remember Greg Hampikian only from having lunch in Italy with Chris Mellas. To my knowledge, he didn't attend the trial and he didn't have a chance to evaluate the genetic evidence himself. His opinion has no merit.


BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

The prosecution was proven wrong on appeal.

--- snap ---

... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.



Greg's opinion has just as much merit as Luciano Garofano.

Feel free to criticize the judge and the court appointed experts. It's in the Supreme Court's hands now.

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.


You're actually wrong there. Hellmann has presided over murder cases before.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

I am a furrier, and have been for 19 years.

--- snap ---


That is some interesting information, Bruce Fischer. Given the fact that you have already released two books on the subject, it seems you are looking for a more profitable job or a side job. Do you keep the profit from your book sales or do you donate it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

I am a furrier, and have been for 19 years.

--- snap ---


That is some interesting information, Bruce Fischer. Given the fact that you have already released two books on the subject, it seems you are looking for a more profitable job or a side job. Do you keep the profit from your book sales or do you donate it?


I'm not seeing the relevance of this to a discussion of the Meredith Kercher case. Didn't Ergon sternly warn people to stay on topic last week? Should we rename the forum Bruce Fischer career file?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Nell wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

According to Greg Hampikian, Luciano Garofano's analysis is wrong.

--- snap ---

I remember Greg Hampikian only from having lunch in Italy with Chris Mellas. To my knowledge, he didn't attend the trial and he didn't have a chance to evaluate the genetic evidence himself. His opinion has no merit.


BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

The prosecution was proven wrong on appeal.

--- snap ---

... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.



Greg's opinion has just as much merit as Luciano Garofano.

Feel free to criticize the judge and the court appointed experts. It's in the Supreme Court's hands now.



Hellmann used the court appointed experts with less experience and qualification to rely on and their explanation for all the physical evidence was "everything is possible".

When I compare that to the elaborate reports of the original experts, it is not difficult to see who took his job seriously and acted responsibly and who did not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:
... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.


You're actually wrong there. Hellmann has presided over murder cases before.

For the past five years he did not.

Why did he volunteer?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Amanda and Raffaele maintain to this day that they were at Raffaele's on the night of the murder.


Sollecito claimed in his witness statement that Knox wasn't at his apartment for approximately four hours on the night of the murder:

We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.

I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.

At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I made a joint. Had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate.

About 23.00 my father called me on my house phone line. I recall Amanda was not back yet.

I web surfed on the computer for two more hours after my father’s phone call and I only stopped when Amanda came back in, presumably about 01.00. I don’t remember well how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same as when we said goodbye before dinner. I don’t remember if that evening we had sex.”


Last edited by The Machine on Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:

Hellmann used the court appointed experts with less experience and qualification to rely on and their explanation for all the physical evidence was "everything is possible".

When I compare that to the elaborate reports of the original experts, it is not difficult to see who took his job seriously and acted responsibly and who did not.


Are you suggesting the court appointed experts are less qualified than Stefanoni? Or Rinaldi?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:
... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.


You're actually wrong there. Hellmann has presided over murder cases before.

For the past five years he did not.

Why did he volunteer?


So you admit that your statement that Hellmann until that day had only presided welfare cases is wrong. Good. If you knew it was wrong, why did you make it?

I have no idea what normal protocol is in the Italian system when it comes to appointing judges, and I suspect you don't either. I'm not sure in what sense Hellmann volunteered or why it would be important if he had done.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:

Hellmann used the court appointed experts with less experience and qualification to rely on and their explanation for all the physical evidence was "everything is possible".

When I compare that to the elaborate reports of the original experts, it is not difficult to see who took his job seriously and acted responsibly and who did not.


Are you suggesting the court appointed experts are less qualified than Stefanoni? Or Rinaldi?


Rinaldi is an imprint expert. As far as I'm aware Conti and Vecchiotti are not imprint experts.

Conti and Vecchiotti never proved there had been any contamination. Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it doesn’t exist.

They didn’t visit the laboratories of the scientific police or ask about their cleaning procedures. They didn’t know that the negative tests had been filed with another judge. They didn’t know that Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA or that she last handled Sollecito’s DNA 12 days before she analysed the bra clasp. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory. 

Conti and Vecchiotti regarded the downstairs flat as part of the crime scene even though no crime was committed there.

Worst of all, they didn’t carry out a new test on the knife despite the fact they were specifically instructed to do so and there are a number of laboratories that have the technology to carry out a test on the remaining the DNA.

Incidentally, Vecchiotti was appointed by a judge at the Cosenza court and the judge didn’t accept her findings. Other experts were appointed and they found incriminating DNA evidence that she had missed. The suspect admitted his guilt.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

I am a furrier, and have been for 19 years.

--- snap ---


That is some interesting information, Bruce Fischer. Given the fact that you have already released two books on the subject, it seems you are looking for a more profitable job or a side job. Do you keep the profit from your book sales or do you donate it?


I'm not seeing the relevance of this to a discussion of the Meredith Kercher case. Didn't Ergon sternly warn people to stay on topic last week? Should we rename the forum Bruce Fischer career file?


You must have misunderstood Ergon's comment. I am not switching subjects in an attempt to deflect from subjects I am uncomfortable to discuss. Commenting and responding to others is allowed and encouraged. That's what a forum is for.

It stands out that those who defend Amanda Knox try to turn their involvement in some sort of career, while others with a more critical view were already successful writers before they started covering the Meredith Kercher murder case. If someone involved in defending Amanda Knox is close to the Knox family, like Bruce Fischer admitted last Tuesday, I do believe it is relevant. Candace Dempsey had access to Amanda's personal diary through the Knox family in exchange for positive coverage. That is an important detail that shouldn't be overlooked. Frank Sfarzo lives from generous donations from Knox supporters. It seems to be a closely knit community that defends Amanda Knox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Jackie wrote:

4) If by "[IIP] attorney" you are referring to "anglolawyer", I think you'd be better off getting advice from someone that's done a little more than spend 2 years at a stand-alone diploma mill that doesn't even require an entrance exam.


Just to raise one point, you obviously don't understand the English system for training lawyers. The 'diploma mill' you are referring to is one of a limited number of law schools around the country which all solicitors must attend for either one year or two following their undergraduate course. It's one year if you do law as an undergraduate degree, two years if you don't.

Following that the newly trained lawyer would need to do two years in practice before being considered fully qualified.

I don't know why you would want to spout off about this topic in a misguided attempt to put someone down when you don't know the first thing about it.


If "anglo" is who some think he is, it appears to be the case that the only legal studies "anglo" undertook occurred over a 2 year period at an institution known as "The College of Law", which is not part of an accredited university and does not require an undergraduate degree or an entrance exam in order to attend - you can be admitted straight out of high school FFS.

It's only had the power to grant "degrees" since 2006.

More to the point, do you really think that anyone can cut 1 full year from the traditional 3 year program without consequence? Just look at "anglo's" blunders on topics he raised on this board (motive, jury sequestration, criminal procedure and defamation law).

I think there's a reason he's stuck handling landlord-tenant cases with enough free time on his hands to make thousands upon thousands of posts over the span of a few months.

Note also the extent to which he has avoided addressing questions of law in his posts.
Top Profile 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

The Machine wrote:
Rinaldi is an imprint expert. As far as I'm aware Conti and Vecchiotti are not imprint experts.


An expert seemingly unable to measure things correctly or count numbers of rings on shoe soles? Nor were Conti and Vechiotti appointed to examine imprints. The findings of the defence expert on imprints however were substantially accepted by Hellmann's court and Rinaldi's work was criticised.

The Machine wrote:
Conti and Vecchiotti never proved there had been any contamination. Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it doesn’t exist.


Nonsense. Contamination does not have to be proved. Sloppy procedures have to be proved, which was done.

The Machine wrote:
They didn’t visit the laboratories of the scientific police or ask about their cleaning procedures. They didn’t know that the negative tests had been filed with another judge. They didn’t know that Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA or that she last handled Sollecito’s DNA 12 days before she analysed the bra clasp. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.


None of this means contamination could not have occurred in the laboratory or before the knife arrived there.

The Machine wrote:
Worst of all, they didn’t carry out a new test on the knife despite the fact they were specifically instructed to do so and there are a number of laboratories that have the technology to carry out a test on the remaining the DNA.


If you read the report they did not find any viable sample on the knife to test.


Last edited by FreeCuratolo on Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
Jackie wrote:

4) If by "[IIP] attorney" you are referring to "anglolawyer", I think you'd be better off getting advice from someone that's done a little more than spend 2 years at a stand-alone diploma mill that doesn't even require an entrance exam.


Just to raise one point, you obviously don't understand the English system for training lawyers. The 'diploma mill' you are referring to is one of a limited number of law schools around the country which all solicitors must attend for either one year or two following their undergraduate course. It's one year if you do law as an undergraduate degree, two years if you don't.

Following that the newly trained lawyer would need to do two years in practice before being considered fully qualified.

I don't know why you would want to spout off about this topic in a misguided attempt to put someone down when you don't know the first thing about it.


If "anglo" is who some think he is, it appears to be the case that the only legal studies "anglo" undertook occurred over a 2 year period at an institution known as "The College of Law", which is not part of an accredited university and does not require an undergraduate degree or an entrance exam in order to attend - you can be admitted straight out of high school FFS.


Did you even read my explanation of how the system works in England? I give up, I really do. The fact remains, Anglolawyer is verifiably a lawyer. His training is entirely standard in this country.

On the other hand, I don't know that you are a lawyer. I would imagine a lawyer would spend less time on gossip and playground ad hominems and more time on discussing the case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:

Hellmann used the court appointed experts with less experience and qualification to rely on and their explanation for all the physical evidence was "everything is possible".

When I compare that to the elaborate reports of the original experts, it is not difficult to see who took his job seriously and acted responsibly and who did not.


Are you suggesting the court appointed experts are less qualified than Stefanoni? Or Rinaldi?


Yes, I think so, afaik C&V have zero experience in forensic police investigation.
As an example, if let`s say Daimler wants to employ a new engineer they always would prefer one with years of work experience to one who has spend all his life on a university so far, making career there.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
...

Did you even read my explanation of how the system works in England? I give up, I really do.


Have you even read "anglo's" bio/ c.v.?
Top Profile 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

00Sneider wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:

Hellmann used the court appointed experts with less experience and qualification to rely on and their explanation for all the physical evidence was "everything is possible".

When I compare that to the elaborate reports of the original experts, it is not difficult to see who took his job seriously and acted responsibly and who did not.


Are you suggesting the court appointed experts are less qualified than Stefanoni? Or Rinaldi?


Yes, I think so, afaik C&V have zero experience in forensic police investigation.
As an example, if let`s say Daimler wants to employ a new engineer they always would prefer one with years of work experience to one who has spend all his life on a university so far, making career there.


The question was are they less qualified. Clearly Stefanoni is not more qualifed than the experts. Otherwise they wouldn't be the experts.

What do you mean by experience in forensic police investigation? Doesn't Conti teach people how to do it? Why would years of experience mean that you're actually doing things right all the time? How would you know that you're always doing them right without the depth of knowledge to be able to assess that?

Your argument is like saying that crash investigators aren't qualified to investigate plane crashes because they don't fly planes every day.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
...

Did you even read my explanation of how the system works in England? I give up, I really do.


Have you even read "anglo's" bio/ c.v.?


Yep.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
... The fact remains, Anglolawyer is verifiably a lawyer. His training is entirely standard in this country.

On the other hand, I don't know that you are a lawyer. I would imagine a lawyer would spend less time on gossip and playground ad hominems and more time on discussing the case.


"Anglo's" education pales in comparison to that of any UK lawyer that studied law for 3 full years at an accredited university before undertaking bar admission courses.
Top Profile 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Jackie wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
...

Did you even read my explanation of how the system works in England? I give up, I really do.


Have you even read "anglo's" bio/ c.v.?


Yep.


Oh, so then you know that he hasn't studied law for 3 full years at an accredited university. Q.E.D.
Top Profile 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
... The fact remains, Anglolawyer is verifiably a lawyer. His training is entirely standard in this country.

On the other hand, I don't know that you are a lawyer. I would imagine a lawyer would spend less time on gossip and playground ad hominems and more time on discussing the case.


"Anglo's" education pales in comparison to that of any UK lawyer that studied law for 3 full years at an accredited university before undertaking bar admission courses.



So because Anglo didn't originally do an academic law degree and instead converted to law he's a bad lawyer?

OK, that's a different argument. Whether or not he did an academic law degree, he would still have had to attend the College of Law. Plenty of successful lawyers have done the same as Anglo so I don't see that it has any bearing. Anyway, this isn't Anglolawyer File.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
The link I posted details how I think the print ended up on the bathmat.

Please outline your theory here, for convenience and the thread.

To start with, there aren't any bloody footprints of Guede leading to or out of the bathroom
just those heading (shod) straight out the front door. No time to trawl through your website
outline it here. A singular footprint on the bathmat because there was a cleanup.


Any suggestion as to how the print was deposited on the bathmat is pure speculation. The print is inconclusive and does nothing to prove guilt of anyone. Here is a possible scenario.

It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.

The outline of the foot is incomplete. The heel extends off the edge of the mat, and parts appear to be missing in the upper right and lower left quadrants. Under the scenario described above, these missing elements can be explained as areas where the towel was dry or where the foot extended beyond the edge of the towel.

I believe that Guede cleaned up, then returned to the murder room, covered Meredith, took her things including her keys, locked her door and left. He stepped in blood as he was leaving, his prints can be seen exiting the cottage.




Bruce, no offense, but you make my head hurt, you really do.
You can't seriously believe the scenario you presented here, do you?

Let me recap.

Guede picks up a large rock and breaks a second-story window to break in, not knowing if the window and internal shutters are locked.
He makes a masterful climb, holding on with one hand while picking glass from the edges of the broken window, placing said glass neatly on the ledge.
He pulls himself in, leaving no evidence at all of himself, and proceeds to ransack the clothes in the room. taking only the make-up and leaving the drawers in a closed position both in Filomena's and Meredith's rooms.

After the murder, he enters the bathroom with a bloody shoe, leaving no prints of said shoe in the hallway.
He removes his shoe, and places a bloody towel that he carried with him on the bathmat. He removes his shoe, washes it, and places his bare foot on the bloody towel in the process.

He then puts his shoe back on his now-bloody foot. He picks up the bloody towel, but leaves the bloody bathmat as evidence, where Amanda later does the boogie on it and returns it to the bathroom floor, making sure to put the footprint back where it was.

He leaves the bathroom and re-enters Meredith's room, where he again steps in blood with the shoe he just spent so much time cleaning in the first place. He takes Meredith's keys, closes her door, and, since there are no bloody footprints facing the door, he places the keys behind his back, and locks the door.

Since Knox reported there were no lights on when she returned in the morning, he must have done this portion in the dark. He then proceeds to the door, which he unlocks, also in the dark, and flees.

Have I missed anything?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
...
So because Anglo didn't originally do an academic law degree and instead converted to law he's a bad lawyer?
...


His blunders on topics he raised - motive, sequestration, criminal procedure, defamtion law and (more recently) malicious prosecution - speak for themselves.
Top Profile 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
...
So because Anglo didn't originally do an academic law degree and instead converted to law he's a bad lawyer?
...


His blunders on topics he raised - motive, sequestration, criminal procedure, defamtion law and (more recently) malicious prosecution - speak for themselves.

You can't cut the academic portion of the program without consequence. Memorizing rules without delving into the rationale behind them is the stuff of "night schools" in the USA.

I think "anglo" is a hack.


Well you're entitled to your opinion. I can't say I know the topics you mention myself so I don't really know who 'won' the debate on those issues. Weren't you just yelling at Anglo and trying to insult him during those discussions or did you say anything substantive? I don't recall exactly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
...I am a furrier, and have been for 19 years...


Thank you, Bruce.

Now I know what your bold assertion ("...This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA.") is worth.
Top Profile 

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
...I am a furrier, and have been for 19 years...


Thank you, Bruce.

Now I know what your bold assertion ("...This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA.") is worth.


How about The Machine's categorical statement that he had sources which confirmed the convictions would be upheld and the sentences reduced? What is that worth?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jackie


User avatar


Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:38 am

Posts: 898

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
...
Well you're entitled to your opinion. I can't say I know the topics you mention myself so I don't really know who 'won' the debate on those issues. Weren't you just yelling at Anglo and trying to insult him during those discussions or did you say anything substantive? I don't recall exactly.


No "yelling" was required. He simply shot himself in the foot. Repeatedly.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Jackie wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
...I am a furrier, and have been for 19 years...


Thank you, Bruce.

Now I know what your bold assertion ("...This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA.") is worth.


How about The Machine's categorical statement that he had sources which confirmed the convictions would be upheld and the sentences reduced? What is that worth?


I clarified this at the time. I was informed that the jury were going to find Knox and guilty before the first verdict. I was told that the most likely outcome at the appeal was that the convictions would be upheld, but the sentences would be reduced.
Top Profile 

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
00Sneider wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:

Hellmann used the court appointed experts with less experience and qualification to rely on and their explanation for all the physical evidence was "everything is possible".

When I compare that to the elaborate reports of the original experts, it is not difficult to see who took his job seriously and acted responsibly and who did not.


Are you suggesting the court appointed experts are less qualified than Stefanoni? Or Rinaldi?


Yes, I think so, afaik C&V have zero experience in forensic police investigation.
As an example, if let`s say Daimler wants to employ a new engineer they always would prefer one with years of work experience to one who has spend all his life on a university so far, making career there.


The question was are they less qualified. Clearly Stefanoni is not more qualifed than the experts. Otherwise they wouldn't be the experts.


Hellmann Court appointed them as experts, so we don`t have to question if their opinion in this particular case weighs more or not, because they are the experts.

Quote:
What do you mean by experience in forensic police investigation? Doesn't Conti teach people how to do it? Why would years of experience mean that you're actually doing things right all the time? How would you know that you're always doing them right without the depth of knowledge to be able to assess that?


Conti is teaching officers of the scientific police how to handle crime scenes and evaluate results? Years of experience doesn`t mean, that you are doing things right all the time, but if a person critizises your work, then this person should at best work in the exact same field as you to be plausible. What we have here is a theoretician critizising a practitioner.
So the precondition wasn`t ideal.

Quote:
Your argument is like saying that crash investigators aren't qualified to investigate plane crashes because they don't fly planes every day.


Completely silly comparison.
In your comparison the crash investigators are the practicioners and not the theoreticians. Being able to fly a plane has nothing to do with their ability to reconstruct crashs correctly (which they, by the definition of their job, should have).


Last edited by 00Sneider on Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote:
When it comes to the admissibility of the written statements, you are technically correct. The interrogation itself was never ruled illegal. The information gathered from the interrogation was ruled illegally obtained.

I am no longer doing regular updates on the Injustice in Perugia website. The detail that you mention is of little importance at this point. Amanda and Raffaele are free. I now dedicate my time to working on Injustice-Anywhere.org to bring more attention to wrongful conviction cases that have not been corrected. You will see that most people that worked on the Knox/Sollecito case have moved on.

Hellmann wrote: "This Corte di Assise di Appello, while confirming the ruling [ordinanza] of the first-level Corte di Assise on this point, has nevertheless specified that, while they are usable with respect to the crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, they cannot be usable with respect to the other crimes against Meredith Kercher to the extent that, as the Corte di Cassazione has also confirmed (ruling no. 990/08, dated 4-01-2008), they are subject to absolute nullification in this regard as having been given in the absence of an attorney by a person who had already assumed the role of a suspect."



It wasn't ruled 'illegally obtained' either. It was simply ruled inadmissable. Just because something is not admissable in court does not mean it was illegal or illegally obtained or whatever phrase you are trying to get away with with 'illegal' in it. The rules that determine what can be used to further a criminal investigation and what can be used in court differ. Had Rudy Guede made any statements as a witness rather then a suspect, none of those statements would be allowed to be used against him in his trial either. But that wouldn't mean those statements were obtained illegally. All it means is that rules guiding what can be administered in court against a suspect are more stringent.

And in this case, they were admissible in Massei's trial because the calunnia was deemed to be a crime carried out in continuation of the murder. In other words, part of the same crime, rather then a separate crime and that trumped the High Court's ruling. In Hellmann's case, his argument was that the fact he found them innocent of murder, meant the calunnia couldn't be deemed to be in continuation of the murder and in so doing, that brought the High Court's ruling back into play.

These are technical issues, and you do not have even the most basic grasp of them. It makes me shudder to think you are now bringing your inadequacies to other cases and inflicting yourself on more victims. There's a reason why people like you are not permitted to practice at the bench...unfortunately, they don't keep you away from a keyboard. You are a menace.


And for someone who now believes this case to be done and dusted, you sure spend a lot of time on it.




Bruce Fisher wrote:
There is no evidence that the shutters were closed. No one saw anyone fail to climb through the window because no one tried. The lawyer that climbed up the security bars would not have been permitted to enter the crime scene. No one ever stated at trial that Guede could not have climbed through the window. Massei did not say that the attorney failed to enter the cottage, therefore the break-in was staged.



There's plenty of evidence the shutters were closed. Firstly, we have the sworn testimony of the person that shut them (Filomena), and then we have the physicality of the glass on the outer sill stopped in a perfectly straight line that perfectly matches the line of the closed outer shutter....plus the total absence of any glass fragments on the ground outside. The shutters were shut and they were shut when the window was broken.





Bruce Fisher wrote:
Ergon's statement: " the evidence presented by the investigators would have been enough to convict in Judge Heavey's courtroom"

My statement: "This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA."

Looks to me like Ergon and I both gave personal opinions. You chimed in to attack me because you don't like me. I get it.



Scott Peterson was taken to trial in the US, convicted and sentenced to death row on far less evidence then there was against Knox. That case alone proves your position to completely in error. There are many others like it.




Bruce Fisher wrote:
Everything I’ve written about Quennell and Ganong is absolutely true, and they both know that. I am not an attorney but IIP has several.




You have very warped ideas when it comes to the definition of truth. You're far too dizzy to see it....what with all the spinning and all.





Bruce Fisher wrote:
Napia5, The Machine is not presenting the facts. Please do the research. I know you won't believe me. The information I present in this post is available online. Please look at the actual facts.

I have no idea if anyone called Tara. If anyone from IIP or FOA made that call, I have not heard about it. We certainly do not condone that type of behavior.



Yes you do. You remain silent when such behaviour occurs and your silence condones it. And that's being kind, since many suspect you personally engage in such behaviours under the anonymity of a sock. There is no code of ethics that you and your followers operate by. Perhaps you might consider writing one for your new 'Save the World' website?!



Bruce Fisher wrote:
The truth is Miss Represented had no clinical psychology experience and no credentials as a psychologist, which requires an advanced degree at the time of her writing.

When Miss Represented's lies were exposed she quickly took her blog offline saying that she was no longer involved with the case.



Or perhaps she'd just had enough of the personal harassment. And you have no idea what her credentials are.



Bruce Fisher wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.



Oh yes, it does. Slam dunk!



Bruce Fisher wrote:
No one on either side can prove who broke the window in Filomena's room. The suggestion of staging was crucial to the prosecution's case because they would have absolutely no explanation for an actual break-in while accusing Amanda and Raffaele of the crime.



The evidence...mostly the evidence you love to ignore....tells a very clear story of what and who.



Brice Fisher wrote:
The accusation that Jim Lovering doctored the photos of the bathmat are also false. All he did was size the photos to the same scale for comparison purposes. Every photo presented on IIP is authentic.


But didn't make that clear with the photo posting. That is because they were shrunk and posted in order to mislead the readership. And for the record, one cannot perform a 'comparisson' if one doesn't put what one is comparing in the proper scale....otherwise I could bloody well compare a marble to venus!




Bruce Fisher wrote:
I have been accused of cropping photos to alter the appearance of the bathroom. Once again false.



Nell posted examples of where you'd done it! Don't piss up my leg and tell me it's raining, Bruce.




Bruce Fisher wrote:
There were no mixed blood samples.



Please post up your scientific test that was performed that demosntrates the mixed samples were not blood. Because since you state this as an absolute, there must have been one. Where is it?



Bruce Fisher wrote:
No footprints were proven to be made in blood other than the bathmat. the only prints made in blood came from Guede's shoes.



It's pretty damned clear they were in blood.


Bruce Fisher wrote:
The footprint on the bathmat actually looks more like Guede's but it's inconclusive.



It's not inconclusive at all, it's a match for Sollecito is nit a match for Guede...period. And what of the print of a female foot, in blood, on the mat? Did Guede make that too?



Bruce Fisher wrote:
C&V further discredited the already discredited bra clasp.



The only thing C & V discredited, were themselves.



Bruce Fisher wrote:
It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.



Why would a killer lay down a bloody towel to step on????? Why is he bothering to rinse blood from his shoe? How did Mr Rinsed Shoes, then proceed to leave a trail of bloody footprint from the victim's room out the front door? Because after washing them, he then immediately went and stepped in blood with his nuce clean shoes??????


Bruce Fisher wrote:
Massei stops short of saying mixed blood.


So? He didn't refute the experts' opinion that it was blood, either.


Bruce Fisher wrote:
According to Greg Hampikian, Luciano Garofano's analysis is wrong.



Really? Please post up Hampikian's essay where he directly addresses and refutes Garofano's points.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Jackie wrote:

4) If by "[IIP] attorney" you are referring to "anglolawyer", I think you'd be better off getting advice from someone that's done a little more than spend 2 years at a stand-alone diploma mill that doesn't even require an entrance exam.


Just to raise one point, you obviously don't understand the English system for training lawyers. The 'diploma mill' you are referring to is one of a limited number of law schools around the country which all solicitors must attend for either one year or two following their undergraduate course. It's one year if you do law as an undergraduate degree, two years if you don't.

Following that the newly trained lawyer would need to do two years in practice before being considered fully qualified.

I don't know why you would want to spout off about this topic in a misguided attempt to put someone down when you don't know the first thing about it.



An introduction would be nice, instead of simply arriving and posting straight out of left field. I don't recall seeing the poster "FreeCuratolo" posting on any of the case boards or under case articles before, I must have missed them. Where have you posted on the case before?

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


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

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

00Sneider wrote:
Conti is teaching officers of the scientific police how to handle crime scenes and evaluate results? Years of experience doesn`t mean, that you are doing things right all the time, but if a person critizises your work, then this person should at best work in the exact same field as you to be plausible. What we have here is a theoretician critizising a practitioner.
So the precondition wasn`t ideal.


Yes he teaches police forensics. Why does he need to be physically working on crime scenes to be plausible? What would he learn from that that he doesn't already know? How to wrap mops up in gift wrap?

00Sneider wrote:
Completely silly comparison.
In your comparison the crash investigators are the practicioners and not the theoreticians. Being able to fly a plane has nothing to do with their ability to reconstruct crashs correctly (which they, by the definition of their job, should have).


Let's assume the crash is due to pilot error. How can the crash investigators judge the pilot when they don't fly planes themselves, following your reasoning?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:
... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.


You're actually wrong there. Hellmann has presided over murder cases before.



ONE criminal case. I hardly think that qualifies him as an experienced criminal judge. And it's one area I'm very annoyed with the Italian system. At no point, should a welfare judge who's criminal experience amounts to a single criminal case, be appointed to preside over a case such as this.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
So because Anglo didn't originally do an academic law degree and instead converted to law he's a bad lawyer?



No, he's a bad lawyer because he came here trying to argue the case using arguments that NO lawyer would even consider bringing into a court room. Arguments that were all at the same time legally, logically and evidentially bankrupt.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
The question was are they less qualified. Clearly Stefanoni is not more qualifed than the experts. Otherwise they wouldn't be the experts.


Of course she is! She has worked in the field as her day job for Years! The independent experts are not picked because they are more expert on a subject then those experts working for the defence or prosecution or the victims, they are selected because they are supposed to independent from those parties. It is their independence that is sought, not their degree of expertise. And as we saw, they turned out to be anything but independent.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Jackie wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
...
So because Anglo didn't originally do an academic law degree and instead converted to law he's a bad lawyer?
...


His blunders on topics he raised - motive, sequestration, criminal procedure, defamtion law and (more recently) malicious prosecution - speak for themselves.

You can't cut the academic portion of the program without consequence. Memorizing rules without delving into the rationale behind them is the stuff of "night schools" in the USA.

I think "anglo" is a hack.


Well you're entitled to your opinion. I can't say I know the topics you mention myself so I don't really know who 'won' the debate on those issues. Weren't you just yelling at Anglo and trying to insult him during those discussions or did you say anything substantive? I don't recall exactly.



Since you arrived here swinging in defence of AngloLawyer, combined with your obvious knowledge of the process for English lawyers, I can only conclude you're him. Am I wrong?

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


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

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:


Since you arrived here swinging in defence of AngloLawyer, combined with your obvious knowledge of the process for English lawyers, I can only conclude you're him. Am I wrong?


I'm not anglolawyer. I knew you would think i was. i just wanted to correct the 'diploma mill' nonsense about the College of Law which has been bugging me. And obviously discuss aspects of the case, which is more interesting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Michael wrote:


Since you arrived here swinging in defence of AngloLawyer, combined with your obvious knowledge of the process for English lawyers, I can only conclude you're him. Am I wrong?


I'm not anglolawyer. I knew you would think i was. i just wanted to correct the 'diploma mill' nonsense about the College of Law which has been bugging me. And obviously discuss aspects of the case, which is more interesting.



Really, then how are you so knowledgeable about it? And who then, are you? Like I said, I've never seen any posts by anyone called 'FreeCuratolo' before, so what is the handle you normally post under...or is it a different sock for each different occasion?

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


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

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
Michael wrote:


Since you arrived here swinging in defence of AngloLawyer, combined with your obvious knowledge of the process for English lawyers, I can only conclude you're him. Am I wrong?


I'm not anglolawyer. I knew you would think i was. i just wanted to correct the 'diploma mill' nonsense about the College of Law which has been bugging me. And obviously discuss aspects of the case, which is more interesting.



Really, then how are you so knowledgeable about it? And who then, are you? Like I said, I've never seen any posts by anyone called 'FreeCuratolo' before, so what is the handle you normally post under...or is it a different sock for each different occasion?


Career guides list this information about law as a career. I don't see why I need to reveal personal information about myself in order to post about the case. If that's the stance here, I'll be off.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
Career guides list this information about law as a career. I don't see why I need to reveal personal information about myself in order to post about the case. If that's the stance here, I'll be off.


I'm not asking for personal information. I'm asking for your public information, the handle you normally post on this case under. Is honesty too much to ask for? And I've a right to ask, since there are many individuals who are actually banned, for good reason, from this forum and under PMF policy bans apply to the actual individual, rather then simply whatever nickname they happen to be using at the time.

Therefore, when people create a sock to register and post on the forum, it leads me to conclude that it must be either:

1) They've been previously banned and have created a sock in order to get around the ban

2) That they intend on saying things and behaving in a manner that they do not want associated with their regular handle

3) Both of the above

So, you do see why I ask.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

TM -

Thanks for the link to the James Higham piece. Excellent blog post!

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


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

Offline 00Sneider


Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:01 am

Posts: 41

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

FreeCuratolo wrote:
00Sneider wrote:
Conti is teaching officers of the scientific police how to handle crime scenes and evaluate results? Years of experience doesn`t mean, that you are doing things right all the time, but if a person critizises your work, then this person should at best work in the exact same field as you to be plausible. What we have here is a theoretician critizising a practitioner.
So the precondition wasn`t ideal.


Yes he teaches police forensics. Why does he need to be physically working on crime scenes to be plausible? What would he learn from that that he doesn't already know? How to wrap mops up in gift wrap?



Ok and does he also teach forensic police officers how to collect evidence and evaluate evidence, though he`s never done it himself?

Quote:
00Sneider wrote:
Completely silly comparison.
In your comparison the crash investigators are the practicioners and not the theoreticians. Being able to fly a plane has nothing to do with their ability to reconstruct crashs correctly (which they, by the definition of their job, should have).


Let's assume the crash is due to pilot error. How can the crash investigators judge the pilot when they don't fly planes themselves, following your reasoning?


Well, I don`t know what plane crash investigators exactly do, but I can imagine something like, they get information on:
-which model the crashed plane was (boeing 737 etc.)
-they eveluate the black box, especially the FDR
- they record how parts of the plane were disturbed and adusted on the ground after the crash
-etc.
-then there are other experts who know how the on-board equipment works, who evaluate the Voice recorder of the blackbox and who know how to fly a plane: those people then give their relevant data (i.e. breakdown of an aero engine) to the crach investigators

-Finally the crash investigators consider all the things mentioned above to reconstruct under which angle, with which velocity etc. etc. the plane crashed and their job is done

You see, they don`t necessarily need to judge the pilot nor know how to fly a plane, they just need information, what the pilot/aircraft did, which is relevant for their field of expertise (crash construction).
They don`t interfer in territories, which they have not much clue about as C&V did to some part.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Napia5 wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
The link I posted details how I think the print ended up on the bathmat.

Please outline your theory here, for convenience and the thread.

To start with, there aren't any bloody footprints of Guede leading to or out of the bathroom
just those heading (shod) straight out the front door. No time to trawl through your website
outline it here. A singular footprint on the bathmat because there was a cleanup.


Any suggestion as to how the print was deposited on the bathmat is pure speculation. The print is inconclusive and does nothing to prove guilt of anyone. Here is a possible scenario.

It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.

The outline of the foot is incomplete. The heel extends off the edge of the mat, and parts appear to be missing in the upper right and lower left quadrants. Under the scenario described above, these missing elements can be explained as areas where the towel was dry or where the foot extended beyond the edge of the towel.

I believe that Guede cleaned up, then returned to the murder room, covered Meredith, took her things including her keys, locked her door and left. He stepped in blood as he was leaving, his prints can be seen exiting the cottage.




Bruce, no offense, but you make my head hurt, you really do.
You can't seriously believe the scenario you presented here, do you?

Let me recap.

Guede picks up a large rock and breaks a second-story window to break in, not knowing if the window and internal shutters are locked.
He makes a masterful climb, holding on with one hand while picking glass from the edges of the broken window, placing said glass neatly on the ledge.
He pulls himself in, leaving no evidence at all of himself, and proceeds to ransack the clothes in the room. taking only the make-up and leaving the drawers in a closed position both in Filomena's and Meredith's rooms.

After the murder, he enters the bathroom with a bloody shoe, leaving no prints of said shoe in the hallway.
He removes his shoe, and places a bloody towel that he carried with him on the bathmat. He removes his shoe, washes it, and places his bare foot on the bloody towel in the process.

He then puts his shoe back on his now-bloody foot. He picks up the bloody towel, but leaves the bloody bathmat as evidence, where Amanda later does the boogie on it and returns it to the bathroom floor, making sure to put the footprint back where it was.

He leaves the bathroom and re-enters Meredith's room, where he again steps in blood with the shoe he just spent so much time cleaning in the first place. He takes Meredith's keys, closes her door, and, since there are no bloody footprints facing the door, he places the keys behind his back, and locks the door.

Since Knox reported there were no lights on when she returned in the morning, he must have done this portion in the dark. He then proceeds to the door, which he unlocks, also in the dark, and flees.

Have I missed anything?


Napia, I am well aware of the fact that you have made up your mind on this case. You ignore anything that does not fit into your preconceived scenario. I can use sarcasm to make it sound like it's difficult to make a peanut butter and Jelly sandwich. It doesn't make it difficult to do. Your posts trying to make everything sound so impossible don't do anything to move the discussion forward. Funny that you are willing to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were present at the time of the murder even though they left no trace in the murder room. You have different standards when assessing the break-in. Why? Because that's what's needed to make it all fit into your scenario.

I find it interesting that you were disgusted that someone might have called Tara at her workplace but decided to completely ignore the behavior coming from your side. It's clear to see how you choose to view things. We will have to agree to disagree on all aspects of this case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:
... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.


You're actually wrong there. Hellmann has presided over murder cases before.

For the past five years he did not.

Why did he volunteer?


Do you think the fix was in? Are you suggesting that level of corruption in Italy?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Nell wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
--- snip ---

I am a furrier, and have been for 19 years.

--- snap ---


That is some interesting information, Bruce Fischer. Given the fact that you have already released two books on the subject, it seems you are looking for a more profitable job or a side job. Do you keep the profit from your book sales or do you donate it?


If anyone thinks that I profited off the books I wrote, they should try it sometime and let me know if the time spent is worth the money collected. But then again, I didn't write the books in order to earn a living. My plans were different entirely. The emails I received from people telling me that my books opened their eyes to an injustice was the only payment I ever wanted. I know it's hard to believe, but it's not always about money.

Some people just can't come to terms with the fact that a large group of people came together to help two innocent strangers that had been wronged by many. I have learned a great deal from everyone that came forward to help. I have seen a lot of good in people.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

I answered The Machine's questions. I am interested to see if he will answer mine.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Brice Fisher wrote:
If anyone thinks that I profited off the books I wrote, they should try it sometime and let me know if the time spent is worth the money collected. But then again, I didn't write the books in order to earn a living.


Yeah, but then, you didn't know beforehand how much it might translate into. In any case, the book financial rewards weren't the real profit for you, the real profit was to use those and this case in order to springboard yourself into a new career in advocacy, one you are currently trying to build.


Brice Fisher wrote:
Some people just can't come to terms with the fact that a large group of people came together to help two innocent strangers that had been wronged by many. I have learned a great deal from everyone that came forward to help. I have seen a lot of good in people.


What WE have seen, is astroturfing and a propaganda campaign mirroring the style of the lowest political or/and coporate campaign. 'Good people' don't engage in regular full-on bullying, lying and the attacking of murder victims as your people have done.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Nell wrote:
FreeCuratolo wrote:
Nell wrote:
... by a corporate judge who volunteered and who until that day had only presided welfare cases.


You're actually wrong there. Hellmann has presided over murder cases before.

For the past five years he did not.

Why did he volunteer?


Do you think the fix was in? Are you suggesting that level of corruption in Italy?


Some here certainly believe that the Sollecito family were able to exert an 'influence'. In fact, Vanessa lost her job from the Carabinieri and the Sollecito family are facing trial for that very thing.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote:
Funny that you are willing to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were present at the time of the murder even though they left no trace in the murder room.


Who says they left no trace in the murder room? How do you know? No trace found doesn't mean no trace left. Only a few points in the room were actually tested, check the list yourself, you have it. And clearly, you are forgetting Raffaele's DNA trace on the bra clasp...as it always is forgotten when this tired talking point is trotted out.

And since when was a rule ever written, that a murderer, or all murderers involved on a murder, must leave physical traces of themselves within a radius of three meters from the body or it means they didn't do it? It seems to be a rule you people have made up yourselves.

So, not only are you expanding into full-on general advocacy with a complete lack of knowledge and understanding but arrogance in its place, you go to it with a laundry list of your own arbitrarily created rules about crime, the law and forensics.

Do you nor even understand why you're a menace? Ignorance may be bliss, but not for those you've hurt and are gong to go on to hurt.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael, your comments are in quotes.

Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
There is no evidence that the shutters were closed. No one saw anyone fail to climb through the window because no one tried. The lawyer that climbed up the security bars would not have been permitted to enter the crime scene. No one ever stated at trial that Guede could not have climbed through the window. Massei did not say that the attorney failed to enter the cottage, therefore the break-in was staged.



There's plenty of evidence the shutters were closed. Firstly, we have the sworn testimony of the person that shut them (Filomena), and then we have the physicality of the glass on the outer sill stopped in a perfectly straight line that perfectly matches the line of the closed outer shutter....plus the total absence of any glass fragments on the ground outside. The shutters were shut and they were shut when the window was broken.


Filomena was not confident on this matter. Rose posted the testimony last week. The glass was pushed toward the room when Guede closed the shutters after entering the cottage, making the straight line of glass. We do not know if there was any glass on the ground outside because the ground was not properly investigated. No samples of earth were taken. No close up photos. The ground had heavy growth and leaf cover as well



Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
Ergon's statement: " the evidence presented by the investigators would have been enough to convict in Judge Heavey's courtroom"

My statement: "This case never would have gone to trial in the UK or the USA."

Looks to me like Ergon and I both gave personal opinions. You chimed in to attack me because you don't like me. I get it.



Scott Peterson was taken to trial in the US, convicted and sentenced to death row on far less evidence then there was against Knox. That case alone proves your position to completely in error. There are many others like it.


Far too much is being made over my comment to Ergon. It was just an opinion to counter his opinion. Nothing to cry about.


Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
Everything I’ve written about Quennell and Ganong is absolutely true, and they both know that. I am not an attorney but IIP has several.


You have very warped ideas when it comes to the definition of truth. You're far too dizzy to see it....what with all the spinning and all.


If anyone can prove anything I wrote false, I will be more than happy to listen and make corrections.


Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
Napia5, The Machine is not presenting the facts. Please do the research. I know you won't believe me. The information I present in this post is available online. Please look at the actual facts.

I have no idea if anyone called Tara. If anyone from IIP or FOA made that call, I have not heard about it. We certainly do not condone that type of behavior.



Yes you do. You remain silent when such behaviour occurs and your silence condones it. And that's being kind, since many suspect you personally engage in such behaviours under the anonymity of a sock. There is no code of ethics that you and your followers operate by. Perhaps you might consider writing one for your new 'Save the World' website?!


Your accusations are completely false and unfounded. Of course you will find lunatics all over the internet. That doesn't mean they can be associated with any particular group


Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
The truth is Miss Represented had no clinical psychology experience and no credentials as a psychologist, which requires an advanced degree at the time of her writing.

When Miss Represented's lies were exposed she quickly took her blog offline saying that she was no longer involved with the case.



Or perhaps she'd just had enough of the personal harassment. And you have no idea what her credentials are.


Actually, she posted her credentials online proving that she was not qualified at the time. If you don't believe it, just ask her.


Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the break-in. Please keep in mind these two points

If the break-in is real, Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

If the break-in is staged, it does not prove that Ananda and Raffaele are guilty.



Oh yes, it does. Slam dunk!


Really?

Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
No one on either side can prove who broke the window in Filomena's room. The suggestion of staging was crucial to the prosecution's case because they would have absolutely no explanation for an actual break-in while accusing Amanda and Raffaele of the crime.



The evidence...mostly the evidence you love to ignore....tells a very clear story of what and who.


What evidence?

Quote:
Brice Fisher wrote:
The accusation that Jim Lovering doctored the photos of the bathmat are also false. All he did was size the photos to the same scale for comparison purposes. Every photo presented on IIP is authentic.


But didn't make that clear with the photo posting. That is because they were shrunk and posted in order to mislead the readership. And for the record, one cannot perform a 'comparisson' if one doesn't put what one is comparing in the proper scale....otherwise I could bloody well compare a marble to venus!


You seem to have misunderstood what I said. The marble to Venus comment proves that.


Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
I have been accused of cropping photos to alter the appearance of the bathroom. Once again false.



Nell posted examples of where you'd done it! Don't piss up my leg and tell me it's raining, Bruce.


I have full photographs of the bathroom on IIP. If I was trying to hide something in the bathroom then I would obviously not present those photos. Nell posted nothing to show that I tried to mislead readers. This is absolutely false.


Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
There were no mixed blood samples.



Please post up your scientific test that was performed that demosntrates the mixed samples were not blood. Because since you state this as an absolute, there must have been one. Where is it?


Are you serious? You expect me to prove that the samples weren't blood? That is backwards thinking Michael.

Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
No footprints were proven to be made in blood other than the bathmat. the only prints made in blood came from Guede's shoes.



It's pretty damned clear they were in blood.


Prove it.

Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
The footprint on the bathmat actually looks more like Guede's but it's inconclusive.



It's not inconclusive at all, it's a match for Sollecito is nit a match for Guede...period. And what of the print of a female foot, in blood, on the mat? Did Guede make that too?


We have conflicting experts on the bathmat Michael. We will have to agree to disagree.
Woman's foot on the bathmat? Really?

Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
C&V further discredited the already discredited bra clasp.



The only thing C & V discredited, were themselves.


That's your opinion. The court decided otherwise.


Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.



Why would a killer lay down a bloody towel to step on????? Why is he bothering to rinse blood from his shoe? How did Mr Rinsed Shoes, then proceed to leave a trail of bloody footprint from the victim's room out the front door? Because after washing them, he then immediately went and stepped in blood with his nuce clean shoes??????


Guede cleaned himself up. He most likely had blood on his leg and on top of his shoe. When he returned to Meredith's room he stepped in some blood on the bottom of his shoe.

Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
Massei stops short of saying mixed blood.


So? He didn't refute the experts' opinion that it was blood, either.


Why wasn't he definitive?

Quote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
According to Greg Hampikian, Luciano Garofano's analysis is wrong.



Really? Please post up Hampikian's essay where he directly addresses and refutes Garofano's points.


Greg did not feel the need to write a essay on Darkness Descending.


Last edited by BruceFischer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
The link I posted details how I think the print ended up on the bathmat.

Please outline your theory here, for convenience and the thread.

To start with, there aren't any bloody footprints of Guede leading to or out of the bathroom
just those heading (shod) straight out the front door. No time to trawl through your website
outline it here. A singular footprint on the bathmat because there was a cleanup.


Any suggestion as to how the print was deposited on the bathmat is pure speculation. The print is inconclusive and does nothing to prove guilt of anyone. Here is a possible scenario.

It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat.

The outline of the foot is incomplete. The heel extends off the edge of the mat, and parts appear to be missing in the upper right and lower left quadrants. Under the scenario described above, these missing elements can be explained as areas where the towel was dry or where the foot extended beyond the edge of the towel.

I believe that Guede cleaned up, then returned to the murder room, covered Meredith, took her things including her keys, locked her door and left. He stepped in blood as he was leaving, his prints can be seen exiting the cottage.




Bruce, no offense, but you make my head hurt, you really do.
You can't seriously believe the scenario you presented here, do you?

Let me recap.

Guede picks up a large rock and breaks a second-story window to break in, not knowing if the window and internal shutters are locked.
He makes a masterful climb, holding on with one hand while picking glass from the edges of the broken window, placing said glass neatly on the ledge.
He pulls himself in, leaving no evidence at all of himself, and proceeds to ransack the clothes in the room. taking only the make-up and leaving the drawers in a closed position both in Filomena's and Meredith's rooms.

After the murder, he enters the bathroom with a bloody shoe, leaving no prints of said shoe in the hallway.
He removes his shoe, and places a bloody towel that he carried with him on the bathmat. He removes his shoe, washes it, and places his bare foot on the bloody towel in the process.

He then puts his shoe back on his now-bloody foot. He picks up the bloody towel, but leaves the bloody bathmat as evidence, where Amanda later does the boogie on it and returns it to the bathroom floor, making sure to put the footprint back where it was.

He leaves the bathroom and re-enters Meredith's room, where he again steps in blood with the shoe he just spent so much time cleaning in the first place. He takes Meredith's keys, closes her door, and, since there are no bloody footprints facing the door, he places the keys behind his back, and locks the door.

Since Knox reported there were no lights on when she returned in the morning, he must have done this portion in the dark. He then proceeds to the door, which he unlocks, also in the dark, and flees.

Have I missed anything?


Napia, I am well aware of the fact that you have made up your mind on this case. You ignore anything that does not fit into your preconceived scenario. I can use sarcasm to make it sound like it's difficult to make a peanut butter and Jelly sandwich. It doesn't make it difficult to do. Your posts trying to make everything sound so impossible don't do anything to move the discussion forward. Funny that you are willing to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were present at the time of the murder even though they left no trace in the murder room. You have different standards when assessing the break-in. Why? Because that's what's needed to make it all fit into your scenario.

I find it interesting that you were disgusted that someone might have called Tara at her workplace but decided to completely ignore the behavior coming from your side. It's clear to see how you choose to view things. We will have to agree to disagree on all aspects of this case.


Bruce, I'm not being sarcastic in my description, I'm as serious as a heart attack.

As far as personal attacks are concerned, as a general rule, I avoid them. I believe that, if you post your name and your credentials, you open yourself up to exactly what we see happening. Sometimes on both sides.
However, I said as a general rule. There have been exceptions.
I think Judge Heavy is a fruitloop.

The singing one, in my opinion, is a bit of a flaky ding-bat, who should have controlled herself better in a court of law.

Her husband, however is another matter. It is my opinion, that, in giving his name and being so contentious in the media with his 'expertise' and his opinion, and seeing that stalkers and wackadoos have attached themselves to this case, he jeopardized the safety of the students where he was employed. I have a lengthy, first-hand knowledge of this type position, and felt informed enough to give an opinion.

On the other hand, a few weeks ago, there was a comment posted with regard to Knox's father. I felt it crossed a line and I said so.

And, yes, we shall have to agree to disagree on the break-in. Thank God.........Now THAT'S sarcasm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote:
Filomena was not confident on this matter. Rose posted the testimony last week. The glass was pushed toward the room when Guede closed the shutters after entering the cottage, making the straight line of glass. We do not know if there was any glass on the ground outside because the ground was not properly investigated. No samples of earth were taken. No close up photos. The ground had heavey growth and leaf cover as well


Filomena was not only confident, she was certain. The only thing she was unsure about was whether she closed them fully so they were shut tight and flush, or whether she just pulled and wedged them shut. But, she was certain she closed them. I can quote you Massei if you like, the full part, not the short few lines cherry picked by Rose.

Oh, I see, now it's Guede that closed the shutters. How convenient. The problem is, the shutters were shut WHEN the window was broken, not after. The combination of the lined-up glass on the sill and the complete lack of glass on the ground below proves this.

The ground WAS properly investigated, we heard this in the trial in sworn testimony. The ground outside was searched for glass, for traces of an intruder and for a murder weapon...none were found. Do you just make this up as you go along?

Why do bloody samples of earth need to be taken? Is this another one out of Bruce Fisher's personally created book of rules on how crime scenes should be investigated? Why must we have close-up photos? Why do we need close-up photos of nothing?

And perhaps, you might explain in light of your position, why the defence have never challenged the fact that there's no glass on the ground below? They went to the cottage and carried out their own examination, yet they too, found no glass on the ground outside. Having done so would have aided their cause a hundred times better then stupid stunts like trying to get a lawyer to climb up and touch the underneath of the sill, yet that's what they were reduced to.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote:
Far too much is being made over my comment to Ergon. It was just an opinion to counter his opinion. Nothing to cry about.


It is, because you and your people tout this line all over the internet when you comment on this case. It is why, we in the past, have had to post up examples of US cases that prove you wrong.


Bruce Fisher wrote:
That's your opinion. The court decided otherwise.


A court that was demonstrably wrong and in the opinion of some, bought.


Bruce Fisher wrote:
Guede cleaned himself up. He most likely had blood on his leg and on top of his shoe. When he returned to Meredith's room he stepped in some blood on the bottom of his shoe.


A theory that goes against your own mantra...absence of evidence is proof of absence (one I don't agree with it must be said), the one you apply to the murder room, because there is no trace of Guede in that bathroom. None of his DNA was found in any of the blood stains and as we know, Dr Stefanoni was very generous with her swabbing to ensure all of those stains were covered. And as we know, Guede's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood, since his y-haplotype was mixed in with Meredith's blood that formed his fingerprints on her handbag. Did that DNA of his just magically filter out of Meredith's blood he had on him somewhere between the bedroom and the bathroom? Yet, we do have DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom...and it's all Knox's!

You see, that's the other problem with your arbitrarily created rules. You employ them when convenient, then completely forget them when they are not. You want it both ways. That is always the case when something is about agenda, rather then truth.

Did Guede also put the female sized bare bloody footprint on the bath mat as well as one that's a match for Sollecito?

We know Guede didn't clean up in that bathroom. He was such a mess, he had to steal a jumper to wrap round himself when he left. He left bloody, not cleaned up. Someone else used that bathroom and we know who.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
Funny that you are willing to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were present at the time of the murder even though they left no trace in the murder room.


Who says they left no trace in the murder room? How do you know? No trace found doesn't mean no trace left. Only a few points in the room were actually tested, check the list yourself, you have it. And clearly, you are forgetting Raffaele's DNA trace on the bra clasp...as it always is forgotten when this tired talking point is trotted out.

And since when was a rule ever written, that a murderer, or all murderers involved on a murder, must leave physical traces of themselves within a radius of three meters from the body or it means they didn't do it? It seems to be a rule you people have made up yourselves.

So, not only are you expanding into full-on general advocacy with a complete lack of knowledge and understanding but arrogance in its place, you go to it with a laundry list of your own arbitrarily created rules about crime, the law and forensics.

Do you nor even understand why you're a menace? Ignorance may be bliss, but not for those you've hurt and are gong to go on to hurt.


Michael, why not post up my entire quote? Your group argues all the time that Guede couldn't have gained entrance through Filomena's window because he left no evidence of doing so. Then you argue that its normal that Amanda and Raffaele left no evidence in the murder room. You can't have it both ways.

No one is forgetting about the clasp (well except for the investigators). The clasp has been fully discredited. You disagree with the court appointed experts. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

Your criticism of me isn't necessary. You are the one claiming to be an authority on this case, not me.

What laundry list of your own arbitrarily created rules about crime, the law and forensics have I created? Can you please explain? You still have not acknowledged that you were wrong about the cases that IA is currently working on. Does the truth matter to you Michael?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote:
Why wasn't he definitive?


No. Because he didn't need to be. The evidence proved guilt, it wasn't required to determine whether the DNA mixed with Meredith's blood was from Knox's blood or something else.

Bruce Fisher wrote:
Greg did not feel the need to write a essay on Darkness Descending.


It is not required he write an essay on Darkness Descending, only on the arguments made that Knox's blood was the source of DNA. You claim Hampikian refuted them. I'm asking you post up Hampikian's arguments refuting them...not straw men like the one above.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
Far too much is being made over my comment to Ergon. It was just an opinion to counter his opinion. Nothing to cry about.


It is, because you and your people tout this line all over the internet when you comment on this case. It is why, we in the past, have had to post up examples of US cases that prove you wrong.


Bruce Fisher wrote:
That's your opinion. The court decided otherwise.


A court that was demonstrably wrong and in the opinion of some, bought.


Bruce Fisher wrote:
Guede cleaned himself up. He most likely had blood on his leg and on top of his shoe. When he returned to Meredith's room he stepped in some blood on the bottom of his shoe.


A theory that goes against your own mantra...absence of evidence is proof of absence (one I don't agree with it must be said), the one you apply to the murder room, because there is no trace of Guede in that bathroom. None of his DNA was found in any of the blood stains and as we know, Dr Stefanoni was very generous with her swabbing to ensure all of those stains were covered. And as we know, Guede's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood, since his y-haplotype was mixed in with Meredith's blood that formed his fingerprints on her handbag. Did that DNA of his just magically filter out of Meredith's blood he had on him somewhere between the bedroom and the bathroom? Yet, we do have DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom...and it's all Knox's!

You see, that's the other problem with your arbitrarily created rules. You employ them when convenient, then completely forget them when they are not. You want it both ways. That is always the case when something is about agenda, rather then truth.

Did Guede also put the female sized bare bloody footprint on the bath mat as well as one that's a match for Sollecito?

We know Guede didn't clean up in that bathroom. He was such a mess, he had to steal a jumper to wrap round himself when he left. He left bloody, not cleaned up. Someone else used that bathroom and we know who.


Dr Stefanoni did not collect the samples in the bathroom.

I mentioned that any discussion regarding the bathmat would be speculation. Why has that part of my comment been removed? No one knows for sure how the print got on the bathmat. It is inconclusive evidence.

What female sized print Michael? Please show us your discovery!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote:
Michael, why not post up my entire quote? Your group argues all the time that Guede couldn't have gained entrance through Filomena's window because he left no evidence of doing so. Then you argue that its normal that Amanda and Raffaele left no evidence in the murder room. You can't have it both ways.


No, we have never argued that Guede's lack of traces in Filomena's room proves he didn't break into it, we argue the fact of it in order to highlight your hypocrisy with your arbitrary 'absence of evidence is proof of innocence' rule, and we argue that that COMBINED WITH ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE of a staging proves Guede did not break-in via the window. It's not stand alone, it's in ADDITION to everything ELSE, get it?

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
Why wasn't he definitive?


No. Because he didn't need to be. The evidence proved guilt, it wasn't required to determine whether the DNA mixed with Meredith's blood was from Knox's blood or something else.

Bruce Fisher wrote:
Greg did not feel the need to write a essay on Darkness Descending.


It is not required he write an essay on Darkness Descending, only on the arguments made that Knox's blood was the source of DNA. You claim Hampikian refuted them. I'm asking you post up Hampikian's arguments refuting them...not straw men like the one above.


You asked for an essay. Greg made his comments in a discussion. The fact is that Darkness Descending has no more credibility than Greg does. It is another case of conflicting experts.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote:
What female sized print Michael? Please show us your discovery!


You know very well, since we discussed it here in recent weeks and we know you follow this board obsessively.

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


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

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
Michael, why not post up my entire quote? Your group argues all the time that Guede couldn't have gained entrance through Filomena's window because he left no evidence of doing so. Then you argue that its normal that Amanda and Raffaele left no evidence in the murder room. You can't have it both ways.


No, we have never argued that Guede's lack of traces in Filomena's room proves he didn't break into it, we argue the fact of it in order to highlight your hypocrisy with your arbitrary 'absence of evidence is proof of innocence' rule, and we argue that that COMBINED WITH ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE of a staging proves Guede did not break-in via the window. It's not stand alone, it's in ADDITION to everything ELSE, get it?


Your side makes this argument all the time Michael. Spin it anyway you like.

All evidence at the crime scene points right at Guede so it's reasonable to say that he broke Filomena's window.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
What female sized print Michael? Please show us your discovery!


You know very well, since we discussed it here in recent weeks and we know you follow this board obsessively.


There is no female print on the bathmat Michael. Believe whatever you like.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Bruce Fisher wrote:
You asked for an essay. Greg made his comments in a discussion. The fact is that Darkness Descending has no more credibility than Greg does. It is another case of conflicting experts.


That cannot be said. The authors of Darkness Descending have access to all the evidence, speak Italian and have had years of experience investigating crime scenes. None of which can be said of Hampikian. Moreover, the author's position is one of neutrality, whereas Hampikian's is to engage in advocacy and was a consultant for the defence, so he can hardly be said to be neutral.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
What female sized print Michael? Please show us your discovery!


You know very well, since we discussed it here in recent weeks and we know you follow this board obsessively.


There is no female print on the bathmat Michael. Believe whatever you like.


More absolute statements of fact rooted in opinion rather then fact itself.

I trust my own eyes. I don't trust your opinions.

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


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

Offline FreeCuratolo

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:28 am

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
What female sized print Michael? Please show us your discovery!


You know very well, since we discussed it here in recent weeks and we know you follow this board obsessively.


Perhaps you could show your discovery to Bruce since he requested it. That would be in the spirit of a cordial and civil discussion about the evidence which i assume is what is intended by FOAKer Tuesday.

Or am i perhaps incorrect in my assumption about the purpose of Tuesdays?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BruceFischer

Banned


User avatar


Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 2:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXV. MAIN DISCUSSION, MAY 28 -   

Michael wrote:
BruceFischer wrote:
Michael wrote:
Bruce Fisher wrote:
What female sized print Michael? Please show us your discovery!


You know very well, since we discussed it here in recent weeks and we know you follow this board obsessively.


There is no female print on the bathmat Michael. Believe whatever you like.


More absolute statements of fact rooted in opinion rather then fact itself.

I trust my own eyes. I don't trust your opinions.


Why wasn't this mystery print presented at trial Michael?
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 3 of 12 [ 2830 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 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 


29,144,444 Views