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: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:39 am
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:39 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30, 13 - JULY 31, 14

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 5 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 30  Next
Author Message

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
Thanks Michael and Napia. My understanding is that Meredith's DNA on the knife continues to be part of the evidence, that V & C agreed that there is no evidence of contamination, and that the DNA on the knife is a match to Meredith. If that is the case, I have to wonder why any reputable news organization would not research the facts before publishing. Are the false reports intended to manipulate the US public so that, in the event that the conviction is upheld, the hope is that there will be big public reaction/protest in the US?



That understanding is correct. The media: There are a few core mainstream media outlets deliberately publishing misinformation on the case and the rest are simply incompetent by repeating their claims by rote.

What surprises me, is how the US media keeps ramming the case (or their version of it) down the public's throats, when there is relatively little public interest in the case and even less public outrage at Knox's plight. It's as though the media are trying to force the public to be interested in the case and sympathetic to Knox. For nearly six years they've been doing it and for nearly six years there have been no public protest marches in support of Knox. It's a mystery to me why they continue to persist. Bloody minded.



That bit, the ramming down throat element, is something I do get, at least in my own way, as to scheme of things observed, all the way along, and we here, on this site, do know that PR firm Marriot has been up to all kinds of things in the first place, in order to generate the news events/articles as they have been portrayed (by them in one way or another), and you cannot underestimate the power of I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine, favours for favours, for favours to be done ahead, and thus arrangements made now, with that in the future I'll do this or that for you too. It's just the way things work in the media anyhow, which mean that lots of space is left for using that part in order to get (read: force) your take across, true or untrue as it may be.

As I have relayed a number of times on here about something I worked on in which major cobcerns, with major interests, employed exactly these corrupt tactics, corrupt as seen in this campaign, and they employed those tactics/techniques in order to force their will by overpowering the population, the population meaning ordinary citizens but also every interest group. Their method was to lauch targeted campaigns, ones not to last too long, mostly for about a 12-week period. That period was like launching a surprise attack in a war, they had everything arranged to all start going out as soon as the starting button would be pushed, and to get to this, they had everyone working for them get in touch with any contact they had, who might be their-case-friendly, or otherwise, persuade someone who was known to one of the employees, even unknown and persuade them to take part. In all of that, there must always be rewards in some form or another for thoose that accommodate the wishes of the PR firm taking care of the strategy for all of the different interest groups. One of the main things they stipulated/required, was that there be, as far as possible, just 1 (one) spokesperson for the lot, in order to avoid conflicting statements, etc, therefore the consistency being the main factor in the entirety.

The effect on most people is that they switch on their radio, and they hear these things being said, all as though it is a done deal, okay, but then later they switch their TV on, and they hear the same stuff, so Mr Joe Ordinary Guy, socially and even politically aware to an extent, caring at least, with views, gets to thinking, darn, then who am I, he may remain with a bad feeling but feel powerless to do a thing and therefore also DOES NOTHING TOO. And this very real strategy, has been designed to trick the general citizen, because there ARE groups that fight against certain plans, they do not want it in their neighbourhood but large corporate concerns are having none of it, they will go on (force), by hook and mostly crook to get what they want, even if the details showed that the majority are against their plans, environmental groups to which citizens willingly, when knowing the facts, sign up to in order to support what they too want for their area/country.

So all of these techniques have been used in the PR campaign, to me, on the basis of the above, they are all instantly recognisable, also this misinformation campaign which they keep using by using wrong words and terms, like retrial, is part fit of it all, retrial when it is a re-appeal, as the other was made void, yet retrial ties nicely into the rest where it is presented as if some human right is being killed off, since the girl was set free and now they are trying her again, which is entirely untrue and they know it, but as someone pointed out above (Jester) indeed this is to create that media mayhemish idea, feeling, that there is some kind of injustice when there is not, the injustice is the campaign of misinformation being used to create the media mayhem, a type of campaign well-known to the Italian judiciary, and they really do not take kindly to having the rug pulled out from under their feet, meaning don't like people accused of crimes trying to have their own cases tried in the media, and so in that way attempt to undermine the power of law, because, should as such people/group suceed, then there is no society, no civilization no community anymore, and in fact no more law, and it's for these reasons that this behaviour is seen as very serious indeed, they are not having it, when they see it, you are not talking about individuals... this is the state, the law, society, they are upholding it, to allow these things would mean everyone might just as well abandon everything, and allow criminals to run the show.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Introductions on an as yet almost empty page

Step up, step up, welcome my country, step up, step up, my name is Captain Stadenko


Hi Di gals and guys, this is your friendly DJ Mon-Tay-Slim, inviting you to come on down here to sunny California Seattle cos we is gonna be handing out free lolipops to all you suckers.


Dave who?

Dave don't live here man!

The Knox/Sollecito case classic scenario of Cheech and Chongy on the bongee

Dave don't live here man

He made me do it, they made me do it, I had to, it's their fault, I don't rem-em-buh

Le Roy Jones git on in here ya peas n chicken is getting cold, stop selling that cocaine ta the white folk will ya, evil little black pea, oh hell yeah!!!

Second voice, but this one is direct from hell: No we is just good Christ-i-an white folks, we ain't dun nuffin but good, don't ya see? Da black man dunnit, ya all, oh yeah look at us in America with almost more black folks in jail than out, that's justice, just say da black-un did it.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Probably she didn't realize how sexist her finger-pointing was. She may have gotten more traction if she had blamed a black woman. I'm just being slightly sarcastic here. Ever wonder why blaming a black woman doesn't happen more often?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
That Meredith's DNA is on the knife is going to be accepted as valid and that is very strong evidence but there is so much evidence that there is no reason to focus on 36b. I realize people are edgy given what happened with Hellmann but that is not going to happen again. Justice will be served likely before the end of November.


The DNA evidence confirms what we already know from the circumstantial evidence.


Circumstantial evidence does not equal bad evidence. I see the term circumstantial used as a pejorative by the groupies and all that does is illustrate how misinformed they are. In most trials all the evidence is circumstantial. When you do have both circumstantial and direct evidence in a trial then typically the circumstantial evidence is both stronger and more reliable than direct evidence. All DNA evidence for example is circumstantial evidence. The same is true of all forensic evidence. When you see someone say "but all the evidence is circumstantial" you can laugh at them because saying that in the defense of an accused is a really stupid think to say. Not surprisingly the people over at IIP say that exact statement constantly both with respect to Knox and Sollecito and with respect to the other cases they "work on"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
...
Circumstantial evidence does not equal bad evidence. I see the term circumstantial used as a pejorative by the groupies and all that does is illustrate how misinformed they are. In most trials all the evidence is circumstantial. When you do have both circumstantial and direct evidence in a trial then typically the circumstantial evidence is both stronger and more reliable than direct evidence. All DNA evidence for example is circumstantial evidence. The same is true of all forensic evidence. When you see someone say "but all the evidence is circumstantial" you can laugh at them because saying that in the defense of an accused is a really stupid think to say. Not surprisingly the people over at IIP say that exact statement constantly both with respect to Knox and Sollecito and with respect to the other cases they "work on"


These days the criminals are so uncooperative: they should invite four unrelated and indifferent witnesses and perhaps the press too with a video camera before they commit a crime. Then only we shall have direct evidence of the crime.

Even in many eye-witness testimonies, the direct evidences have turned out faulty- we often see what we think it should be.

The greatest test is the fitting of the jigsaw puzzle: all the evidences, direct or circumstantial, must fit and those not fitting the puzzle must be reasonably explained away. Once the pieces fit together, the individual probabilities do not matter any more.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
...
in America with almost more black folks in jail than out, ...


That is for their own safety, you see!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

New post on TJMK:

Given The Abundant Facts, What Scenario Is The Nencini Court Considering? Probably Not Unlike This
Posted by Marcello

It is rather sad that this case, of the violent murder of Meredith Kercher, has seen a ‘hurricane’ of noise trying to cherry-pick and disprove the more salient facts, and worse, discredit those who investigated, prosecuted and ruled on the case as well as discredit those who continue to emphasize the facts.

Over the past six years there has been a concerted effort by the defendants in this case, and primarily by their families, their ‘groupies’ and their legal consultants, to mount and continue a public relations campaign to frame the defendants as innocent of the crime of murdering Meredith Kercher. This ‘innocence’ campaign has even gone so far as to tarnish the motives of the fine justice officials involved.


TJMK
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

G-man Steve Moore on Friday announced this on Twitter:

Steve Moore ‏@Gman_Moore 18 Oct

I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case on 10/30 (with Judge Mike Heavey, FBI Profiler John Douglas and atty John Q. Kelly).

https://twitter.com/Gman_Moore
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 7:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
That Meredith's DNA is on the knife is going to be accepted as valid and that is very strong evidence but there is so much evidence that there is no reason to focus on 36b. I realize people are edgy given what happened with Hellmann but that is not going to happen again. Justice will be served likely before the end of November.


The DNA evidence confirms what we already know from the circumstantial evidence.


Circumstantial evidence does not equal bad evidence. I see the term circumstantial used as a pejorative by the groupies and all that does is illustrate how misinformed they are. In most trials all the evidence is circumstantial. When you do have both circumstantial and direct evidence in a trial then typically the circumstantial evidence is both stronger and more reliable than direct evidence. All DNA evidence for example is circumstantial evidence. The same is true of all forensic evidence. When you see someone say "but all the evidence is circumstantial" you can laugh at them because saying that in the defense of an accused is a really stupid think to say. Not surprisingly the people over at IIP say that exact statement constantly both with respect to Knox and Sollecito and with respect to the other cases they "work on"


When I write circumstantial evidence, I mean exactly that: circumstantial evidence. I have never considered circumstantial evidence to be insignificant. The circumstantial evidence is what convinced me of the guilt of Sollecito and Knox. Meredith's DNA on the knife simply offers irrefutable proof that what is understood through the circumstantial evidence is correct.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
G-man Steve Moore on Friday announced this on Twitter:

Steve Moore ‏@Gman_Moore 18 Oct

I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case on 10/30 (with Judge Mike Heavey, FBI Profiler John Douglas and atty John Q. Kelly).

https://twitter.com/Gman_Moore


Steve Moore @Gman_Moore Oct 20
Quote:
I always travel with my investigative assistant. Sure, people suspect there's something going on. There is. :)


His "investigative assistant" one Michelle (Easterly) Moore of Thousand Oaks who was 'investigating' my linkedin profile not too long ago :) Haven't I been reported to the FBI already?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
guermantes wrote:
G-man Steve Moore on Friday announced this on Twitter:

Steve Moore ‏@Gman_Moore 18 Oct

I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case on 10/30 (with Judge Mike Heavey, FBI Profiler John Douglas and atty John Q. Kelly).

https://twitter.com/Gman_Moore


Steve Moore @Gman_Moore Oct 20
Quote:
I always travel with my investigative assistant. Sure, people suspect there's something going on. There is. :)


His "investigative assistant" one Michelle (Easterly) Moore of Thousand Oaks who was 'investigating' my linkedin profile not too long ago :) Haven't I been reported to the FBI already?


Is John Douglas still employed by the FBI? Is Mr. Heavey still a Judge? I'm curious whether it is appropriate to use these credentials without the word 'former' attached.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Only John Q. Kelly isn't a "former" anything :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall, thank you for explaining that DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. For some reason, I suppose I too had assumed that DNA evidence was direct evidence, but it isn't. My mistake. DNA evidence is based on probability, unlike eye witness testimony. Fingerprint evidence must also be circumstantial evidence, or is it exact? Other than eye witness testimony, what are other types of direct evidence?
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall, thank you for explaining that DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. For some reason, I suppose I too had assumed that DNA evidence was direct evidence, but it isn't. My mistake. DNA evidence is based on probability, unlike eye witness testimony. Fingerprint evidence must also be circumstantial evidence, or is it exact? Other than eye witness testimony, what are other types of direct evidence?


Direct evidence can only be witness testimony from what I understand.

One example is if you see it's raining outside and testify to it, that would be direct evidence. If you see people coming inside the building wearing wet coats, it could be inferred it was raining outside, but that would be circumstantial evidence.

Testimony about witnessing a man shooting another man is direct evidence. Matching a bullet to a gun is circumstantial evidence.

Whenever you have to make an inference it is circumstantial.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

That's true about circumstantial being weighted as more powerful than other evidence; a man can possess a gun and bullets found at a crime scene or in a victim matching the gun can lead to the suspicion that the owner is a murderer, but ownership does not necessarily mean guilt, however the compiled circumstantial clues add up to become a compound of evidence, allowing reasoning to dictate that the circumstantial evidence proves guilt, where the adding up is reasonable, now just look at all of the circumstantial evidence in this case, it's simply overwhelmingly against Knox and Sollecito.

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall, thank you for explaining that DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. For some reason, I suppose I too had assumed that DNA evidence was direct evidence, but it isn't. My mistake. DNA evidence is based on probability, unlike eye witness testimony. Fingerprint evidence must also be circumstantial evidence, or is it exact? Other than eye witness testimony, what are other types of direct evidence?


Circumstantial evidence requires making an inference. The classic example is if someone robs a 7-11. The video inside the store would be direct evidence. It shows the burglar in the act of robbing the store. Video recorded by a camera outside the store showing the suspect fleeing is circumstantial evidence. It is direct evidence to the claim that the suspect was running down the street but for that to be useful to proving he committed the robbery you have to make the inference that he is running from the crime.

Fingerprints are circumstantial evidence for the same reason DNA is circumstantial evidence. It isn't because of the probability of the DNA or fingerprint correctly identifying but that again you need to make an inference to establish that the evidence suggests involvement in the crime. With a fingerprint the inference would be that the print was deposited during the commission of the crime. One of the requirements would be that there was no realistic alternative explanation

With the DNA on the bra it is direct evidence that Sollecito touched Meredith's bra. It is circumstantial evidence to his involvement in the murder because you need to make the inference that he touch the bra during the murder. Since there was no other possibility for when Sollecito could have touched the bra this is very strong evidence. Sollecito could have offered an explanation that he fooled around with Meredith a few days prior and then the strength of the evidence would decrease in proportion to how believable the claim was. This is exactly what Sollecito tried to do with the knife for example and Amanda tried to use the bathmat shuffle to explain the Luminol traces.
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 Oct 21, 2013 12:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Even a "smoking gun" is circumstantial evidence.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Try explaining that to the terminally infantile Amandites.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Try explaining that to the terminally infantile Amandites.


Yes it seems they had (still have) the misguided idea that all murderers must be caught shooting the gun, preferably at police headquarters itself live on TV during the 8 o clock news after having invited about 25 people to witness the event.

Since most murderers do everything they can to avoid leaving clues then guilt must be determined on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

They're OK with the circumstantial evidence that convicts Guede, and only make exceptions for folk wot look like them :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Only John Q. Kelly isn't a "former" anything :)


but I think ex- is both greener and keyboard-friendly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall, thank you for explaining that DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. For some reason, I suppose I too had assumed that DNA evidence was direct evidence, but it isn't. My mistake. DNA evidence is based on probability, unlike eye witness testimony. Fingerprint evidence must also be circumstantial evidence, or is it exact? Other than eye witness testimony, what are other types of direct evidence?


Direct evidence can only be witness testimony from what I understand.

One example is if you see it's raining outside and testify to it, that would be direct evidence. If you see people coming inside the building wearing wet coats, it could be inferred it was raining outside, but that would be circumstantial evidence.

Testimony about witnessing a man shooting another man is direct evidence. Matching a bullet to a gun is circumstantial evidence.

Whenever you have to make an inference it is circumstantial.


Fingerprints and DNA matches cannot be considered direct evidences because they cannot be dated. Any evidence that can be correlated in both space and time is direct evidence. For example, a bloody fingerprint can be considered a direct evidence. In the same way, matching a bullet extracted from the victim's body with a particular gun is a pretty direct evidence (that the gun was the murder weapon). It will be still indirect evidence if you wish to correlate the gun to an accused.

The key is the correlation in both space and time (between the subject and the action).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:56 pm   Post subject: Re: Ideas for AK to earn money to finance her life on the run!   

Has anyone else noticed that AK's alleged US boyfriend, James Terrano, seems to have disappeared? He didn't even rate a single photo among those recent Facebook posts. What's wrong with him, doesn't James like kittens? mike Or, does he choose not to be photographed with AK again.

If AK's fan club still desires to portray AK as a steady loyal gal pal to James, you'd think they would at the very least include him in a few photos. While the fan club will likely deny and deny, I'd guess that James was more a prop than a proper boyfriend. Can't imagine James' parents would be thrilled at the prospect of their young adult son being associated with a convicted felon and provisionally convicted murder suspect.

How accommodating a prop is James likely to be? Would he impregnate AK solely to slow her extradition process? Would he allow himself to be implicated as an accessory in aiding in AK's fugitive success? As the parent of a young adult son, I know the kind of advice I would be giving my son if he was James.

By now, AK must be nearly exploding with desire to hit the local bar scene and get drunk and high every weekend, or more often. c-)) Should AK be convicted of murder yet again (my hopes are high she will be), her options will narrow quickly before CoC's final ruling. What will she do? huh-)

1) Run! Just b/c she claimed she wouldn't, doesn't mean she won't.
2) Let her desires to be drunk and high all the time overcome her parents' advice and simply go wild on Seattle streets or anywhere else she chooses to get crazy. drin-)
3) Convince James (or any other male she met a few hours before) that kittens aren't enough incentive to get hundreds of thousands of American muppets to protest her extradition and she needs to be pregnant very soon.
4) Get busy earning more money in any way she can to finance a later fugitive life; her supporters have convinced her she has at least a few years before she'll need to escape the US.

Just for fun: Anyone wish to volunteer ideas for AK to earn copious amounts of cash in a short time? pp-(

I'll start: Call up Vivid Entertainment and propose a video for in-home or online viewing of '40 Naked Yoga poses with Amanda Knox.' Recall that AK is not the least bit ashamed of her nude body -- she has written before she was comfortable talking to a friend's boyfriend while stark naked. la_) AK could even pre-record the part of guitar accompanist as background music, or hire James for that -- he could probably use the work. ser-)

Any other ideas? d-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. G-Man Steve Moore & others rent a room!   

guermantes wrote:
G-man Steve Moore on Friday announced this on Twitter:

Steve Moore ‏@Gman_Moore 18 Oct

I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case on 10/30 (with Judge Mike Heavey, FBI Profiler John Douglas and atty John Q. Kelly).

https://twitter.com/Gman_Moore


My goodness, is the same Congressional Briefing stunt those delusional supporters shouted about before? So what, Senator Maria Cantwell gives them permission to rent a room in a nearby facility and they sit around hoping for somebody, anybody, to wander in and ask them why they are there.

They're intentionally trying to portray this stunt as a valid Congressional-style hearing with a room full of concerned US Congressional Representatives who are supposedly interested in the fate of AK. What a laugh riot! Who are they trying to convince with this -- Raffaele Sollecito and his dad, AK supporters, or others who are only marginally interested in what happens to AK? sun-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:25 pm   Post subject: Re: Ideas for AK to earn money to finance her life on the run!   

Slade wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that AK's alleged US boyfriend, James Terrano, seems to have disappeared? He didn't even rate a single photo among those recent Facebook posts. What's wrong with him, doesn't James like kittens? mike Or, does he choose not to be photographed with AK again.

If AK's fan club still desires to portray AK as a steady loyal gal pal to James, you'd think they would at the very least include him in a few photos. While the fan club will likely deny and deny, I'd guess that James was more a prop than a proper boyfriend. Can't imagine James' parents would be thrilled at the prospect of their young adult son being associated with a convicted felon and provisionally convicted murder suspect.

How accommodating a prop is James likely to be? Would he impregnate AK solely to slow her extradition process? Would he allow himself to be implicated as an accessory in aiding in AK's fugitive success? As the parent of a young adult son, I know the kind of advice I would be giving my son if he was James.

By now, AK must be nearly exploding with desire to hit the local bar scene and get drunk and high every weekend, or more often. c-)) Should AK be convicted of murder yet again (my hopes are high she will be), her options will narrow quickly before CoC's final ruling. What will she do? huh-)

1) Run! Just b/c she claimed she wouldn't, doesn't mean she won't.
2) Let her desires to be drunk and high all the time overcome her parents' advice and simply go wild on Seattle streets or anywhere else she chooses to get crazy. drin-)
3) Convince James (or any other male she met a few hours before) that kittens aren't enough incentive to get hundreds of thousands of American muppets to protest her extradition and she needs to be pregnant very soon.
4) Get busy earning more money in any way she can to finance a later fugitive life; her supporters have convinced her she has at least a few years before she'll need to escape the US.

Just for fun: Anyone wish to volunteer ideas for AK to earn copious amounts of cash in a short time? pp-(

I'll start: Call up Vivid Entertainment and propose a video for in-home or online viewing of '40 Naked Yoga poses with Amanda Knox.' Recall that AK is not the least bit ashamed of her nude body -- she has written before she was comfortable talking to a friend's boyfriend while stark naked. la_) AK could even pre-record the part of guitar accompanist as background music, or hire James for that -- he could probably use the work. ser-)

Any other ideas? d-))


The friend whose boyfriend she didn't mind talking with while she was stark naked. Typical dominance maneuver. Would that be the same friend she played the fake "rape prank" on with mask wearing bozoz?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: Ideas for AK to earn money to finance her life on the run!   

Slade wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that AK's alleged US boyfriend, James Terrano, seems to have disappeared? He didn't even rate a single photo among those recent Facebook posts. What's wrong with him, doesn't James like kittens? mike Or, does he choose not to be photographed with AK again.

If AK's fan club still desires to portray AK as a steady loyal gal pal to James, you'd think they would at the very least include him in a few photos. While the fan club will likely deny and deny, I'd guess that James was more a prop than a proper boyfriend. Can't imagine James' parents would be thrilled at the prospect of their young adult son being associated with a convicted felon and provisionally convicted murder suspect.

How accommodating a prop is James likely to be? Would he impregnate AK solely to slow her extradition process? Would he allow himself to be implicated as an accessory in aiding in AK's fugitive success? As the parent of a young adult son, I know the kind of advice I would be giving my son if he was James.

By now, AK must be nearly exploding with desire to hit the local bar scene and get drunk and high every weekend, or more often. c-)) Should AK be convicted of murder yet again (my hopes are high she will be), her options will narrow quickly before CoC's final ruling. What will she do? huh-)

1) Run! Just b/c she claimed she wouldn't, doesn't mean she won't.
2) Let her desires to be drunk and high all the time overcome her parents' advice and simply go wild on Seattle streets or anywhere else she chooses to get crazy. drin-)
3) Convince James (or any other male she met a few hours before) that kittens aren't enough incentive to get hundreds of thousands of American muppets to protest her extradition and she needs to be pregnant very soon.
4) Get busy earning more money in any way she can to finance a later fugitive life; her supporters have convinced her she has at least a few years before she'll need to escape the US.

Just for fun: Anyone wish to volunteer ideas for AK to earn copious amounts of cash in a short time? pp-(

I'll start: Call up Vivid Entertainment and propose a video for in-home or online viewing of '40 Naked Yoga poses with Amanda Knox.' Recall that AK is not the least bit ashamed of her nude body -- she has written before she was comfortable talking to a friend's boyfriend while stark naked. la_) AK could even pre-record the part of guitar accompanist as background music, or hire James for that -- he could probably use the work. ser-)

Any other ideas? d-))



I did notice that, and started writing scenarios but thought better of it, I mean what's the use in asking where's orange pants got to and has anyone laid a new patio out back of the Knoxio's spread, I mean it just ain't pretty finding out stuff you do not want to, by mistake I mean, what a load to carry/share, i'm guessing he thought better of it after his parents cut in, how could they condone his taking up with her, it isn't as though she comes across as sympathetic in any way, shape or form.

Let's be serious, forgiveness in this case is practically impossible given those responsible refuse to own up to the truth, and the acts are so wicked, like after the murder too, because seen in the correct light or from the correct angle, carrying out a murder then doing all they have done afterwards, means the after acts are in a way even worse than the murder itself, for it is simply rubbing salt into the fatal wound, the fatal wound that ended Meredith's life and the fatal wound that has in fact destroyed the lives of her loved ones, so even though I would like to say good things, I find myself entirely unable to, what I mean is, the awfulness of this could never leave those responsible for it and that is a true burden to carry, this is if those responsible are in their right minds, but if they are some kind of evil psychos entirely unwilling to accept anything at all and continue instead to tell lie after lie, then the redeeming areas, that would have to be self-redeeming, can't be had for them, this then leaves nothing for anyone else in real terms, there is nothing to give, even the St Francis of the little animals and wee birds would not have an in-road, nope, since there is no regret, no I'm sorry, no nothing just more of the same ingredients that cooked up the murder in the first place, whose fault is that? Theirs, nobody else's.

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

There are no more opportunities for big money. Slade. The long-awaited exclusive interview is in the can. The book has been written. Interviews are trickling down to local shows.

Pregnancy may delay things for a few months, but, fathers are recognized, and can easily get custody, so that issue is a non-starter also, IMO. Even if she gave an interview where she finally told the whole truth, where would that leave her in terms of the monies received for the book she has already written?

In strictly financial terms, all of the oars are already in the water. And the boat has major leaks.

If she were to sign herself in voluntarily to a psychiatric unit for severe depression and PTSD, I think that insurance on a parent's policy is good until the age of 26, so she'd need to have her own insurance.

Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
There are no more opportunities for big money. Slade. The long-awaited exclusive interview is in the can. The book has been written. Interviews are trickling down to local shows.

Pregnancy may delay things for a few months, but, fathers are recognized, and can easily get custody, so that issue is a non-starter also, IMO. Even if she gave an interview where she finally told the whole truth, where would that leave her in terms of the monies received for the book she has already written?

In strictly financial terms, all of the oars are already in the water. And the boat has major leaks.

If she were to sign herself in voluntarily to a psychiatric unit for severe depression and PTSD, I think that insurance on a parent's policy is good until the age of 26, so she'd need to have her own insurance.

Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.


The ideas I was soliciting for cash making were tongue-in-cheek, and certainly with no disrespect meant to dear Meredith and her horrible life-ending ordeal.

Leap forward in time to a scenario where AK is now reconvicted of murder and is awaiting a CoC final ruling. If she chooses to run she's going to need to finance that endeavor, even she knows that -- and her family is probably not willing to gamble again. I think that a narcissistic sociopath like AK would be willing to do just about anything to slow the process, with running being at the top of the list. Not that I want to see her succeed in slowing justice, I just would like to believe that LE, in the US & Italy, is aware of who they're dealing with in AK; a person capable of just about anything. Remove the yoke of 'not knowing what's going to happen' into 'now knowing I'm down to a few choice' and suddenly options begin to crystalize and minds focus.

If McCall is right, Italian LE will extradite quickly and the Fox will be snapped up in moments and dragged onto a plane quickly. But how likely is that to happen? AK needs money to fight extradition and to keep Ted Simon's attention during a possible lengthy extradition process -- that is if Ted Simon is still in her camp. McCall could be right that AK may be imprisoned in a Washington state facility as soon as the extradition order is presented, or even remain there for her entire sentence. As long as she's in prison - great. It's her other options that keep my stomach in knots.

Wonder if AK made any alternate arrangements regarding the guardianship of her kittens should she be returned to prison. My guess is no -- that AK has become so convinced by her supporters that her chances of returning to prison are remote, it doesn't concern her. But a baby, different story, isn't it? Would Edda and Chris Mellas be willing to care for AK's infant until she is released? Don't think so! Doesn't mean the Fox wouldn't try if she thought it would help her cause -- remember, AK has no conscience nor thought for the consequences others suffer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. G-Man Steve Moore & others rent a room!   

Slade wrote:
guermantes wrote:
G-man Steve Moore on Friday announced this on Twitter:

Steve Moore ‏@Gman_Moore 18 Oct

I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case on 10/30 (with Judge Mike Heavey, FBI Profiler John Douglas and atty John Q. Kelly).

https://twitter.com/Gman_Moore


My goodness, is the same Congressional Briefing stunt those delusional supporters shouted about before? So what, Senator Maria Cantwell gives them permission to rent a room in a nearby facility and they sit around hoping for somebody, anybody, to wander in and ask them why they are there.

They're intentionally trying to portray this stunt as a valid Congressional-style hearing with a room full of concerned US Congressional Representatives who are supposedly interested in the fate of AK. What a laugh riot! Who are they trying to convince with this -- Raffaele Sollecito and his dad, AK supporters, or others who are only marginally interested in what happens to AK? sun-)


I found the congressional briefing being portrayed as a congressional hearing as confusing. Congressional briefings are nothing and no one that matters is going to show up. So why misrepresent it? It seems like misguided PR by someone who doesn't know what they are doing. There is no strategy that could get them what they want but their current strategy will actually make things worse.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
If she were to sign herself in voluntarily to a psychiatric unit for severe depression and PTSD, I think that insurance on a parent's policy is good until the age of 26, so she'd need to have her own insurance.


AK is very concerned with how 'others' see her, and certifiably insane is not how she wants others to see her. Of course, we know she would prefer to be seen as innocent, failing that, I think she'd prefer to be invisible -- like gone.

Napia5 wrote:
Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.


Not the type of person who would pose for 'naked pictures' but in your opinion is she the type of person who can murder a housemate and keep lying about what she did for six years? Worse, accuse an innocent man of the murder! AK is an extrovert, she'd love to do a nude video with her demonstrating yoga. She's just concerned with how 'others' would view her for doing it, not that she's above doing it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
If she were to sign herself in voluntarily to a psychiatric unit for severe depression and PTSD, I think that insurance on a parent's policy is good until the age of 26, so she'd need to have her own insurance.


AK is very concerned with how 'others' see her, and certifiably insane is not how she wants others to see her. Of course, we know she would prefer to be seen as innocent, failing that, I think she'd prefer to be invisible -- like gone.

Napia5 wrote:
Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.


Not the type of person who would pose for 'naked pictures' but in your opinion is she the type of person who can murder a housemate and keep lying about what she did for six years? Worse, accuse an innocent man of the murder! AK is an extrovert, she'd love to do a nude video with her demonstrating yoga. She's just concerned with how 'others' would view her for doing it, not that she's above doing it.


I don't think she would want to be viewed as certifiably insane either. I was thinking more along the lines of "having been driven to despair', similar to Sylvia Plath. While I am of the opinion that Plath suffered from a mental illness, there ARE those who believe her to be a tragic heroine.

As to your second comment, certainly I believe that the evidence proves she murdered Meredith, so capable? In a word, yes. My point about not posing for naked pictures was not from a moral standpoint. It is more from a standpoint of maintaining control. If there were no alternate way to earn money than removing her clothing, I don't believe that she would choose to do it. I believe she would feel that the control was being taken from her, and it just wouldn't happen. I think if she decided to do it for fun, it would be a different matter. does that make sense?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:05 pm   Post subject: Re: Ideas for AK to earn money to finance her life on the run!   

Slade wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that AK's alleged US boyfriend, James Terrano, seems to have disappeared? He didn't even rate a single photo among those recent Facebook posts. What's wrong with him, doesn't James like kittens? mike Or, does he choose not to be photographed with AK again.

If AK's fan club still desires to portray AK as a steady loyal gal pal to James, you'd think they would at the very least include him in a few photos. While the fan club will likely deny and deny, I'd guess that James was more a prop than a proper boyfriend. Can't imagine James' parents would be thrilled at the prospect of their young adult son being associated with a convicted felon and provisionally convicted murder suspect.

How accommodating a prop is James likely to be? Would he impregnate AK solely to slow her extradition process? Would he allow himself to be implicated as an accessory in aiding in AK's fugitive success? As the parent of a young adult son, I know the kind of advice I would be giving my son if he was James.

By now, AK must be nearly exploding with desire to hit the local bar scene and get drunk and high every weekend, or more often. c-)) Should AK be convicted of murder yet again (my hopes are high she will be), her options will narrow quickly before CoC's final ruling. What will she do? huh-)

1) Run! Just b/c she claimed she wouldn't, doesn't mean she won't.
2) Let her desires to be drunk and high all the time overcome her parents' advice and simply go wild on Seattle streets or anywhere else she chooses to get crazy. drin-)
3) Convince James (or any other male she met a few hours before) that kittens aren't enough incentive to get hundreds of thousands of American muppets to protest her extradition and she needs to be pregnant very soon.
4) Get busy earning more money in any way she can to finance a later fugitive life; her supporters have convinced her she has at least a few years before she'll need to escape the US.

Just for fun: Anyone wish to volunteer ideas for AK to earn copious amounts of cash in a short time? pp-(

I'll start: Call up Vivid Entertainment and propose a video for in-home or online viewing of '40 Naked Yoga poses with Amanda Knox.' Recall that AK is not the least bit ashamed of her nude body -- she has written before she was comfortable talking to a friend's boyfriend while stark naked. la_) AK could even pre-record the part of guitar accompanist as background music, or hire James for that -- he could probably use the work. ser-)

Any other ideas? d-))


Regarding the point of Knox running, where can she run? She is a convicted criminal with a prison history. How many countries would allow her to cross their borders? I know that some countries would permit her to enter the country after a period of five years between release from prison and travel plans, but at this time, wouldn't she have very limited travel opportunities? Looking at similar cases, when Joran van der Sloot fled to Chile to avoid a murder charge in Peru, he expected to be expelled and sent back to Aruba, but he was transported straight to Peru. If Knox fled the US, what country would not happily send her to Italy because of a murder conviction?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks for the clarification regarding direct and circumstantial evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

A new article from Chelsea Hoffman: Are Amanda Knox trolls powered by PR campaign?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:34 pm   Post subject: Re: Ideas for AK to earn money to finance her life on the run!   

Jester wrote:
Slade wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that AK's alleged US boyfriend, James Terrano, seems to have disappeared? He didn't even rate a single photo among those recent Facebook posts. What's wrong with him, doesn't James like kittens? mike Or, does he choose not to be photographed with AK again.

If AK's fan club still desires to portray AK as a steady loyal gal pal to James, you'd think they would at the very least include him in a few photos. While the fan club will likely deny and deny, I'd guess that James was more a prop than a proper boyfriend. Can't imagine James' parents would be thrilled at the prospect of their young adult son being associated with a convicted felon and provisionally convicted murder suspect.

How accommodating a prop is James likely to be? Would he impregnate AK solely to slow her extradition process? Would he allow himself to be implicated as an accessory in aiding in AK's fugitive success? As the parent of a young adult son, I know the kind of advice I would be giving my son if he was James.

By now, AK must be nearly exploding with desire to hit the local bar scene and get drunk and high every weekend, or more often. c-)) Should AK be convicted of murder yet again (my hopes are high she will be), her options will narrow quickly before CoC's final ruling. What will she do? huh-)

1) Run! Just b/c she claimed she wouldn't, doesn't mean she won't.
2) Let her desires to be drunk and high all the time overcome her parents' advice and simply go wild on Seattle streets or anywhere else she chooses to get crazy. drin-)
3) Convince James (or any other male she met a few hours before) that kittens aren't enough incentive to get hundreds of thousands of American muppets to protest her extradition and she needs to be pregnant very soon.
4) Get busy earning more money in any way she can to finance a later fugitive life; her supporters have convinced her she has at least a few years before she'll need to escape the US.

Just for fun: Anyone wish to volunteer ideas for AK to earn copious amounts of cash in a short time? pp-(

I'll start: Call up Vivid Entertainment and propose a video for in-home or online viewing of '40 Naked Yoga poses with Amanda Knox.' Recall that AK is not the least bit ashamed of her nude body -- she has written before she was comfortable talking to a friend's boyfriend while stark naked. la_) AK could even pre-record the part of guitar accompanist as background music, or hire James for that -- he could probably use the work. ser-)

Any other ideas? d-))


Regarding the point of Knox running, where can she run? She is a convicted criminal with a prison history. How many countries would allow her to cross their borders? I know that some countries would permit her to enter the country after a period of five years between release from prison and travel plans, but at this time, wouldn't she have very limited travel opportunities? Looking at similar cases, when Joran van der Sloot fled to Chile to avoid a murder charge in Peru, he expected to be expelled and sent back to Aruba, but he was transported straight to Peru. If Knox fled the US, what country would not happily send her to Italy because of a murder conviction?


Not many. I can think of a few but living in any of those would be worse than being in jail. It is easier to hide from US extradition than Italy extradition. There are more countries with hostile relations to the States than there is to Italy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Try explaining that to the terminally infantile Amandites.


Yes it seems they had (still have) the misguided idea that all murderers must be caught shooting the gun, preferably at police headquarters itself live on TV during the 8 o clock news after having invited about 25 people to witness the event.

Since most murderers do everything they can to avoid leaving clues then guilt must be determined on the basis of circumstantial evidence.


That pretty much sums it up. We are not allowed to draw any logical conclusion. Instead, we should consider other non-incriminating theories, no matter how outlandish they are.

Following the groupie philosophy, whenever Knox gives differing versions of what happened it could be anything except lies and deception. To conclude she was lying will only confirm bias against Knox.

I saw a message on Twitter written by a Knox supporter who conceded Amanda Knox re-invented the phone call to her mother (wrong time, wrong place) in her book Waiting To Be Heard. He said "she was mistaken".

The whole purpose of the book was to "prove" her innocence and give her version of things. According to Knox herself the book was mostly based on written material like her diaries. The research to tiny details must have been extremely easy as everything has been so well documented. How can you then still err in such an important detail, contradicting yourself and your mother and then claim it's just an "oversight"?

They think everyone is as stupid as they are.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

chami wrote:
Nell wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall, thank you for explaining that DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. For some reason, I suppose I too had assumed that DNA evidence was direct evidence, but it isn't. My mistake. DNA evidence is based on probability, unlike eye witness testimony. Fingerprint evidence must also be circumstantial evidence, or is it exact? Other than eye witness testimony, what are other types of direct evidence?


Direct evidence can only be witness testimony from what I understand.

One example is if you see it's raining outside and testify to it, that would be direct evidence. If you see people coming inside the building wearing wet coats, it could be inferred it was raining outside, but that would be circumstantial evidence.

Testimony about witnessing a man shooting another man is direct evidence. Matching a bullet to a gun is circumstantial evidence.

Whenever you have to make an inference it is circumstantial.


Fingerprints and DNA matches cannot be considered direct evidences because they cannot be dated. Any evidence that can be correlated in both space and time is direct evidence. For example, a bloody fingerprint can be considered a direct evidence. In the same way, matching a bullet extracted from the victim's body with a particular gun is a pretty direct evidence (that the gun was the murder weapon). It will be still indirect evidence if you wish to correlate the gun to an accused.

The key is the correlation in both space and time (between the subject and the action).


Thank you Chami. The way you explained it, it is far easier to understand.
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 Oct 21, 2013 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

chami wrote:
Nell wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall, thank you for explaining that DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. For some reason, I suppose I too had assumed that DNA evidence was direct evidence, but it isn't. My mistake. DNA evidence is based on probability, unlike eye witness testimony. Fingerprint evidence must also be circumstantial evidence, or is it exact? Other than eye witness testimony, what are other types of direct evidence?


Direct evidence can only be witness testimony from what I understand.

One example is if you see it's raining outside and testify to it, that would be direct evidence. If you see people coming inside the building wearing wet coats, it could be inferred it was raining outside, but that would be circumstantial evidence.

Testimony about witnessing a man shooting another man is direct evidence. Matching a bullet to a gun is circumstantial evidence.

Whenever you have to make an inference it is circumstantial.


Fingerprints and DNA matches cannot be considered direct evidences because they cannot be dated. Any evidence that can be correlated in both space and time is direct evidence. For example, a bloody fingerprint can be considered a direct evidence. In the same way, matching a bullet extracted from the victim's body with a particular gun is a pretty direct evidence (that the gun was the murder weapon). It will be still indirect evidence if you wish to correlate the gun to an accused.

The key is the correlation in both space and time (between the subject and the action).



That's not quite correct either. A bloody fingerprint may be direct evidence of a fact, like they were present during or shortly after the murder, but not that they committed the murder...to that end, it is purely circumstantial evidence. The same with a bullet matching a gun. It is direct evidence insofar that it proves the gun was the murder weapon, but is not direct evidence that the accused pulled the trigger, it's circumstantial evidence.

_________________
"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: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
chami wrote:
Nell wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall, thank you for explaining that DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. For some reason, I suppose I too had assumed that DNA evidence was direct evidence, but it isn't. My mistake. DNA evidence is based on probability, unlike eye witness testimony. Fingerprint evidence must also be circumstantial evidence, or is it exact? Other than eye witness testimony, what are other types of direct evidence?


Direct evidence can only be witness testimony from what I understand.

One example is if you see it's raining outside and testify to it, that would be direct evidence. If you see people coming inside the building wearing wet coats, it could be inferred it was raining outside, but that would be circumstantial evidence.

Testimony about witnessing a man shooting another man is direct evidence. Matching a bullet to a gun is circumstantial evidence.

Whenever you have to make an inference it is circumstantial.


Fingerprints and DNA matches cannot be considered direct evidences because they cannot be dated. Any evidence that can be correlated in both space and time is direct evidence. For example, a bloody fingerprint can be considered a direct evidence. In the same way, matching a bullet extracted from the victim's body with a particular gun is a pretty direct evidence (that the gun was the murder weapon). It will be still indirect evidence if you wish to correlate the gun to an accused.

The key is the correlation in both space and time (between the subject and the action).



That's not quite correct either. A bloody fingerprint may be direct evidence of a fact, like they were present during or shortly after the murder, but not that they committed the murder...to that end, it is purely circumstantial evidence. The same with a bullet matching a gun. It is direct evidence insofar that it proves the gun was the murder weapon, but is not direct evidence that the accused pulled the trigger, it's circumstantial evidence.


On the other hand, there is considerable doubt on the eye-witness testimonies too.

Please take a look, inter alia, http://www.npr.org/2011/08/29/140039620 ... r-scrutiny. You can also google "reliability of eye witness testimony".

In many senses, provability is a weaker notion than truth. After all, witnesses can be bought. Recordings can be fudged.

I did mention a correlation between the subject and the verb. They must match in space and time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Try explaining that to the terminally infantile Amandites.


Yes it seems they had (still have) the misguided idea that all murderers must be caught shooting the gun, preferably at police headquarters itself live on TV during the 8 o clock news after having invited about 25 people to witness the event.

Since most murderers do everything they can to avoid leaving clues then guilt must be determined on the basis of circumstantial evidence.


That pretty much sums it up. We are not allowed to draw any logical conclusion. Instead, we should consider other non-incriminating theories, no matter how outlandish they are.

Following the groupie philosophy, whenever Knox gives differing versions of what happened it could be anything except lies and deception. To conclude she was lying will only confirm bias against Knox.

I saw a message on Twitter written by a Knox supporter who conceded Amanda Knox re-invented the phone call to her mother (wrong time, wrong place) in her book Waiting To Be Heard. He said "she was mistaken".

The whole purpose of the book was to "prove" her innocence and give her version of things. According to Knox herself the book was mostly based on written material like her diaries. The research to tiny details must have been extremely easy as everything has been so well documented. How can you then still err in such an important detail, contradicting yourself and your mother and then claim it's just an "oversight"?

They think everyone is as stupid as they are.



Good points, indeed, that very part of it all left Knox's mother standing perplexed, mouth agape, unable to come up with what to say next in a full courthouse and in full view of the world, mother obviously knew what she was saying and it slipped out, in a way that Knox couldn't/didn't want to answer and so she acted like it never happened, when it is documented as fact in the case.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Chami wrote:
On the other hand, there is considerable doubt on the eye-witness testimonies too.

Please take a look, inter alia, http://www.npr.org/2011/08/29/140039620 ... r-scrutiny. You can also google "reliability of eye witness testimony".

In many senses, provability is a weaker notion than truth. After all, witnesses can be bought. Recordings can be fudged.

I did mention a correlation between the subject and the verb. They must match in space and time.



Well, yes, direct evidence is often weaker then indirect evidence, due to the fallibility and corruptibility of individuals, or prejudices that prevents some being believed by juries and judges.

_________________
"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 jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

A good example of direct evidence - as good as it gets - would be the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby captured on camera and in front of multiple police witnesses and journalists at Dallas police headquarters.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jape wrote:
A good example of direct evidence - as good as it gets - would be the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby captured on camera and in front of multiple police witnesses and journalists at Dallas police headquarters.


Hi Jape and a belated welcome to the forum from me.

That is indeed a very good example of direct evidence. I have read though that direct evidence is not that common and that most cases, including murder cases, are decided and judged on circumstantial evidence.

Knox's supporters suggest that circumstantial evidence is weak or not evidence at all, but that is simply wrong.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Art. 61. Italian Penal Code _ Aggravating circumstances.

The following circumstances aggravate the offence when they are constituents or special aggravating circumstances:
1) having acted for abject or futile motives;
2) committing the offence to perform or hiding another — to achieve or ensure oneself or others the product or profit or price or the impunity of another offence;
3) having, in intentional crimes, acted despite the anticipation of the event;
4) have used tortured, or acted with cruelty to people;
5) having profited circumstances of time, place or person, including in relation to age, such as to interfere with public or private defence; (1)
6) having the offender committed the offence during the time in which it is taken voluntarily to the execution of a warrant or an order for arrest or imprisonment or arrest, sent for a previous offence.
7) having, in crimes against property or assets, or offend in certain crimes for reasons of profit, caused the person offended by the crime capital of damage severity;
8) have compounded or tried to aggravate the consequences of the crime committed;
9) having committed the fact with misuse of powers, or violation of the duties inherent in a public function or public service, i.e. the Minister of worship;
10) having committed made against a public official or a person in charge of a public service, or quality of coated Minister of Catholic worship or cult admitted in the State, or against a diplomatic or consular agent of a foreign State, or because of the fulfilment of functions or services;
11) having committed with abuse of authority or of domestic relations, with abuse of Office relationships, work performance, cohabitation, or hospitality;
11-bis) having the offender committed the fact while illegally on the national territory; (2) (3)
11-ter) the committing of a crime against the person of a minor within or in the vicinity of schools or education; (4)
11-c) having the offender committed a crime of manslaughter not during the time when he was admitted to a measure alternative to detention in prison. (5)

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

How ironic would it be if the American is successfully returned to face punishment, and the Italian remains somewhat successfully hidden beneath a palm frond somewhere?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:50 pm   Post subject: Re: Ideas for AK to earn money to finance her life on the run!   

Ergon wrote:
Slade wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that AK's alleged US boyfriend, James Terrano, seems to have disappeared? He didn't even rate a single photo among those recent Facebook posts. What's wrong with him, doesn't James like kittens? mike Or, does he choose not to be photographed with AK again.

Just for fun: Anyone wish to volunteer ideas for AK to earn copious amounts of cash in a short time? pp-(

I'll start: Call up Vivid Entertainment and propose a video for in-home or online viewing of '40 Naked Yoga poses with Amanda Knox.' Recall that AK is not the least bit ashamed of her nude body -- she has written before she was comfortable talking to a friend's boyfriend while stark naked. la_) AK could even pre-record the part of guitar accompanist as background music, or hire James for that -- he could probably use the work. ser-)

Any other ideas? d-))


The friend whose boyfriend she didn't mind talking with while she was stark naked. Typical dominance maneuver. Would that be the same friend she played the fake "rape prank" on with mask wearing bozoz?


Typical dominance maneuver -- good call; AK didn't seem to have many 'normal' female friends, she probably viewed them as disposable. This same 'dominance maneuver' is also what's driving AK's ongoing stated desire to visit Meredith's grave. For AK, a final recognition of her triumph over a person who rebuffed her attempts at friendship, as AK knows it anyway.

With pressure of a verdict approaching, wonder how much longer AK can 'act' like a normal person? That's why I keep hinting we should expect to see some seams ripping apart soon. s-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, Slade, well her disrespect to the Kerchers has not gone unnoted, nor has her callunnia against Patrick and refusal to pay the 40,000 Euros he was awarded. So there he is in court and in the media, a reminder of another victim of Knox's narcissistic desire to dominate and punish anyone that crossed her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: Ideas for AK to earn money to finance her life on the run!   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
Slade wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that AK's alleged US boyfriend, James Terrano, seems to have disappeared? He didn't even rate a single photo among those recent Facebook posts. What's wrong with him, doesn't James like kittens? mike Or, does he choose not to be photographed with AK again.

1) Run! Just b/c she claimed she wouldn't, doesn't mean she won't.
2) Let her desires to be drunk and high all the time overcome her parents' advice and simply go wild on Seattle streets or anywhere else she chooses to get crazy. drin-)
3) Convince James (or any other male she met a few hours before) that kittens aren't enough incentive to get hundreds of thousands of American muppets to protest her extradition and she needs to be pregnant very soon.
4) Get busy earning more money in any way she can to finance a later fugitive life; her supporters have convinced her she has at least a few years before she'll need to escape the US.


Regarding the point of Knox running, where can she run? She is a convicted criminal with a prison history. How many countries would allow her to cross their borders? I know that some countries would permit her to enter the country after a period of five years between release from prison and travel plans, but at this time, wouldn't she have very limited travel opportunities? Looking at similar cases, when Joran van der Sloot fled to Chile to avoid a murder charge in Peru, he expected to be expelled and sent back to Aruba, but he was transported straight to Peru. If Knox fled the US, what country would not happily send her to Italy because of a murder conviction?


Not many. I can think of a few but living in any of those would be worse than being in jail. It is easier to hide from US extradition than Italy extradition. There are more countries with hostile relations to the States than there is to Italy.


Jester, I'm familiar with Joran van der Sloot case since Natalee Holloway was living in my 'neck of the woods' when she was murdered. There was not enough evidence to charge Joran with Natalee's murder in Aruba, but there was significant 'direct' circumstantial evidence (video of Joran leaving room of Stephany Flores Ramirez) to drag his sorry butt back to Peru. Of course, you probably know this already.

Don't be so quick to ignore what an adventurous soul AK is. Here's a 20-year-old eager to escape her family and party hearty in Italy -- that takes confidence in herself. AK had an interest in foreign languages early on, and you don't learn a foreign language to hang out in Seattle near the family.

Escaping to a foreign country doesn't mean she will succeed in hiding long-term, but I think there's a good chance she'll try; it's who she is. Securing false documents and changing her appearance sufficiently to escape detection isn't that difficult, as long as she does it before the extradition order is put into effect, her chances are improved to leave the US to seek a country that doesn't care to expend the resources to seek her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
How ironic would it be if the American is successfully returned to face punishment, and the Italian remains somewhat successfully hidden beneath a palm frond somewhere?


As an American who believes AK was the instigator, and Meredith's murder would not have happened without her direct involvement, I think it would be hilarious and wonderful for the narcissistic sociopath AK to be sent to an Italian prison for 20+ years even if Raffaele remains free for years after the order.
Hey, I realize RS is culpable too, and the two of them set each other off, but IMO AK would have found another method of harming Meredith if she had never met RS.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
If she were to sign herself in voluntarily to a psychiatric unit for severe depression and PTSD, I think that insurance on a parent's policy is good until the age of 26, so she'd need to have her own insurance.


AK is very concerned with how 'others' see her, and certifiably insane is not how she wants others to see her. Of course, we know she would prefer to be seen as innocent, failing that, I think she'd prefer to be invisible -- like gone.

Napia5 wrote:
Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.


Not the type of person who would pose for 'naked pictures' but in your opinion is she the type of person who can murder a housemate and keep lying about what she did for six years? Worse, accuse an innocent man of the murder! AK is an extrovert, she'd love to do a nude video with her demonstrating yoga. She's just concerned with how 'others' would view her for doing it, not that she's above doing it.



Slade, you wrote; as fun the following ideas
(words to that effect)

You then write something about Knox wanting to do nude yoga videos.

When Napia sees nothing in it, you say it was tongue in cheek, you then write in what I see as a condescending tone back to her, because you could KNOW what she thinks about Knox and the murder, therefore you have no need at all to ask her, nor word things that way (AT HER), especially where you take it from being an, in your words, 'for fun' thing, then get all serious as in stating it as a fact that Knox does want to do this.
I think your idea is really full of shit.

Knox is not about to start doing nude yoga videos, what are you thinking? saying this is really unhelpful since her family, and her lot and her too, try to make out there was nothing of any sex thing involved, if you start writing crap like this you will let them feel like they were right about everyone saying ridiculous stuff about Knox? Because this particular fun idea of yours that you then stated as fact is bullshit.

Do you think it is helpful to state it as as though it is a fact that she wants to do that?

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

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Art. 61. Italian Penal Code _ Aggravating circumstances.

The following circumstances aggravate the offence when they are constituents or special aggravating circumstances:
1) having acted for abject or futile motives;
2) committing the offence to perform or hiding another — to achieve or ensure oneself or others the product or profit or price or the impunity of another offence;


The first circumstance listed of having acted for futile motives would definitely be fitting as an aggravated circumstance for this murder case. As a narcissistic sociopath, AK may have committed murder for no better reason than her bedroom was the smallest of four bedrooms in the rented cottage. Even something as insignificant as bedroom size would set off a rage in a narcissist.

And concerning 2) since I still believe AK & RS stole Meredith's rent money in the late afternoon on Nov. 1st to buy drugs, the murder and staged burglary would have covered up that initial crime. In fact, after reading Marcello's comprehensive timeline on TJMK - the most recent lead article, I'm even more convinced Meredith's murder was premeditated, there wasn't much time between the arrival of AK, RS, & RG to the cottage before the murder for them to get into an argument that progressed and led to violence. The violent confrontation would have to have been premeditated and for AK, a preplanned outcome of murder for her rival. ta-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox's KING KONG appearances tonight. Reminds me of the giant ape KING KONG ;)

Linda Byron ‏@LByronK5 1h

Quote:
First story runs tonight at 10 on KONG & 11 on KING. Find out why Knox is saying thank you to Seattle. #amandaknox


Attachment:
Amanda Knox - Her Life Now.jpg


Local TV Station to Air Amanda Knox Interview

SKY VALLEY CHRONICLE

Attachment:
Amanda Knox with Linda Byron.jpg


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

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Slade wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
If she were to sign herself in voluntarily to a psychiatric unit for severe depression and PTSD, I think that insurance on a parent's policy is good until the age of 26, so she'd need to have her own insurance.


AK is very concerned with how 'others' see her, and certifiably insane is not how she wants others to see her. Of course, we know she would prefer to be seen as innocent, failing that, I think she'd prefer to be invisible -- like gone.

Napia5 wrote:
Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.


Not the type of person who would pose for 'naked pictures' but in your opinion is she the type of person who can murder a housemate and keep lying about what she did for six years? Worse, accuse an innocent man of the murder! AK is an extrovert, she'd love to do a nude video with her demonstrating yoga. She's just concerned with how 'others' would view her for doing it, not that she's above doing it.



Slade, you wrote; as fun the following ideas
(words to that effect)

You then write something about Knox wanting to do nude yoga videos.

When Napia sees nothing in it, you say it was tongue in cheek, you then write in what I see as a condescending tone back to her, because you could KNOW what she thinks about Knox and the murder, therefore you have no need at all to ask her, nor word things that way (AT HER), especially where you take it from being an, in your words, 'for fun' thing, then get all serious as in stating it as a fact that Knox does want to do this.
I think your idea is really full of shit.

Knox is not about to start doing nude yoga videos, what are you thinking? saying this is really unhelpful since her family, and her lot and her too, try to make out there was nothing of any sex thing involved, if you start writing crap like this you will let them feel like they were right about everyone saying ridiculous stuff about Knox? Because this particular fun idea of yours that you then stated as fact is bullshit.

Do you think it is helpful to state it as as though it is a fact that she wants to do that?


Zorba, I'm going to do my utmost not to become defensive at your 'tone.' I have read posts here for a couple of years, therefore, Napia didn't have to reply that she was confident of AK's guilt -- I already knew she was.

I've noticed, in the past, some of the posters here have exchanged funny ideas or had playful contests like writing limericks, iirc, Napia5 was good at rhyming lines. Certainly didn't see the harm of exchanging some funny ideas re: what AK would do for earnings now that her blood money book has failed miserably.

In the US there is company called Vivid Entertainment, famous, or infamous, for offering large amounts of money for adult entertainment provided by notorious females. With that company in mind, my proposed funny idea for AK doing a nude yoga video germinated. Considering what we know of AK's personality and reports of her doing yoga for male friends of the guys in the second floor apartment, solely to show off her body, (come on, AK knew the guys weren't interested in learning yoga), it doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to assume that AK would be fine doing this for a huge payout. Of course, her family would oppose the idea as a stupid move, but AK's an adult, and just look at where listening to her family has gotten AK so far.

Plus, put AK in the situation of another guilty verdict, and who's to say what she would do? With the prospect of spending your next 20 years in prison, her choices might surprise even her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
How ironic would it be if the American is successfully returned to face punishment, and the Italian remains somewhat successfully hidden beneath a palm frond somewhere?


As an American who believes AK was the instigator, and Meredith's murder would not have happened without her direct involvement, I think it would be hilarious and wonderful for the narcissistic sociopath AK to be sent to an Italian prison for 20+ years even if Raffaele remains free for years after the order.
Hey, I realize RS is culpable too, and the two of them set each other off, but IMO AK would have found another method of harming Meredith if she had never met RS.


FWIW, Slade, and given that RS was said to have attacked a girl at his school with scissors (denied by the principal when Insp. Volturno tried to check this out) and knowing of his predilection for knives and bestiality porn, I think he was another Joran Van Der Sloot waiting to come out. But yes, he needed this confluence of meeting with AK to create this tragedy.

The two are doomed to go through life being joined at the hip with their joint karma, like Banks and Hindley, or Barnardo and Homolka. His only chance would be to return to Italy and confess, but, barring that, I agree the two will do a bunk.

I like to believe that just as the spirit of Natalee Holloway might finally have found peace at the capture and imprisonment of Van Der Sloot, so too will Meredith Kercher finally know peace when AK and RS are found guilty for their crimes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Kudos to McCall and the editors of the Meredith Kercher Wiki. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... se_from_o/

It's a wonder that so many have come to appreciate it so quickly, or that a few, well, remaining Amandites still attack it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox's KING KONG appearances tonight. Reminds me of the giant ape KING KONG ;)


Looks like they've brought out the little dove pendant for this one -- must be important.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Iodine wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox's KING KONG appearances tonight. Reminds me of the giant ape KING KONG ;)


Looks like they've brought out the little dove pendant for this one -- must be important.


Don't forget the book background.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

These newscasts aren't half hour long, are they? I'm getting the impression that they are like a human interest spot on local news. Maybe 3 minutes give or take?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
These newscasts aren't half hour long, are they? I'm getting the impression that they are like a human interest spot on local news. Maybe 3 minutes give or take?


Frankly, I cannot take more nonsense from Amanda Knox, even if it comes in three minutes segments.

When she said the Kerchers could only get closure if they acknowledged HER pain and visited Meredith's grave together with her, I lost all my interest.

Everything she has ever said regarding her relationship to Meredith and begged the public and jury to believe her that she indeed was Meredith's friend was exposed as a lie when she showed her coldheartedness and callousness in her interviews.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

For your information

The domains www.friendsofamanda.org and www.amandadefensefund.org have both expired.

This comes as a surprise as Bruce Fischer's Paypal button, collecting donations for Knox, is still active and Knox takes every opportunity to be in the limelight. I would not have thought that this is the best moment for her to make her presence in the world wide web disappear.

Image

Image
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

We can't even keep our sites up!

SEND MONEY
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Iodine wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox's KING KONG appearances tonight. Reminds me of the giant ape KING KONG ;)


Looks like they've brought out the little dove pendant for this one -- must be important.


Don't forget the book background.


If you look closely you can see the title, "So You Want to Rig a Criminal Trial"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The "Friends Of Amanda" website expired on October 21, 2013 and the website for her defence fund expires only on November 3, 2013, but it is already taken down. The cost for the domain registration and server hosting are separate, so in that case maybe the contract for the server hosting ran out.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Where has Raffy been lately, why so quiet? He has been conspicuously absent from TV screens, or "just gone" for seems like 2 1/2 + weeks. Looming in the background, certainly. Cash slow to come in; he made a renewed appeal for donations just 2 days ago:

Attachment:
Donate.JPG


With "warmth [sic] affection"?

Mike Heavey has sent another $100 (his donation #3; he has donated a combined total of $500)

Attachment:
Judge Heavey donation 3.JPG


He is so right: "a case of mass delusion"... on the part of Knox and Sollecito's supporters.


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Only $100 this month from Judge Michael Heavey? What a disappointment!

I bet Sollecito is already looking for another place to hide.

His father said in Porta-A-Porta his son would be present for the next hearing on November 6. I believe it when I see it. So far nothing but lame excuses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Did anyone listen to Brucie's conversation with the mysterious Luca Cheli tonight? You can still catch the podcast at BlogTalkRadio if you have a spare hour and a half, that is. You can do some light exercise or stretching, as well as cartwheels and yoga, while listening, to keep yourself from falling asleep ;)

Injustice Anywhere wrote:
On this week's show we will be continuing our discussion of the Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito case. This week’s scheduled guest is Luca Cheli from Turin, Italy. Luca will discuss his view of the case from his perspective as an Italian citizen. Our topics will include: the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling to send the case back to the appellate level, aspects of Italian law pertinent to this case, the current legal status of Amanda and Raffaele in Italy, and the current appeal trial taking place in Florence Italy.


BLOGTALKRADIO
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

KING Live Stream

http://www.king5.com/live-stream

Coming up @ 10:30pm (PDT) (in ~ 10 minutes)

Attachment:
Amanda Knox Her Life Now.JPG


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:38 am   Post subject: WIKIPEDIA SOCK PUPPETRY   

Wikipedia admits to sock puppetry Wikipedia bans 250 sock accounts says "250 sock puppets have been "blocked or banned" after being found to have carried out "non-neutral editing" of Wikipedia pages."

Ya think?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
These newscasts aren't half hour long, are they? I'm getting the impression that they are like a human interest spot on local news. Maybe 3 minutes give or take?


Yes, you guessed it right; it was 7 minutes long. No pictures of kittens. No earth-shattering revelations. Just apparently Business as Usual for Amanda "I'm Innocent" Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Part 1 of the King5 interview (7 min 45 sec video):

Amanda Knox: 'This is where I feel safe'

KING5 VIDEO

Amanda Knox wrote:
"They find a young woman, a beautiful young woman stripped of her clothing, murdered, in a position that looks like she was sexually violated. And they took that information and tried to fit another young woman into the scenario," Knox said. "And the only way you do that is to create a person of evil who is capable of doing that to their own friend. ... They had to make up a person and make that person be me."


Amanda Knox wrote:
"I didn't understand that they suspected me. I never would have imagined that they suspected me. I literally thought that the reason I was there was that I was the closest person to Meredith."


And so forth, blah blah blah blah blah. Actually, I left out a bunch of blahs, but you get the idea. She continued in the same blah vein until the end of the pre-taped segment. p-(((
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. G-Man Steve Moore & others rent a room!   

McCall wrote:
Slade wrote:
guermantes wrote:
G-man Steve Moore on Friday announced this on Twitter:

Steve Moore ‏@Gman_Moore 18 Oct

I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case on 10/30 (with Judge Mike Heavey, FBI Profiler John Douglas and atty John Q. Kelly).

https://twitter.com/Gman_Moore


My goodness, is the same Congressional Briefing stunt those delusional supporters shouted about before? So what, Senator Maria Cantwell gives them permission to rent a room in a nearby facility and they sit around hoping for somebody, anybody, to wander in and ask them why they are there.

They're intentionally trying to portray this stunt as a valid Congressional-style hearing with a room full of concerned US Congressional Representatives who are supposedly interested in the fate of AK. What a laugh riot! Who are they trying to convince with this -- Raffaele Sollecito and his dad, AK supporters, or others who are only marginally interested in what happens to AK? sun-)


I found the congressional briefing being portrayed as a congressional hearing as confusing. Congressional briefings are nothing and no one that matters is going to show up. So why misrepresent it? It seems like misguided PR by someone who doesn't know what they are doing. There is no strategy that could get them what they want but their current strategy will actually make things worse.


You're confused because you think Steve Moore et al. are doing this on behalf of Knox. They are not. All these people are cut from the same cloth as someone like, say, Sarah Palin. Whatever hobby horse they are ardently riding at any given time -- be it Christianity, Knox, or Obamacare -- it is completely irrelevant with regard to their underlying motivation. Those hobby horses are nothing but props they trot out in their ongoing effort to:

1. elevate their social status
2. line their pockets

In other words, they are engaged in a relentless campaign of self-aggrandizement.

I don't mean to impune their character with this analysis. In fact, I don't think any of them possesses the level of intelligence or self awareness necessary to understand their own motivations. So it isn't really their fault.

However, when Steve Moore tweets something as grossly disingenuous as "I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case", he had to make a conscious decision to be that dishonest. It would be like me tweeting "Hey guys, I'm playing a double header against the Yankees next Saturday" when what I'm really doing is playing two games of shuffleboard against a couple of old friends who were Yankees bat-boys in the 1970s.

Obviously, he knew he was lying to his readers. So, yeah, he is a total ass-hat. But he's a delusional ass-hat who's fully capable of rationalizing his ass-hatery as something done for a worthy cause. In reality, he's just too stupid to recognize that what he's really doing is worshiping his idol: Steve Moore.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Iodine wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox's KING KONG appearances tonight. Reminds me of the giant ape KING KONG ;)


Looks like they've brought out the little dove pendant for this one -- must be important.


Don't forget the book background.


Haha! The ever-present bookcase was the first thing I noticed.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Kudos to McCall and the editors of the Meredith Kercher Wiki. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... se_from_o/

It's a wonder that so many have come to appreciate it so quickly, or that a few, well, remaining Amandites still attack it.


I second that emotion. I wish there had been such a thorough and well designed repository of information when I was first learning about this case. You all have made a lasting tribute to justice and to Meredith's memory.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
These newscasts aren't half hour long, are they? I'm getting the impression that they are like a human interest spot on local news. Maybe 3 minutes give or take?


Frankly, I cannot take more nonsense from Amanda Knox, even if it comes in three minutes segments.

I hear you Nell. I really haven't been able to stomach any of the propaganda since Hellman. Which brings me to something Michael said earlier:

Michael wrote:
What surprises me, is how the US media keeps ramming the case (or their version of it) down the public's throats, when there is relatively little public interest in the case and even less public outrage at Knox's plight. It's as though the media are trying to force the public to be interested in the case and sympathetic to Knox.

Not sure why you are surprised Michael. It's right there on the Gogerty Marriott web page under the "What We Do" tab:
Knox's PR Man wrote:
Understanding what makes the media tick can be essential to the success of many high-profile projects. Gogerty Marriott helps clients develop media plans that provide reporters and editors with information needed to understand the issues and to help clients communicate appropriately when there is controversy. Some of the instrumental elements in these plans include:
  • Briefings with reporters and editorial writers
  • Events that attract favorable news coverage
  • Media kits including press releases, fact sheets and Q and As
  • Producing and placing op-eds
  • Letters to the editor campaigns
  • Placement of positive stories
  • Media training for client spokespersons and message preparation
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade

I haven't read any reports abbout Knox doing yoga for her male friends on the (a) second floor.

You did not reply to (Ergon I think) the question, posed to you, in reponse to what you wrote, about her talking to the boyfriend of one of her friends, whilst being totally naked.

If you make it clear you are on about there it'd be less confusing.

I am not American, I don't know about Vivid Entertainment, though Knox has definitely done crazy looking things, I still think any idea of what you proposed is ridiculous.

The thing about her being naked, as I recall, was in the context of her in the cottage in Perugia and roaming about nude while one of the Italian girl's boyfriends was there.

I know that in America there are extreme levels of prudency, where nudism is not allowed, or hardly anywhere, where even topless bathing is forbidden, yet the porn industry is the biggest in the world, however, the thing about being nude and its significance has everything to do with the setting, on a beach people have little on, perhaps nothing on, talk to one another (in Europe plenty of places to go swimming outside at lakes, etc, where many people bathe naked) and then that's normal but in the household setting, if people walk about naked or answer the door that way it's a different thing. So I can see that her prancing about naked in a house would have been weird.
Only thing I heard about, was that she did this in Perugia, is that what you were referring to?

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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
--- snip ---

I haven't read any reports abbout Knox doing yoga for her male friends on the (a) second floor.

--- snap ---


Hi Zorba,


According to Follain Meredith confided in Sophie that Amanda Knox was craving constant attention. She told her that when the boys from the downstairs flat came over for a drink, Amanda started doing yoga poses in front of everyone. Meredith felt she was showing off.

Follain interviewed the Mellas family and Deanna described a very similar episode even though she claimed quirky Amanda wasn't aware the guys were staring at her.


EDIT: The conversation with Sophie is on page 33 in Follain and Deanna's story is on page 16.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What happened to the men in Knox's life:





Image

picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Adjusted image to fix forum width
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

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

I haven't read any reports abbout Knox doing yoga for her male friends on the (a) second floor.

--- snap ---


Hi Zorba,


According to Follain Meredith confided in Sophie that Amanda Knox was craving constant attention. She told her that when the boys from the downstairs flat came over for a drink, Amanda started doing yoga poses in front of everyone. Meredith felt she was showing off.

Follain interviewed the Mellas family and Deanna described a very similar episode even though she claimed quirky Amanda wasn't aware the guys were staring at her.


EDIT: The conversation with Sophie is on page 33 in Follain and Deanna's story is on page 16.



Thanks for explaining I didn't make the connection to second floor, as in, in the cottage, I can indeed imagine her showing off, only I really do not see her going off and joining up to an adult movie enterprise, not now, though I often did imagine that somewhere online there's stuff from her that would really show what she is all about, because she definitely was into some weird shit, her story that was found online, typifies that, okay someone could write such a thing, but as a young girl and some kind of first story, very, very creepy, and horrible to read as well.

I also believe the things Meredith's friends said reveal the truth.

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Part 1 of the King5 interview (7 min 45 sec video):

Amanda Knox: 'This is where I feel safe'

KING5 VIDEO

Amanda Knox wrote:
"They find a young woman, a beautiful young woman stripped of her clothing, murdered, in a position that looks like she was sexually violated. And they took that information and tried to fit another young woman into the scenario," Knox said. "And the only way you do that is to create a person of evil who is capable of doing that to their own friend. ... They had to make up a person and make that person be me."


Amanda Knox wrote:
"I didn't understand that they suspected me. I never would have imagined that they suspected me. I literally thought that the reason I was there was that I was the closest person to Meredith."


And so forth, blah blah blah blah blah. Actually, I left out a bunch of blahs, but you get the idea. She continued in the same blah vein until the end of the pre-taped segment. p-(((


Thanks for the link. I listened to the interview and she is still with the pronouns. "They". Who is "They"? Is she talking about the mid-evil prosecutor, the police, the greeters at Wal-Mart? Is she trying to create the image of a collective, corrupt Italy, or is she trying to distance herself from her own narrative? Probably both.

Poor story telling, IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. G-Man Steve Moore & others rent a room!   

Itchy Brother wrote:
McCall wrote:
Slade wrote:
guermantes wrote:
G-man Steve Moore on Friday announced this on Twitter:

Steve Moore ‏@Gman_Moore 18 Oct

I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case on 10/30 (with Judge Mike Heavey, FBI Profiler John Douglas and atty John Q. Kelly).

https://twitter.com/Gman_Moore


My goodness, is the same Congressional Briefing stunt those delusional supporters shouted about before? So what, Senator Maria Cantwell gives them permission to rent a room in a nearby facility and they sit around hoping for somebody, anybody, to wander in and ask them why they are there.

They're intentionally trying to portray this stunt as a valid Congressional-style hearing with a room full of concerned US Congressional Representatives who are supposedly interested in the fate of AK. What a laugh riot! Who are they trying to convince with this -- Raffaele Sollecito and his dad, AK supporters, or others who are only marginally interested in what happens to AK? sun-)


I found the congressional briefing being portrayed as a congressional hearing as confusing. Congressional briefings are nothing and no one that matters is going to show up. So why misrepresent it? It seems like misguided PR by someone who doesn't know what they are doing. There is no strategy that could get them what they want but their current strategy will actually make things worse.


You're confused because you think Steve Moore et al. are doing this on behalf of Knox. They are not. All these people are cut from the same cloth as someone like, say, Sarah Palin. Whatever hobby horse they are ardently riding at any given time -- be it Christianity, Knox, or Obamacare -- it is completely irrelevant with regard to their underlying motivation. Those hobby horses are nothing but props they trot out in their ongoing effort to:

1. elevate their social status
2. line their pockets

In other words, they are engaged in a relentless campaign of self-aggrandizement.

I don't mean to impune their character with this analysis. In fact, I don't think any of them possesses the level of intelligence or self awareness necessary to understand their own motivations. So it isn't really their fault.

However, when Steve Moore tweets something as grossly disingenuous as "I'm scheduled to brief congress on the Amanda Knox case", he had to make a conscious decision to be that dishonest. It would be like me tweeting "Hey guys, I'm playing a double header against the Yankees next Saturday" when what I'm really doing is playing two games of shuffleboard against a couple of old friends who were Yankees bat-boys in the 1970s.

Obviously, he knew he was lying to his readers. So, yeah, he is a total ass-hat. But he's a delusional ass-hat who's fully capable of rationalizing his ass-hatery as something done for a worthy cause. In reality, he's just too stupid to recognize that what he's really doing is worshiping his idol: Steve Moore.


Hi, Itchy! All the blah de blah and congress briefing begs one simple question: Would I want Steve Moore and Michael Heavey to speak on my behalf to congress?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

By the way, did I catch a glimpse of the "Official Court Letterhead" from the letter that caused Heavey to receive a reprimand for using this stationery? No mention though, of the embarrassment that this caused. Hmmm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The Court letterhead, or the "From The Chambers" er, bedroom of J. Michael Heavey, with his home address on it? :)

Regardless, he promised not to use his office to promote this case, then broke his promise by inflicting the same presentation on bored Rotarians from Walla Walla, WA to Yakima and Hawaii. The basement visitor's room, er, Congressional Briefing room, becomes him.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Funny to see the site wot follows us insisting that 'the C&V report has not been tossed out' which is true, of course, Judge Nencini ruled that he wasn't going to rule on it when pressed by the prosecutor on Day 1. The Supreme Court made it clear what it thought of their work, 'nuf said, and I am sure that Florence has taken that to heart. But Stefanoni's findings of Meredith's DNA are also in play. So, no to 'contamination' or LCN DNA, but that IS Meredith's DNA on trace B unless whatever the whackadoodles on Sollecito's team can come up with now is really definitive (I can hardly wait for photos of his "chewed fingernails" to surface :) and, Judge Massei's ruling also stands, until Nencini rules, and it will be either murder or manslaughter, and sentences awarded accordingly.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
The Court letterhead, or the "From The Chambers" er, bedroom of J. Michael Heavey, with his home address on it? :)

Regardless, he promised not to use his office to promote this case, then broke his promise by inflicting the same presentation on bored Rotarians from Walla Walla, WA to Yakima and Hawaii. The basement visitor's room, er, Congressional Briefing room, becomes him.


Yes, at 4:28 in the interview, I see "From the Chambers", but, at 4:30, doesn't it show the Superior Court?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yeah there were two letters, I think. One that gave his official address, the other his home :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Then there's his letters to Congress, President Obama, the President of Italy, etc etc etc.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Iodine wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Iodine wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox's KING KONG appearances tonight. Reminds me of the giant ape KING KONG ;)


Looks like they've brought out the little dove pendant for this one -- must be important.


Don't forget the book background.


If you look closely you can see the title, "So You Want to Rig a Criminal Trial"


I listened to the first KINGKONG interview segment about an hour ago, couldn't tell y'all a thing I recall from it -- just blah, blah, "I didn't kill my friend", more blah, blah, blah... :shock:
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Slade

I haven't read any reports abbout Knox doing yoga for her male friends on the (a) second floor.


I see Nell answered this...thanks, Nell...I have John Follain's Death in Perugia and read all the unflattering things many said about AK. Showing off by singing loudly, playing guitar, and doing yoga poses to get attention were just a few things AK did to get constant attention.

zorba wrote:
You did not reply to (Ergon I think) the question, posed to you, in reponse to what you wrote, about her talking to the boyfriend of one of her friends, whilst being totally naked.


Look back upthread, Ergon and I exchanged comments re: AK's 'Dominance maneuvers'
Ergon didn't use 'quote' on his reply, but I saw his comment and certainly agreed with him.

zorba wrote:
I am not American, I don't know about Vivid Entertainment, though Knox has definitely done crazy looking things, I still think any idea of what you proposed is ridiculous.


The 'idea' of a video by AK was supposed to be a starter idea as an invitation to others to throw out any other funny ideas they had for AK to go about earning some $$$ for a potential life-on-the-run. I wasn't expecting the idea to be critiqued and picked apart. Although I wouldn't have suggested it at all unless I believed there was a small chance AK would 'bite' at a multi-million dollar payday from such a video if proposed by Vivid Entertainment, or proposed to them.

zorba wrote:
I know that in America there are extreme levels of prudency, where nudism is not allowed, or hardly anywhere, where even topless bathing is forbidden, yet the porn industry is the biggest in the world, however, the thing about being nude and its significance has everything to do with the setting, on a beach people have little on, perhaps nothing on, talk to one another (in Europe plenty of places to go swimming outside at lakes, etc, where many people bathe naked) and then that's normal but in the household setting, if people walk about naked or answer the door that way it's a different thing. So I can see that her prancing about naked in a house would have been weird.
Only thing I heard about, was that she did this in Perugia, is that what you were referring to?


I'm referring to AK's constant need for male attention, in the US, and in Italy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:
zorba wrote:
Slade

I haven't read any reports abbout Knox doing yoga for her male friends on the (a) second floor.


zorba wrote:
I am not American, I don't know about Vivid Entertainment, though Knox has definitely done crazy looking things, I still think any idea of what you proposed is ridiculous.


The 'idea' of a video by AK was supposed to be a starter idea as an invitation to others to throw out any other funny ideas they had for AK to go about earning some $$$ for a potential life-on-the-run. I wasn't expecting the idea to be critiqued and picked apart. Although I wouldn't have suggested it at all unless I believed there was a small chance AK would 'bite' at a multi-million dollar payday from such a video if proposed by Vivid Entertainment, or proposed to them.

.


Yes, the more you try to explain it, the more ridiculous it sounds Slade, because obviously she is never going to do such a thing after all of the stuff she and her team have tried to deny in relation to sex and that angle attached to the case.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
I know that in America there are extreme levels of prudency, where nudism is not allowed, or hardly anywhere, where even topless bathing is forbidden, yet the porn industry is the biggest in the world, however, the thing about being nude and its significance has everything to do with the setting, on a beach people have little on, perhaps nothing on, talk to one another (in Europe plenty of places to go swimming outside at lakes, etc, where many people bathe naked) and then that's normal but in the household setting, if people walk about naked or answer the door that way it's a different thing. So I can see that her prancing about naked in a house would have been weird.
Only thing I heard about, was that she did this in Perugia, is that what you were referring to?


Slade wrote:
I'm referring to AK's constant need for male attention, in the US, and in Italy.


Yes, I see, that has been one of the most obvious elements and I do not think it is related to sex, primarily, but sex is a powerful tool, I reckon her need to get attention goes back to some childhood stuff, that made Knox very unsure and insecure, and that's why she was always out achieving (as a way to feel that she was worthy but she never did), as far as that achieving was perceived in Seattle, but I see a true nervousness all about her, to me this very thing is the real reason she reacts as she does and has, and I think this thing about Knox (the bit that nobody who knows her will talk about properly) was the reason Meredith was murdered, whether planned or not.

Any ideas on that about the roots of the problem? as there is more to a thing than what we get to see, clearly, and to my mind there are always real reasons, somewhere, as to why people act like maniacs, no matter how much they are mashed up and just seem to do these horrid acts at random. I'm particularly interested in the underlying mechanisms, they are the bits that will make it all make sense.

I have my views on that, much through what I've observed through the years and experienced, interacting with people. Like being lous is a clear sign of someone in fact being shy, I've seen it, with like a person you'd never think it, yet the loud but was never comfortable to be around, whereas true open loudness, uninhibited, up-front, let me have it, great, but not that loudness based on some type of neuroses. This is Knox, loud and attention seeking but she is not that, whatever she was, she is not now, so if she was disturbed, genuinely upset somewhere and acting strangely, in fact in need of help, she has managed to adopt the worse path ever, and now she is even further away from any solution to her problem. She now has so many problems the initial one has been sort of buried, yet it must be right there, like the chain of mushroom stems under the ground, popping up into all she does.

Even now she keeps on and on trying to convince people of her special friendship, yeah that never existed in the way she puts it, yet the fact she cannot see how bad she is making it all look, by going on about it, that says a lot about her mentality.

It is beyond pathetic, I think, her PROBLEM, mixed up with her sexuality, was a terrible mixture, it is as basal as that because as a person she was insecure, that's why she started to use her looks to gain power, I've known women who had no female friends because of the competition some got into, I had a girlfriend like that who was always obsessively comparing things with her so-called female friends. Knox reminded me of her in that Knox was pictured with a room full of jocks all boozing and talking shit, and her in the middle laughing, I mean that's one of the most horrible settings, 15 jocks and 1 female.

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, Slade, being of the mid-Atlantic and Canadian persuasion I certainly can understand the odd thought that might pop up about Vivid Entertainment and their $1 million US offers to all notorious persons to show up and flash body parts and or take part in sex tapes. Casey Anthony was offered $ 1 million, too, though she refused. Of course Brits in the 70's knew about Bob Guccione and his Penthouse Magazine offers to famous people, I knew that cultural reference in London around that time myself :)

But let it not be said that PMF is a humour free zone. As you say, we've had limerick contests, we have photo shopped images and screen captions by the score. I think Amanda Knox won't take up any offer from Vivid, that just isn't how she sees herself now, and is trapped in the naive ingenue persona her followers have created for her. But we, who er, follow her travels with just as much enthusiasm ;) need to laugh at ourselves too, just a little bit, OK so let's give you a round of applause for trying to inject some levity into the post lunar eclipse blues from last weekend. By all means, suggestions for a career on the run, and for that, one needs money.

I'd suggest a hostess job in the Ginza area of Tokyo. There's a clientele there that would um, enjoy and pay for that sort of notoriety, and there's anonymity. Plus, Yakuza, Mafia, Democrats, what's the difference? :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Slade wrote:

zorba wrote:
I am not American, I don't know about Vivid Entertainment, though Knox has definitely done crazy looking things, I still think any idea of what you proposed is ridiculous.


The 'idea' of a video by AK was supposed to be a starter idea as an invitation to others to throw out any other funny ideas they had for AK to go about earning some $$$ for a potential life-on-the-run. I wasn't expecting the idea to be critiqued and picked apart. Although I wouldn't have suggested it at all unless I believed there was a small chance AK would 'bite' at a multi-million dollar payday from such a video if proposed by Vivid Entertainment, or proposed to them.


Yes, the more you try to explain it, the more ridiculous it sounds Slade, because obviously she is never going to do such a thing after all of the stuff she and her team have tried to deny in relation to sex and that angle attached to the case.


Would you drop this? We're going in circles! The video idea was meant as a joke; sorry if you thought I was serious about it -- I never was!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, Slade, being of the mid-Atlantic and Canadian persuasion I certainly can understand the odd thought that might pop up about Vivid Entertainment and their $1 million US offers to all notorious persons to show up and flash body parts and or take part in sex tapes. Casey Anthony was offered $ 1 million, too, though she refused. Of course Brits in the 70's knew about Bob Guccione and his Penthouse Magazine offers to famous people, I knew that cultural reference in London around that time myself :)

But let it not be said that PMF is a humour free zone. As you say, we've had limerick contests, we have photo shopped images and screen captions by the score. I think Amanda Knox won't take up any offer from Vivid, that just isn't how she sees herself now, and is trapped in the naive ingenue persona her followers have created for her. But we, who er, follow her travels with just as much enthusiasm ;) need to laugh at ourselves too, just a little bit, OK so let's give you a round of applause for trying to inject some levity into the post lunar eclipse blues from last weekend. By all means, suggestions for a career on the run, and for that, one needs money.

I'd suggest a hostess job in the Ginza area of Tokyo. There's a clientele there that would um, enjoy and pay for that sort of notoriety, and there's anonymity. Plus, Yakuza, Mafia, Democrats, what's the difference? :)


There you go! That's the spirit! :D
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:
zorba wrote:
Slade wrote:

zorba wrote:
I am not American, I don't know about Vivid Entertainment, though Knox has definitely done crazy looking things, I still think any idea of what you proposed is ridiculous.


The 'idea' of a video by AK was supposed to be a starter idea as an invitation to others to throw out any other funny ideas they had for AK to go about earning some $$$ for a potential life-on-the-run. I wasn't expecting the idea to be critiqued and picked apart. Although I wouldn't have suggested it at all unless I believed there was a small chance AK would 'bite' at a multi-million dollar payday from such a video if proposed by Vivid Entertainment, or proposed to them.


Yes, the more you try to explain it, the more ridiculous it sounds Slade, because obviously she is never going to do such a thing after all of the stuff she and her team have tried to deny in relation to sex and that angle attached to the case.


Would you drop this? We're going in circles! The video idea was meant as a joke; sorry if you thought I was serious about it -- I never was!


Hi, Slade. While I generally avoid stepping into other people's kerfuffles, Zorba's irritation with your comment started with what he referred to as a condescending tone to me. I'd like to offer a bit of kindly advice.

You're new here. Good. Great. Welcome. You started posting here with a comment about your experience posting elsewhere, which, if you've followed the boards at all, you know can lead to all sorts of comments. It's a favorite talking point of some groupies. My BS meter immediately starts ticking, on low, but nevertheless....
In my opinion, you are a poster who, while very clear and concise, has a bit of an aggressive style. You seem angry. Also OK. Post away.

Your response to me felt a bit patronizing, to be honest. I missed the humor. Since you explained it, I get it.
I'm sure Zorba will deal with this with his usual finesse.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It's been a very unusual last and this week, mercury retrograde and lunar ecllipse, secrets will out. The McCanns http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/1 ... imony.html John Ramsey http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/2 ... 50778.html so what next? Amanda Knox? I think so.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Preview of Part 2 of the Amanda Knox interview that airs on KING KONG tonight:

Linda Byron ‏@LByronK5 4m

Quote:
Tonight Amanda Knox talks about juggling school in Seattle & trial in Italy where prosecutors are trying to lock her up again #amandaknox


Linda Byron ‏@LByronK5 4m

Quote:
Tune in at 11 pm for KING 5 News or 10 pm on KONG. Amanda Knox talks about how she's treated on campus. #amandaknox
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The pumpkins are on the porch, waiting for their faces. Costumes are all ready and tried on endlessly. The littlest Snow White wants to wear hers to bed.

I'm taking an extra minute tonight to send warm thoughts to the Kercher family. They've lost so much. What a sad time of year this must be for them.

Rest in peace, Meredith.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zinnia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am

Posts: 56

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I personally feel any projection regarding "naked yoga" in relation to ObKnoxious seriously beneath the people that make up this board. ss) Yeah, some things can be amusing, but stooping to this level is childish. Do we really want to descend to FOAKer level? There are so many other FACTS about this case that warrant our attention. Stefanoni's PP presentation blew me away. Please take the time to go through it. Many thanks to McCall's wiki. Just IMO. True Justice for Meredith. Strength to the Kerchers. hugz-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
It's been a very unusual last and this week, mercury retrograde and lunar ecllipse, secrets will out. The McCanns http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/1 ... imony.html John Ramsey http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/2 ... 50778.html so what next? Amanda Knox? I think so.

Indeed it is Ergon. The Johnbenet Ramsey case is a long time ago, and Patsy has already passed away but it would be great to get some closure on that. Not sure if the father or brother will ever talk though.

The McCanns seem to have overplayed their hand. Stupid to sue the leading investigator. It took Scotland Yard a few years to be where the Portuguese police was after a few months but oh well. Didn't expect that anything would come out of it so I am excited. The case might be reopened in Portugal as well. I can't imagine the McCanns will be happy with the latest developments. Hopefully now the UK media feels free to report more objectively on the case, and not just McCann nonsense. At least there is hope again :)
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Here's once again

KING Live Stream

http://www.king5.com/live-stream
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Here's once again

KING Live Stream

http://www.king5.com/live-stream

Watched a bit till I got stuck. Said something like going to study hard after the trial is over, and in 6 years the Italians might still be trying her but she would be graduated or some weird stuff. Playing stupid I guess. Have no idea what the purpose of this is. Weird.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox Interview, Part 2 (video)

Amanda Knox: Just another UW student?

KING5 NEWS

Awful "investigative reporting" by Linda Byron, obviously biased towards viewing a murder suspect as innocent.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Why is she squinting? Trying to shut her eyes to the facts? ;)

Attachment:
Knox squinting her eyes.JPG


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox gloats about freedom and fame in interview
By Chelsea Hoffman

In a televised interview (one of three) with King 5 News, Amanda Knox appeared to gloat about her freedom in Seattle while gleefully discussing her on campus popularity and fame. In the biased news report, the anchors laid on the molasses with the false assumption that double jeopardy is allowed in Italy -- something that isn't necessarily true.

It's hard to take Seattle's media seriously when interviews and reports like these air, but it was refreshing to see Amanda appear and answer some questions -- even though they only served to make her look pompous and full of herself.


ALL VOICES

Attachment:
Meredith's picture.JPG


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The above two photos placed together like that is yet another murder, this time of decency, really, is it so vile what they attempt with this, exactly the same with Knox having no sense of time or place or knowing when to shut up, with her forever trying to pretend Meredith was her friend. Meredith should never be seen on a page with Sollecito.

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


Last edited by zorba on Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
The above two photos placed together like that is yet nother murder, this time of decency, really, is it so vile what they attempt with this, exactly the same with Knox having no sense of time or place or knowing when to shut up, with her forever trying to pretend Meredith was her friend. Meredith should never be seen on a page with Sollecito.


I feel the same way. They don't know what is appropriate and what is not. Both stand accused of Meredith's murder, and now they bring a photo of her to every interview - of course only after having been criticised publicly for their lack of empathy towards Meredith and her family. Posing with a photo of Meredith wasn't even their idea, they only came up with it to silence their critics.

Which reminds me of Knox claiming she was convinced the police questioned her repeatedly because she was the "closest" to Meredith, but she always forgets to mention that she complained the loudest in the police station about the inconvenience of being questioned. She must have been desperate to help police, just as her parents told us six years ago.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
The above two photos placed together like that is yet nother murder, this time of decency, really, is it so vile what they attempt with this, exactly the same with Knox having no sense of time or place or knowing when to shut up, with her forever trying to pretend Meredith was her friend. Meredith should never be seen on a page with Sollecito.


I feel the same way. They don't know what is appropriate and what is not. Both stand accused of Meredith's murder, and now they bring a photo of her to every interview - of course only after having been criticised publicly for their lack of empathy towards Meredith and her family. Posing with a photo of Meredith wasn't even their idea, they only came up with it to silence their critics.

Which reminds me of Knox claiming she was convinced the police questioned her repeatedly because she was the "closest" to Meredith, but she always forgets to mention that she complained the loudest in the police station about the inconvenience of being questioned. She must have been desperate to help police, just as her parents told us six years ago.


Exactly Nell, this extension of the MY FRIEND THING with the new "closest" thing, friend wasn't enough and now she says this, she was never close to Meredith that is very clear and if she had any sense she'd shut up about it.
It is so annoying to see what she is up to and it actually shows the callousness involved in the first place, it all needs to get filed as ''extension of the murder mindset''.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox gloats about freedom and fame in interview
By Chelsea Hoffman

In a televised interview (one of three) with King 5 News, Amanda Knox appeared to gloat about her freedom in Seattle while gleefully discussing her on campus popularity and fame. In the biased news report, the anchors laid on the molasses with the false assumption that double jeopardy is allowed in Italy -- something that isn't necessarily true.

It's hard to take Seattle's media seriously when interviews and reports like these air, but it was refreshing to see Amanda appear and answer some questions -- even though they only served to make her look pompous and full of herself.


ALL VOICES

Attachment:
Meredith's picture.JPG


Though I appreciate Chelsea writing that she sees the two/three as guilty, I think she needs to be more accurate, writing ''isn't necessarily true'' is inaccurate, the wording should be, is not true, since double jeopardy is not allowed n Italy, ever; once the final ruling from the Supreme Court is dished out, nobody can be tried again, which amounts to the same thing as seen in the UK & the USA.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

KING 5's Linda Byron shares Amanda Knox interview experience (video)

Linda joined Margaret [Larson] to talk more about the exclusive, two-hour interview and shared insights from the conversation, which have been turned into a three-part series: Amanda Knox: Her Life Now, airing on KING 5 News at 10 and 11.


KING5 NEW DAY NW
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Any successful poker player will tell you that part of their success comes from being able to get a read on other players .These reads are called 'tells'. Some are astonishingly accurate in their ability. IMO, Knox has a big 'tell'. First time I noticed it. PM me if you're curious.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox: Her Life (For) Now
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zinnia wrote:
I personally feel any projection regarding "naked yoga" in relation to ObKnoxious seriously beneath the people that make up this board. ss) Yeah, some things can be amusing, but stooping to this level is childish. Do we really want to descend to FOAKer level? There are so many other FACTS about this case that warrant our attention. Stefanoni's PP presentation blew me away. Please take the time to go through it. Many thanks to McCall's wiki. Just IMO. True Justice for Meredith. Strength to the Kerchers. hugz-)


Zinnia, you should have addressed your comment specifically to me, Slade, not the 'people that make up this board.' I am a mature adult with broad shoulders and can take criticism when it's truly warranted. While I can plainly see you are not an AK fan, (obvious clue being 'ObKnoxious'), I don't share, nor do I believe, any 'hypersensitivity' to AK's, her family's, nor her supporters' feelings are deserved.

As a matter of fact, IF I could single-handedly create sufficient anxiety for AK's face to erupt in numerous herpes lesions, I would, happily. If you want to attack me for that sentiment, call me childish, then fine, attack and insult away, but not the board, nor the moderators. I have plenty of experience fending off hate-filled, vile, vicious attacks from FOAKers, and even occasional attacks from pro-justice / pro-victim advocates.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Any successful poker player will tell you that part of their success comes from being able to get a read on other players .These reads are called 'tells'. Some are astonishingly accurate in their ability. IMO, Knox has a big 'tell'. First time I noticed it. PM me if you're curious.


1) Tell us the tell, Napia5, no need for PM's, we'd all love to read I am sure.
2) Remind us never to play poker with you :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

But then she might stop doing it!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:
zinnia wrote:
I personally feel any projection regarding "naked yoga" in relation to ObKnoxious seriously beneath the people that make up this board. ss) Yeah, some things can be amusing, but stooping to this level is childish. Do we really want to descend to FOAKer level? There are so many other FACTS about this case that warrant our attention. Stefanoni's PP presentation blew me away. Please take the time to go through it. Many thanks to McCall's wiki. Just IMO. True Justice for Meredith. Strength to the Kerchers. hugz-)


Zinnia, you should have addressed your comment specifically to me, Slade, not the 'people that make up this board.' I am a mature adult with broad shoulders and can take criticism when it's truly warranted. While I can plainly see you are not an AK fan, (obvious clue being 'ObKnoxious'), I don't share, nor do I believe, any 'hypersensitivity' to AK's, her family's, nor her supporters' feelings are deserved.

As a matter of fact, IF I could single-handedly create sufficient anxiety for AK's face to erupt in numerous herpes lesions, I would, happily. If you want to attack me for that sentiment, call me childish, then fine, attack and insult away, but not the board, nor the moderators. I have plenty of experience fending off hate-filled, vile, vicious attacks from FOAKers, and even occasional attacks from pro-justice / pro-victim advocates.



That is exactly the problem, you cannot, it appears, take criticism, you showed you cannot.
You spoke about one idea, your fun idea, which everyone was invited to join in with.
Napia disagreed then you started to belittle her.





You could easily have known what she thought about the case, but you then reacted talking at her like she was stupid, showing that when others agree with you, you are friendly, when they do not, you start telling people what they should do.

You do not have the right to tell anyone what to do here, including Zinnia, she/he was speaking about your 'fun ideas', that right now seem anything but.

In no way do you have the right to tell her/him what he/she should do.
I understand him/her not addressing you, I also felt nothing for even replying to you after you started assuming the role of boss: 'would you drop this''. Yeah sure but you do not, you refuse to respect other people's views when they do not agree with yours.

You came up with a ridiculous line, saying it was fun, yet it seems you meant it seriously, judging by your reactions.

Then when I say something, you think you can cut it off like that, by telling me what to do, now you are telling Zinnia what to do, yeah, and to me ''would you drop this'', that's a cop out isn't it, to me that's not someone with broad shoulders, that's someone who gets uptight fast if everyone doesn't join in the dance.

Zinnia was not attacking the board, but what you are up to seems to be just that.
I cannot see anything pleasant about you Slade.
As far as I am concerned, you can fuck off, that is what you want to hear is it not?
I sense you are bringing a lot of aggressive bad vibes in here.

I note you ignored Napia, she said she felt that you were patronising her.

Here is where you go from saying a thing is meant as fun to defending it by going as far as to keep on hammering it home showing you definitely meant it seriously, you as much as attempt to force Napia to accept your take on that, by saying, "Not the type of person who would pose for 'naked pictures' but in your opinion is she the type of person who can murder a housemate and keep lying about what she did for six years?"

So because Napia disagrees, you say right okay, but what about all of this, as though you know nothing about Napia, when she is someone who often posts here, her views are not a secret, so according to you, since Knox IS someone who could do all of these things she could also, through the need of money, start selling nude pictures.

I cannot see from the conversation here below, that your idea really was fun, you are very serious about it. Napia is very polite and warm, and that is why she did not say anything, but she did afterwards and you ignored it as if she did not say it.

I'm not letting this go by. You now go on to have a go at Zinnia too, another person who did not agree with you, and your broad shoulders are nowhere to be seen.


_________________

Slade: Just for fun: Anyone wish to volunteer ideas for AK to earn copious amounts of cash in a short time?

I'll start: Call up Vivid Entertainment and propose a video for in-home or online viewing of '40 Naked Yoga poses with Amanda Knox.' Recall that AK is not the least bit ashamed of her nude body -- she has written before she was comfortable talking to a friend's boyfriend while star


Ergon: The friend whose boyfriend she didn't mind talking with while she was stark naked. Typical dominance maneuver. Would that be the same friend she played the fake "rape prank" on with mask wearing bozoz?
[unanswered by you Slade, I too asked you what you were referring to, you gave a smart arsed reply and no answer to what I'd asked]

Napia: Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.

Slade replying to Napia and quoting her: Napia5 wrote:
Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.


Slade: Not the type of person who would pose for 'naked pictures' but in your opinion is she the type of person who can murder a housemate and keep lying about what she did for six years? Worse, accuse an innocent man of the murder! AK is an extrovert, she'd love to do a nude video with her demonstrating yoga. She's just concerned with how 'others' would view her for doing it, not that she's above doing it.

[Slade, here above you refuse to accept Napia's view and go on with pushing your own, showing how to you it is not a joke, not fun, it is something you really think. Your words follow again here, and fun is nowhere to be seen in what you told Napia: She'd love to do a nude video demonstrating yoga, she is just concerned with how others would view her doing it.

The things Zinnia said had nothing at all to do with any concern, as you said, hypersensitivity about what Knox or her family feel, it's simply crap what you are going on about, but you can't take it when others disagree with you.]

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Very good piece on the Amanda Knox King5 Interview by pataz1.

King 5 Seattle’s jingoist reporting favoring Amanda Knox
By pataz1

WORDPRESS BLOG
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Any successful poker player will tell you that part of their success comes from being able to get a read on other players .These reads are called 'tells'. Some are astonishingly accurate in their ability. IMO, Knox has a big 'tell'. First time I noticed it. PM me if you're curious.


1) Tell us the tell, Napia5, no need for PM's, we'd all love to read I am sure.
2) Remind us never to play poker with you :)


I'll think about it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Dear Zorba, mere words can't express
How much I just love your finesse.
You are quite debonaire,
With such savoir-faire!
But your typos are frankly a mess.


. hbc) Must be a full moon.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Another excellent post at the Good Wiki.

Here's a map of where Amanda Knox's DNA was found mixed with Meredith Kercher's blood at the crime scene The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki Project
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zinnia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am

Posts: 56

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Slade wrote:
zinnia wrote:
I personally feel any projection regarding "naked yoga" in relation to ObKnoxious seriously beneath the people that make up this board. ss) Yeah, some things can be amusing, but stooping to this level is childish. Do we really want to descend to FOAKer level? There are so many other FACTS about this case that warrant our attention. Stefanoni's PP presentation blew me away. Please take the time to go through it. Many thanks to McCall's wiki. Just IMO. True Justice for Meredith. Strength to the Kerchers. hugz-)


Zinnia, you should have addressed your comment specifically to me, Slade, not the 'people that make up this board.' I am a mature adult with broad shoulders and can take criticism when it's truly warranted. While I can plainly see you are not an AK fan, (obvious clue being 'ObKnoxious'), I don't share, nor do I believe, any 'hypersensitivity' to AK's, her family's, nor her supporters' feelings are deserved.

As a matter of fact, IF I could single-handedly create sufficient anxiety for AK's face to erupt in numerous herpes lesions, I would, happily. If you want to attack me for that sentiment, call me childish, then fine, attack and insult away, but not the board, nor the moderators. I have plenty of experience fending off hate-filled, vile, vicious attacks from FOAKers, and even occasional attacks from pro-justice / pro-victim advocates.



That is exactly the problem, you cannot, it appears, take criticism, you showed you cannot.
You spoke about one idea, your fun idea, which everyone was invited to join in with.
Napia disagreed then you started to belittle her.





You could easily have known what she thought about the case, but you then reacted talking at her like she was stupid, showing that when others agree with you, you are friendly, when they do not, you start telling people what they should do.

You do not have the right to tell anyone what to do here, including Zinnia, she/he was speaking about your 'fun ideas', that right now seem anything but.

In no way do you have the right to tell her/him what he/she should do.
I understand him/her not addressing you, I also felt nothing for even replying to you after you started assuming the role of boss: 'would you drop this''. Yeah sure but you do not, you refuse to respect other people's views when they do not agree with yours.

You came up with a ridiculous line, saying it was fun, yet it seems you meant it seriously, judging by your reactions.

Then when I say something, you think you can cut it off like that, by telling me what to do, now you are telling Zinnia what to do, yeah, and to me ''would you drop this'', that's a cop out isn't it, to me that's not someone with broad shoulders, that's someone who gets uptight fast if everyone doesn't join in the dance.

Zinnia was not attacking the board, but what you are up to seems to be just that.
I cannot see anything pleasant about you Slade.
As far as I am concerned, you can fuck off, that is what you want to hear is it not?
I sense you are bringing a lot of aggressive bad vibes in here.

I note you ignored Napia, she said she felt that you were patronising her.

Here is where you go from saying a thing is meant as fun to defending it by going as far as to keep on hammering it home showing you definitely meant it seriously, you as much as attempt to force Napia to accept your take on that, by saying, "Not the type of person who would pose for 'naked pictures' but in your opinion is she the type of person who can murder a housemate and keep lying about what she did for six years?"

So because Napia disagrees, you say right okay, but what about all of this, as though you know nothing about Napia, when she is someone who often posts here, her views are not a secret, so according to you, since Knox IS someone who could do all of these things she could also, through the need of money, start selling nude pictures.

I cannot see from the conversation here below, that your idea really was fun, you are very serious about it. Napia is very polite and warm, and that is why she did not say anything, but she did afterwards and you ignored it as if she did not say it.

I'm not letting this go by. You now go on to have a go at Zinnia too, another person who did not agree with you, and your broad shoulders are nowhere to be seen.


_________________

Slade: Just for fun: Anyone wish to volunteer ideas for AK to earn copious amounts of cash in a short time?

I'll start: Call up Vivid Entertainment and propose a video for in-home or online viewing of '40 Naked Yoga poses with Amanda Knox.' Recall that AK is not the least bit ashamed of her nude body -- she has written before she was comfortable talking to a friend's boyfriend while star


Ergon: The friend whose boyfriend she didn't mind talking with while she was stark naked. Typical dominance maneuver. Would that be the same friend she played the fake "rape prank" on with mask wearing bozoz?
[unanswered by you Slade, I too asked you what you were referring to, you gave a smart arsed reply and no answer to what I'd asked]

Napia: Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.

Slade replying to Napia and quoting her: Napia5 wrote:
Naked pictures? Never happen. I don't see her as the type of person who would choose to do this as a 'have to'. As a lark, or something fun, maybe.


Slade: Not the type of person who would pose for 'naked pictures' but in your opinion is she the type of person who can murder a housemate and keep lying about what she did for six years? Worse, accuse an innocent man of the murder! AK is an extrovert, she'd love to do a nude video with her demonstrating yoga. She's just concerned with how 'others' would view her for doing it, not that she's above doing it.

[Slade, here above you refuse to accept Napia's view and go on with pushing your own, showing how to you it is not a joke, not fun, it is something you really think. Your words follow again here, and fun is nowhere to be seen in what you told Napia: She'd love to do a nude video demonstrating yoga, she is just concerned with how others would view her doing it.

The things Zinnia said had nothing at all to do with any concern, as you said, hypersensitivity about what Knox or her family feel, it's simply crap what you are going on about, but you can't take it when others disagree with you.]


Thanks Zorb. I didn't take the time to go back to where the silly yoga thing started, and I should have... my apologies. I really meant nothing more than a redirection to the facts of this tragedy and I meant no offense to anyone on this board. It just ticked me off to see the conversation going off in a gutter direction. It's too easy a thing to do, and it trivializes the machinations in progress. I am here for facts and discussion, not fantasies and projections.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zinnia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am

Posts: 56

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Another excellent post at the Good Wiki.

Here's a map of where Amanda Knox's DNA was found mixed with Meredith Kercher's blood at the crime scene The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki Project


Yes, yes.... this is incredible. Do go through Stefanoni's powerpoint. It is damning.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox Interview, Part 3

Amanda Knox: 'They wanted to see evil in me' (video)

KING5 NEWS
Top Profile 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zinnia wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Another excellent post at the Good Wiki.

Here's a map of where Amanda Knox's DNA was found mixed with Meredith Kercher's blood at the crime scene The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki Project


Yes, yes.... this is incredible. Do go through Stefanoni's powerpoint. It is damning.


The mixed trace in Filomena's room is damning enough but I had until now forgotten about the other trace, the spot of Meredith's blood, which I now see was near to Filomena's window. That takes some explaining as well. Linking it to anything other than her murder would be highly improbable and so how did it get there other than by the murderer/stager standing there? Both the traces we know of were clearly removed as they were only identified by luminol.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SonicTed


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:40 pm

Posts: 2

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:

I cannot see anything pleasant about you Slade.
As far as I am concerned, you can fuck off, that is what you want to hear is it not?
I sense you are bringing a lot of aggressive bad vibes in here.
It's simply crap what you are going on about, but you can't take it when others disagree with you.]



Zorba,

You are delusional if you truly think that Slade is the one bringing "bad vibes" to this board. Slade’s post to Napia may have been patronising, your post to him is very insulting, which is far worse. Do you have anger management issues?

Slade has been trying to calm the discussion down while you keep attacking him. Evidently you don’t want him on this board. But you don’t own this board and everyone should be free to express his opinion unless he is a FOA lunatic pushing lies.

It is easy to take something the wrong way when it is written on the internet because written sentences lack facial expression and tone which would give us a clue as to the speaker’s intention (agreed, "go fuck off" is a notable exemption). I would hence give Slade the benefit of the doubt. You do not and can not because you are full of prejudices against newcomers to this board.

As a long-term reader of this board - who greatly appreciates all the effort and information - I hope I am not the only one to think your behaviour is totally out of whack.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Dear Ted. I find it highly inappropriate for a new poster to start his/her second post with the phrase, "You are delusional..."

This time of year is particularly sad for those who are posting about justice for Meredith. Nerves are sometimes raw.
Zorba is quite capable of dealing with his side of the discussion. FWIW, I personally do not feel that his behavior is 'out of whack'. I stated above that I have picked up on the aggressive style of the other poster. I respectfully request that you move on from this issue.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Okay, I think that's enough of members taking lumps out of each other.

If a member expresses thoughts or ideas that one feels are not appropriate, the best way of dealing with it is to completely ignore it and say nothing. From the lack of response, they will soon get the idea that the subject is not inspiring their fellow readers and change it. If their behaviour is wildly out of line, breaches the board's ethos or even the rules, then a Moderator will step in and deal with it. What is not required, is that members strap on a Moderator's star and take matters into their own hands however they each see fit.

Whatever, everyone can now drop it. Especially as the topic that started it has been long-since dropped. The poster in question was new to this board and as such, are on a learning curve as to the sensibilities of its members. About that, they have now learned much, so here endeth the lesson. There's no need to bang on about it, even if it is a quiet week in case terms. And by the by, in future, please refrain from firing expletives at those who offend your sensibilities. It's ugly and as it happens, is against board rules. Yes, we want new posters here to be considerate of the sensitivities of the case and those of us here who have followed it for a long time. At the same time, we don't want to turn the board into an assault course and make new posters feel like they are treading on eggshells at every step. Then, the board is no longer the welcoming place we wish it to be. It's about striking a balance.

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Okay, I think that's enough of members taking lumps out of each other.

If a member expresses thoughts or ideas that one feels are not appropriate, the best way of dealing with it is to completely ignore it and say nothing. From the lack of response, they will soon get the idea that the subject is not inspiring their fellow readers and change it. If their behaviour is wildly out of line, breaches the board's ethos or even the rules, then a Moderator will step in and deal with it. What is not required, is that members strap on a Moderator's star and take matters into their own hands however they each see fit.

Whatever, everyone can now drop it. Especially as the topic that started it has been long-since dropped. The poster in question was new to this board and as such, are on a learning curve as to the sensibilities of its members. About that, they have now learned much, so here endeth the lesson. There's no need to bang on about it, even if it is a quiet week in case terms. And by the by, in future, please refrain from firing expletives at those who offend your sensibilities. It's ugly and as it happens, is against board rules. Yes, we want new posters here to be considerate of the sensitivities of the case and those of us here who have followed it for a long time. At the same time, we don't want to turn the board into an assault course and make new posters feel like they are treading on eggshells at every step. Then, the board is no longer the welcoming place we wish it to be. It's about striking a balance.


Michael, darling. I just spit a mouthful of morning coffee on my newly repaired keyboard. As much as i admire you and respect your monumental efforts on behalf of Meredith, I am totally incapable of making this type commitment.
I get the drift of your post, and I see the need to step in and request that we move on, but.......
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

All I have to say on it Michael, is, I do not trust Slade.

If you as board facilitator do not see it as an attempt to get members into talking nonsense about Knox but then in a serious way, so as to be able to have the board look exactly like the people Knox's supporters wish to portray them as, such as 1. wishing sickness on someone = haters, 2. such as portraying her as someone who will make sex films, etc., = all of the Knox haters describe her as a sex mad demon,
then I have spoken my mind.

Still, you did not pick up on Slade patronising Napia, did not see what Napia said, I don't agree with the policy of just ignore it and it'll go away, and neither do you seeing as how you have banned many people.

I'm relaxed but I do not like to sit by and watch people being talked down to.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

SonicTed wrote:
zorba wrote:

I cannot see anything pleasant about you Slade.
As far as I am concerned, you can fuck off, that is what you want to hear is it not?
I sense you are bringing a lot of aggressive bad vibes in here.
It's simply crap what you are going on about, but you can't take it when others disagree with you.]



Zorba,

You are delusional if you truly think that Slade is the one bringing "bad vibes" to this board. Slade’s post to Napia may have been patronising, your post to him is very insulting, which is far worse. Do you have anger management issues?


Slade has been trying to calm the discussion down while you keep attacking him. Evidently you don’t want him on this board. But you don’t own this board and everyone should be free to express his opinion unless he is a FOA lunatic pushing lies.

It is easy to take something the wrong way when it is written on the internet because written sentences lack facial expression and tone which would give us a clue as to the speaker’s intention (agreed, "go fuck off" is a notable exemption). I would hence give Slade the benefit of the doubt. You do not and can not because you are full of prejudices against newcomers to this board.

As a long-term reader of this board - who greatly appreciates all the effort and information - I hope I am not the only one to think your behaviour is totally out of whack.



Yes Sonic then in order to be credible perhaps it would have been a good idea to interact instead of being a so-called regular reader, jumping in to stick the boot in, when having never posted before, that in my opinion is as low as it goes Ted, by the way, you share Mr Ted Simon's initials, that must be a bad omen, I'd change my name immediately.


Note
Just a Note.
~ I will allow this to stand, simply because the member's post was aimed at you by name, so it's only fair that you be permitted to respond. However, you have now both had your say and so it ends here.~

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Okay, I think that's enough of members taking lumps out of each other.

If a member expresses thoughts or ideas that one feels are not appropriate, the best way of dealing with it is to completely ignore it and say nothing. From the lack of response, they will soon get the idea that the subject is not inspiring their fellow readers and change it. If their behaviour is wildly out of line, breaches the board's ethos or even the rules, then a Moderator will step in and deal with it. What is not required, is that members strap on a Moderator's star and take matters into their own hands however they each see fit.

Whatever, everyone can now drop it. Especially as the topic that started it has been long-since dropped. The poster in question was new to this board and as such, are on a learning curve as to the sensibilities of its members. About that, they have now learned much, so here endeth the lesson. There's no need to bang on about it, even if it is a quiet week in case terms. And by the by, in future, please refrain from firing expletives at those who offend your sensibilities. It's ugly and as it happens, is against board rules. Yes, we want new posters here to be considerate of the sensitivities of the case and those of us here who have followed it for a long time. At the same time, we don't want to turn the board into an assault course and make new posters feel like they are treading on eggshells at every step. Then, the board is no longer the welcoming place we wish it to be. It's about striking a balance.


Michael, darling. I just spit a mouthful of morning coffee on my newly repaired keyboard. As much as i admire you and respect your monumental efforts on behalf of Meredith, I am totally incapable of making this type commitment.
I get the drift of your post, and I see the need to step in and request that we move on, but.......



In which case, if you feel particularly strongly that something needs to be said or done, then contact a Moderator. That's what we are here for. And just to clarify, I am not forbidding members from posting to disagree with another or even express disapproval and criticism, just from going at each other with clubs and baseball bats. Once it gets to that stage, that is the time to contact a Mod. Criticism is okay, flames are not.

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael has spoken, on this he's quite clear

if we all behave, we'll have nothing to fear.

Well, this little granny has egg on her face,

And is holding her head in abject disgrace.

I put down my club,I won't bite, scratch or hit,

But, if i pledge 'silence', then I'm full of ......

Humor me once, Michael. Sometimes i just cannot control my pathological need to have the last word.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline louiehaha


Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:13 am

Posts: 348

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Re: the potential of a nude yoga video of Amanda Knox

If Knox has continued to Skype nude (as she did with DJ while in Perugia), it’s inevitable a nude video of her will end up in the public domain at some point, possibly ‘leaked’ by her own perpetually ‘cash strapped’ family. I can't forget her own parents urged her to literally dive into mud puddles for money to amuse them and other 'adults' and she has metaphorically been doing so ever since.
Top Profile 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Agree with Michael, this is a slow news week for the case, and Nov. 6th is a ways off, but this entire effort is supposed to be about Meredith and our collective interest in seeing Meredith and her family receive justice. To me, sometimes, the constant talk of her horrible murder and the arrogance of her killers, calls for a respite -- in the way of humor. That's why the suggestion of her making a video to earn money to finance a fugitive run. To some clearly the idea was offensive -- but to me, it was humorous b/c of the nuggets of info we already know about AK: her claiming she was comfortable with nudity, her constant need to attract male attention by doing yoga poses in front of them -- putting all these things together was supposed to make the idea funny.

OK, Napia5 didn't agree - fine, I thought it was a bit unnecessary to criticize an idea meant to be a joke, but was hoping instead she would have chosen to use her creativity to best my idea by offering some funnier ones of her own. Certainly didn't expect her to care so much about what I thought, since I agree with Micheal -- it takes constant effort to 'walk on eggshells' around everyone's personal feelings all the time. After all, occasional humor aside, we are discussing a brutal murder, not missing Girl Scout cookie sales money.

Zorba, I already know, is an emotional person, just ask Ergon. Although I tried to diffuse the situation and ask that he stop attacking my idea, meant as a joke, instead he decides to double down and continuing attacking. I think perhaps Zorba doesn't like me b/c I am direct and opinionated just as he is, and for that, he would prefer I stop offering my opinion. Sorry, pal, unless a moderator decides to block me, I'm in -- I can't stand the injustice being done against dear Meredith and her honorable family. Perhaps you should ignore me, don't engage 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: Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The whole subject is now OVER. That includes people trying to work it into their posts in order to try and have the last word on the matter, even IF it happens to include lots of decorative prose about how much they "agree with me". If you agree with me, then drop it. If you don't I'll start deleting posts and handing out warnings.

Aside from this whole topic being terribly boring, it is irrelevant and off-topic to the case. Now, some off-topic discourse is permitted here but at Moderator discretion and that discretion is weighed against how much it derails the main discussion from the topic for which this site exists or/and how disruptive it is to the board. So, now, the discussion moves back on track. Or it does not, in which case I suspend the board for a while and nothing is said at all. I'm not pissing around.

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


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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Here is some OT news.

Grand jury voted to indict JonBenét Ramsey's parents, but D.A. balked

What a shame, but at least it is out in the open now. Abused, and first degree murder covered up by both parents. Sounds a bit like the brother did it, although that is still a mystery. I always thought it was the mother. Either way, it is big news and long overdue.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm
Top Profile 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 497

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ok on to other business what do people think of the last interview with k5? Just as I suspected she had a harder time lying with questions relating directly to the murder. I've been looking for those signs of lying that eyes for lies and other experts look for. So 5:13 " I did not kill Meredith". Did not instead of contraction didn't ,help her to slow down and control the lie. There is a head shake but also a slight lowering and a little nod yes. Smiles when she says she did not kill her and closes her eyes. One sided smile when she recalls her remark at the Questura about Meredith bleeding to death. At 5:40 when talking about how she must know something she thrusts out her tongue a sign of aggression and lying. I also noted how she asks a question to the question how could she have killed Meredith but have left no evidence in her room? Not a direct denial , weak just like her soft " I wish that question didn't have to be asked".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
Ok on to other business what do people think of the last interview with k5? Just as I suspected she had a harder time lying with questions relating directly to the murder. I've been looking for those signs of lying that eyes for lies and other experts look for. So 5:13 " I did not kill Meredith". Did not instead of contraction didn't ,help her to slow down and control the lie. There is a head shake but also a slight lowering and a little nod yes. Smiles when she says she did not kill her and closes her eyes. One sided smile when she recalls her remark at the Questura about Meredith bleeding to death. At 5:40 when talking about how she must know something she thrusts out her tongue a sign of aggression and lying. I also noted how she asks a question to the question how could she have killed Meredith but have left no evidence in her room? Not a direct denial , weak just like her soft " I wish that question didn't have to be asked".


The fact that Knox continues to ask the public to believe that the crime scene is limited to Meredith's bedroom reveals much about Knox's dishonesty about her involvement in the murder. Essentially, she is asking the world to exclude an awful lot of evidence. Specifically, she asks us to exclude the evidence in the kitchen/living area, two bathrooms, Filomina's bedroom, Knox's bedroom, the hallway and the outside of the cottage (area beneath the broken window). Why would an innocent woman, one that is genuinely concerned about finding the truth, ask that people omit or exclude evidence related to a murder? That is indeed what Knox wants when she claims that Meredith's bedroom does not include her DNA, suggesting that therefore it should be concluded that she is innocent.
Top Profile 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Kudos to McCall and the editors of the Meredith Kercher Wiki. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... se_from_o/

It's a wonder that so many have come to appreciate it so quickly, or that a few, well, remaining Amandites still attack it.


Oh yeah! FOAKers' undies are definitely in a wad over the wiki! FOAKers' hijacking of the US Wikipedia wiki on the subject, left a vacuum for those seeking valid information. McCall's format is excellent especially for those who still have doubts over AK's & RS's guilt, and for media. Prior to themurderofmeredithkercher.com we'd send case newbies, or those with only passing interest to either PMF boards or TJMK, or to Massei's motivation report (off-putting size), although comprehensive, none of these offer a central repository where evidence was tied together and explained in an orderly, easily digestible way from beginning to today's Nencini Apeal trial.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Here is some OT news.

Grand jury voted to indict JonBenét Ramsey's parents, but D.A. balked

What a shame, but at least it is out in the open now. Abused, and first degree murder covered up by both parents. Sounds a bit like the brother did it, although that is still a mystery. I always thought it was the mother. Either way, it is big news and long overdue.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm


It is indeed a shame that the parents were not indicted, max, and not quite OT, since "famed FBI Profiler John Douglas" not only inserted himself into the Amanda Knox trial with his recent, opinionated book but also, into the Ramseys: John Douglas needs to get over himself

Not only was he not the inspiration for the Thomas Harris Book "The Silence Of the Lambs" but grabbed it from others:
Quote:
A New Service For the FBI
Most people first heard about the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) from the movie or book by Thomas Harris, Silence of the Lambs. Unit director Jack Crawford was influenced to some extent by talks that Harris had with Supervisory Special Agent Ressler, who had learned the psychological principles involved in profiling from pioneers Howard Teten and Pat Mullany.
"They were the original team that dealt with profiling and crime scene assessments," Ressler explains. "They started organizing people for this program in 1969, and when the FBI Academy opened in 1972, that's when the unit really got established. I joined them in 1974."
Source:


And as for his hired gunedness,

Quote:
Douglas wasn't called in by LE to consult on the Ramsey case. He was a hired gun for the Ramseys. He went to their home and interviewed John Ramsey. He admitted he had little or no contact with Patsy during that time, because she was sedated to the point of oblivion. Quite convenient for everyone, really.

Douglas never saw the inside of the Ramseys' home in Boulder and the crime scene within. He didn't profile the crime. He based his findings that the Ramseys were not guilty on the few hours he spent with them. And, good Christian folks that they were, of course they couldn't be guilty.

Gawd save us all from the likes of John Douglas, who can't even stick to his own set of criteria for profiling crimes.


And, indeed, Gawd save us from another voodoo psychologist, Professor Saul Kassin, who couldn't even stick to his own criteria for false confessions, I say :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Slade


Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Posts: 79

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
malvern wrote:
Ok on to other business what do people think of the last interview with k5? Just as I suspected she had a harder time lying with questions relating directly to the murder. I've been looking for those signs of lying that eyes for lies and other experts look for. So 5:13 " I did not kill Meredith". Did not instead of contraction didn't ,help her to slow down and control the lie. There is a head shake but also a slight lowering and a little nod yes. Smiles when she says she did not kill her and closes her eyes. One sided smile when she recalls her remark at the Questura about Meredith bleeding to death. At 5:40 when talking about how she must know something she thrusts out her tongue a sign of aggression and lying. I also noted how she asks a question to the question how could she have killed Meredith but have left no evidence in her room? Not a direct denial , weak just like her soft " I wish that question didn't have to be asked".


The fact that Knox continues to ask the public to believe that the crime scene is limited to Meredith's bedroom reveals much about Knox's dishonesty about her involvement in the murder. Essentially, she is asking the world to exclude an awful lot of evidence. Specifically, she asks us to exclude the evidence in the kitchen/living area, two bathrooms, Filomina's bedroom, Knox's bedroom, the hallway and the outside of the cottage (area beneath the broken window). Why would an innocent woman, one that is genuinely concerned about finding the truth, ask that people omit or exclude evidence related to a murder? That is indeed what Knox wants when she claims that Meredith's bedroom does not include her DNA, suggesting that therefore it should be concluded that she is innocent.


Will we ever see an interview with AK when the interviewer isn't a fan or at least sympathetic? Put a very case-aware interviewer down to face AK, then we'd finally get to see how she would react when asked those really tough questions about all that evidence outside Meredith's bedroom.

By now AK appears able to 'compartmentalize' some of her answers -- she says it's "impossible I would be the one who stabbed my own friend to death" while not looking down, she may have trained herself to think, Meredith wasn't really my friend, so I didn't stab my friend Meredith.

AK consistently supports the FOAKer narrative -- they "wanted to see evil in me -- that was it."
Re: kitchen knife blade, AK says Meredith's blood not found on blade, "negative for blood" "not Meredith's DNA on blade." If on Nov. 6th, there is an announcement of a second profile of Meredith found from blade area swabbed and designated as Exhibit 36-I, those words may have to be eaten.

AK says she was hit twice in the back of the head, and says she had never even been spanked by her mom before, so she was shocked by this treatment of her. She claimed she was pushed, berated, and confused into a confession (although really a false accusation, not a confession). Guess this is why she can justify not paying the court awarded judgment to Patrick Lumumba -- she was forced into falsely accusing him. Doesn't matter, AK, court awarded it -- not paying it as ordered can be viewed as contempt.

Worse: AK shakes her head and says she is "not going back to prison, not willingly." Looks like someone may be considering running, doesn't it?

Jester, btw, very funny graphics -- love the one with James T. and AK walking in the hamster wheel!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:10 pm   Post subject: AN OPEN INVITATION TO AMANDA KNOX   

malvern wrote:
Ok on to other business what do people think of the last interview with k5? Just as I suspected she had a harder time lying with questions relating directly to the murder. I've been looking for those signs of lying that eyes for lies and other experts look for. So 5:13 " I did not kill Meredith". Did not instead of contraction didn't ,help her to slow down and control the lie. There is a head shake but also a slight lowering and a little nod yes. Smiles when she says she did not kill her and closes her eyes. One sided smile when she recalls her remark at the Questura about Meredith bleeding to death. At 5:40 when talking about how she must know something she thrusts out her tongue a sign of aggression and lying. I also noted how she asks a question to the question how could she have killed Meredith but have left no evidence in her room? Not a direct denial , weak just like her soft " I wish that question didn't have to be asked".


Yes, it's interesting to see the little lies going on, that I'd expect a 'trained journalist' to be able to pick up on, but then she probably is just another gun for hire. But that little smirk, that one that comes up each time, in every interview? Someone who not only was involved in Meredith's murder, she intended it, at some level or the other.

Neuroscientists might speculate that is the signature nervous tic of someone with a neurological disorder. Behavioural psychologists might argue it's a sign of guilt or evasion. That she's lying, but we do not know about what. Of course the whole field of mental illness is still rife with speculative opinion, so barring an examination of Knox's F-MRI or PET scan, I'll just add my own two cents. Someone so isolated within herself that normal rules of human behaviour do not seem to resonate, nor does she understand how she comes across. Autism Spectrum Disorder? Perhaps. Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Most likely. Psychosis? Not the true psychopath, I think, but certainly, Amanda Knox is a prime case study in Criminal Psychology.

And, since I know that Amanda Knox follows all mentions of her on the Internet, this is an open invitation to her to contact me with her side, if she wishes. Raffaele Sollecito, who jabbers with all and sundry on his site, was warned and refused to be interviewed by me (which is his prerogative, of course)

But, Amanda Knox? This is an open invite, and I look forward to hearing from you. I promise to listen, and am open to being convinced of your innocence if you're prepared to defend it without your Wall Of Friends.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 497

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda wouldn't dare speak with someone well versed on the case. I do believe she or those close to her read these forums and give her feedback and tips on how to change or improve her image. In this last one she appears more angry in others more fragile and persecuted. Edda must have been told that her giddy answering for Amanda was not helping.In Edda's last appearance she stared ahead saying nothing as if watching a traffic light. So the actor Amanda tries what she thinks will help garner sympathy or shared anger in the harsh "treatment she has endured. She still slips up and these interviews do nothing and end up only highlighting where she is uncomfortable and deceitful. She does seem to have a trigger to anger when called a liar , as if that is the ultimate crime. It probably wouldn't be too hard to unleash that rage and just tell her she is a convicted liar and watch the fireworks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline sherrel


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:27 am

Posts: 25

Images: 0

Location: San Franciso Bay Area, California

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:

Will we ever see an interview with AK when the interviewer isn't a fan or at least sympathetic?


Of course we won't. All interviews are arranged by Marriott, therefore only friendly interviewers will be used.

_________________
“Guilt: the gift that keeps on giving.”
― Erma Bombeck
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:
Jester wrote:

The fact that Knox continues to ask the public to believe that the crime scene is limited to Meredith's bedroom reveals much about Knox's dishonesty about her involvement in the murder. Essentially, she is asking the world to exclude an awful lot of evidence. Specifically, she asks us to exclude the evidence in the kitchen/living area, two bathrooms, Filomina's bedroom, Knox's bedroom, the hallway and the outside of the cottage (area beneath the broken window). Why would an innocent woman, one that is genuinely concerned about finding the truth, ask that people omit or exclude evidence related to a murder? That is indeed what Knox wants when she claims that Meredith's bedroom does not include her DNA, suggesting that therefore it should be concluded that she is innocent.


Will we ever see an interview with AK when the interviewer isn't a fan or at least sympathetic? Put a very case-aware interviewer down to face AK, then we'd finally get to see how she would react when asked those really tough questions about all that evidence outside Meredith's bedroom.

By now AK appears able to 'compartmentalize' some of her answers -- she says it's "impossible I would be the one who stabbed my own friend to death" while not looking down, she may have trained herself to think, Meredith wasn't really my friend, so I didn't stab my friend Meredith.

AK consistently supports the FOAKer narrative -- they "wanted to see evil in me -- that was it."
Re: kitchen knife blade, AK says Meredith's blood not found on blade, "negative for blood" "not Meredith's DNA on blade." If on Nov. 6th, there is an announcement of a second profile of Meredith found from blade area swabbed and designated as Exhibit 36-I, those words may have to be eaten.

AK says she was hit twice in the back of the head, and says she had never even been spanked by her mom before, so she was shocked by this treatment of her. She claimed she was pushed, berated, and confused into a confession (although really a false accusation, not a confession). Guess this is why she can justify not paying the court awarded judgment to Patrick Lumumba -- she was forced into falsely accusing him. Doesn't matter, AK, court awarded it -- not paying it as ordered can be viewed as contempt.

Worse: AK shakes her head and says she is "not going back to prison, not willingly." Looks like someone may be considering running, doesn't it?

Jester, btw, very funny graphics -- love the one with James T. and AK walking in the hamster wheel!


Thanks ... regarding Knox never having been spanked, that surprises me, or maybe not. I seem to recall an incident where Knox clocked a younger child on the playground. Apparently this was quite a serious antisocial example of aggression. If she had never been exposed to any type of physical violence, why would she, as a child, choose that as a method for communicating her thoughts?

Knox's mother was alone with two infants. It wouldn't surprise me if Knox was the neglected child from the age of two onward. Surely her mother was busy building her career and dating, so who was raising Knox? Perhaps her mother didn't hit her, but it doesn't seem possible that she was raised by a stay at home mom ... so who knows how she was treated as child.

In my opinion, if she was an honest woman, she would urge everyone to look at the entire crime scene and arrive at their own conclusions. She would not urge everyone to exclude the majority of the crime scene and arrive at a conclusion that she dictates.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Here is some OT news.

Grand jury voted to indict JonBenét Ramsey's parents, but D.A. balked

What a shame, but at least it is out in the open now. Abused, and first degree murder covered up by both parents. Sounds a bit like the brother did it, although that is still a mystery. I always thought it was the mother. Either way, it is big news and long overdue.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm


Hi, max. Thanks for the update. I did a search here using "Ramsey" because I thought I remembered your posts on stomach contents and pineapple with connection to the Ramsey case. That post made your following posts on stomach contents a whole lot more understandable to me.

I didn't follow this case, but had thought of the possibility of the brother being involved. Way too many of these sad cases. Thanks again.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 497

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Not only she try to confine the evidence to the room, she also talks of the impossibility of an orgy in that room with no evidence left. Guess she wants us to imagine a group of sweaty nude participants.Who ever suggested an orgy took place with everyone dressed and Meredith partially undressed later to stage.No the evidence was left on the bra removed after and a partial foot print.Easier to laugh and lie when she makes such a gross exaggeration. This isn't the first interview where she mocks the notion of an orgy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
Not only just she try to confine the evidence to the room, she also talks of the impossibility of an orgy in that room with no evidence left. Guess she wants us to imagine a group of sweaty nude participants.Who ever suggested an orgy took place with everyone dressed and Meredith partially undressed later to stage.No the evidence was left on the bra removed after and a partial foot print.Easier to laugh and lie when she makes such a gross exaggeration. This isn't the first interview where she mocks the notion of an orgy.


Perhaps Knox would understand the concept better if the term "attempted gang rape", or "violent sexual assault perpetrated by three murderers", was used instead of "orgy".
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
Not only she try to confine the evidence to the room, she also talks of the impossibility of an orgy in that room with no evidence left. Guess she wants us to imagine a group of sweaty nude participants.Who ever suggested an orgy took place with everyone dressed and Meredith partially undressed later to stage.No the evidence was left on the bra removed after and a partial foot print.Easier to laugh and lie when she makes such a gross exaggeration. This isn't the first interview where she mocks the notion of an orgy.


There's so much to analyze about what she says and does, because so much of it is off-putting and wrong. If she is receiving help in preparing for these talks, she needs new help. She gives as proof that there is no evidence of her in Meredith's room. She seems to have this pathological need to explain herself as if she can explain it away.

I have come to the conclusion that none of her 'people' read here. We've been giving hints and observations all along about what's wrong with her speeches, and she isn't taking any of this to heart. That's actually a good thing. On the other hand, maybe she isn't capable, or maybe her ego is so flawed that she believes she doesn't need any pointers. If she thinks she is going to talk her way out of this, she is sadly mistaken.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Slade wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Kudos to McCall and the editors of the Meredith Kercher Wiki. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... se_from_o/

It's a wonder that so many have come to appreciate it so quickly, or that a few, well, remaining Amandites still attack it.


Oh yeah! FOAKers' undies are definitely in a wad over the wiki! FOAKers' hijacking of the US Wikipedia wiki on the subject, left a vacuum for those seeking valid information. McCall's format is excellent especially for those who still have doubts over AK's & RS's guilt, and for media. Prior to themurderofmeredithkercher.com we'd send case newbies, or those with only passing interest to either PMF boards or TJMK, or to Massei's motivation report (off-putting size), although comprehensive, none of these offer a central repository where evidence was tied together and explained in an orderly, easily digestible way from beginning to today's Nencini Apeal trial.


I am glad you like it. I wish I had done it earlier. There is also still so much to do. We have had a very kind volunteer offer to translate Stefanoni's testimony. That was very unexpected and great news.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
Amanda wouldn't dare speak with someone well versed on the case. I do believe she or those close to her read these forums and give her feedback and tips on how to change or improve her image. In this last one she appears more angry in others more fragile and persecuted. Edda must have been told that her giddy answering for Amanda was not helping.In Edda's last appearance she stared ahead saying nothing as if watching a traffic light. So the actor Amanda tries what she thinks will help garner sympathy or shared anger in the harsh "treatment she has endured. She still slips up and these interviews do nothing and end up only highlighting where she is uncomfortable and deceitful. She does seem to have a trigger to anger when called a liar , as if that is the ultimate crime. It probably wouldn't be too hard to unleash that rage and just tell her she is a convicted liar and watch the fireworks.


I have noticed her adapting based on what has been posted on the various sites. The number of times this has happened makes it unlikely to be a coincidence. From Knox's perspective that is a really bad sign. Without an extraordinary effort her chances of avoiding extradition are zero. Her only hope of even getting to a slim chance of avoiding extradition would require a perfectly executed strategy. That they are using the discussion sites for their media analysis means they have not hired anyone competent to manage her campaign.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Looks like it's time for a distraction:
I met a man at a homeless shelter today. He told me his story. This reminds me of him, except that he's not a bird.

Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Funny to see the site wot follows us insisting that 'the C&V report has not been tossed out' which is true, of course, Judge Nencini ruled that he wasn't going to rule on it when pressed by the prosecutor on Day 1. The Supreme Court made it clear what it thought of their work, 'nuf said, and I am sure that Florence has taken that to heart. But Stefanoni's findings of Meredith's DNA are also in play. So, no to 'contamination' or LCN DNA, but that IS Meredith's DNA on trace B unless whatever the whackadoodles on Sollecito's team can come up with now is really definitive (I can hardly wait for photos of his "chewed fingernails" to surface :) and, Judge Massei's ruling also stands, until Nencini rules, and it will be either murder or manslaughter, and sentences awarded accordingly.

Hi..playing catchup and hoping my post will actually post.
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

tamale wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Funny to see the site wot follows us insisting that 'the C&V report has not been tossed out' which is true, of course, Judge Nencini ruled that he wasn't going to rule on it when pressed by the prosecutor on Day 1. The Supreme Court made it clear what it thought of their work, 'nuf said, and I am sure that Florence has taken that to heart. But Stefanoni's findings of Meredith's DNA are also in play. So, no to 'contamination' or LCN DNA, but that IS Meredith's DNA on trace B unless whatever the whackadoodles on Sollecito's team can come up with now is really definitive (I can hardly wait for photos of his "chewed fingernails" to surface :) and, Judge Massei's ruling also stands, until Nencini rules, and it will be either murder or manslaughter, and sentences awarded accordingly.

Hi..playing catchup and hoping my post will actually post.

A miracle just occured..i am sure.
I will just quickly say that there is some ugly gossip goin around. We are on the same team and we are all very tired...please be kind. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Slade wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Kudos to McCall and the editors of the Meredith Kercher Wiki. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... se_from_o/

It's a wonder that so many have come to appreciate it so quickly, or that a few, well, remaining Amandites still attack it.


Oh yeah! FOAKers' undies are definitely in a wad over the wiki! FOAKers' hijacking of the US Wikipedia wiki on the subject, left a vacuum for those seeking valid information. McCall's format is excellent especially for those who still have doubts over AK's & RS's guilt, and for media. Prior to themurderofmeredithkercher.com we'd send case newbies, or those with only passing interest to either PMF boards or TJMK, or to Massei's motivation report (off-putting size), although comprehensive, none of these offer a central repository where evidence was tied together and explained in an orderly, easily digestible way from beginning to today's Nencini Apeal trial.


I am glad you like it. I wish I had done it earlier. There is also still so much to do. We have had a very kind volunteer offer to translate Stefanoni's testimony. That was very unexpected and great news.

I point the uninformed but concerned to your page. Thank you
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Here is some OT news.

Grand jury voted to indict JonBenét Ramsey's parents, but D.A. balked

What a shame, but at least it is out in the open now. Abused, and first degree murder covered up by both parents. Sounds a bit like the brother did it, although that is still a mystery. I always thought it was the mother. Either way, it is big news and long overdue.
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm

I just don't want to believe it's true...no.
Top Profile 

Offline zinnia


User avatar


Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am

Posts: 56

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Slade wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Kudos to McCall and the editors of the Meredith Kercher Wiki. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... se_from_o/

It's a wonder that so many have come to appreciate it so quickly, or that a few, well, remaining Amandites still attack it.


Oh yeah! FOAKers' undies are definitely in a wad over the wiki! FOAKers' hijacking of the US Wikipedia wiki on the subject, left a vacuum for those seeking valid information. McCall's format is excellent especially for those who still have doubts over AK's & RS's guilt, and for media. Prior to themurderofmeredithkercher.com we'd send case newbies, or those with only passing interest to either PMF boards or TJMK, or to Massei's motivation report (off-putting size), although comprehensive, none of these offer a central repository where evidence was tied together and explained in an orderly, easily digestible way from beginning to today's Nencini Apeal trial.


I am glad you like it. I wish I had done it earlier. There is also still so much to do. We have had a very kind volunteer offer to translate Stefanoni's testimony. That was very unexpected and great news.


McCall, thank you so much for your ongoing efforts. It is a real pleasure to find information I WISH I'd had and now do! I also wish I could translate so I could help, but alas.... I am extremely curious about the testimony of Biff's friends... is anyone working on a translation of those files? If I can be of help any other way, please feel free to let me know. th-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I'm curious about what Knox's mother said during testimony. That has not been completely translated.

I've always had the gut feeling that Knox's mother had a gut feeling that her daughter was involved in the murder. Even her expressions today seem to betray a sense of "what the heck?" It's bizarre that Eda Mellas learned that her daughter's roommate of a few weeks had been murdered and she was taking a work leave of absence and flying around the world to check things for herself. Sollecito's father didn't drive to Perugia to check things out, so what was the urgency from Seattle, if not that phone call? Oddly, while police were trying to understand why Knox had no memory of calling her mother in the middle of the night, her mother also was trying to understand this same point and in fact asked Knox why she made that phone call? It was almost like her mom was asking her why she did something so incriminating, but that can't be proven because apparently both Knox and Mellas have no memory of the phone call. Is that correct? Mellas has no memory of the phone call but in no time she was on her way to Perugia?

It sure would be helpful to know when exactly Mellas decided to drop everything and fly to Perugia, where nothing had yet happened. Or was it after the phone call two hours later, and the one right after that, and again. It doesn't appear that any other parents were panicking in the same way.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I'm curious about what Knox's mother said during testimony. That has not been completely translated.

I've always had the gut feeling that Knox's mother had a gut feeling that her daughter was involved in the murder. Even her expressions today seem to betray a sense of "what the heck?" It's bizarre that Eda Mellas learned that her daughter's roommate of a few weeks had been murdered and she was taking a work leave of absence and flying around the world to check things for herself. Sollecito's father didn't drive to Perugia to check things out, so what was the urgency from Seattle, if not that phone call? Oddly, while police were trying to understand why Knox had no memory of calling her mother in the middle of the night, her mother also was trying to understand this same point and in fact asked Knox why she made that phone call? It was almost like her mom was asking her why she did something so incriminating, but that can't be proven because apparently both Knox and Mellas have no memory of the phone call. Is that correct? Mellas has no memory of the phone call but in no time she was on her way to Perugia?

It sure would be helpful to know when exactly Mellas decided to drop everything and fly to Perugia, where nothing had yet happened. Or was it after the phone call two hours later, and the one right after that, and again. It doesn't appear that any other parents were panicking in the same way.

Thanks. I never thought about that Mellas came over before any arrest had happened. I sometimes wonder if the surprise of that forgotten phonecall was genuine to Mellas or if it was more like an urgent message. Maybe she was signalling to her daughter to better admit the phone call (because of phone records). Of course, in jail you can't discuss this in the open so it needs to be signalled.

She literally suggests to AK what to tell:
"Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house."

Lets say AK told her mother a bit more then just a broken window. Maybe she also told something about the police being there or about Meredith. This needs to be fixed. It does not necessarily look suspicious to call your mother while the police is in your house, but Mellas might have learned of the calls made by RS after that. So Mellas explains how she advised AK to call the police. Problem fixed. Oh, and let daughter know that it is really important to say that nothing happened yet.

Daughter is a bit stubborn and suggests that she doesn't remember.
"Amanda: I know I was making calls. I remember calling Filomena, but I really don’t remember calling anyone else. I just don’t remember having called you."

Oh ok, but what reason will you give for that? Why don't you say stress?
"Edda: Why would that be? Stress, you think?"

Amanda has another idea. Why not just because many things happened at once?
"Amanda: Maybe because so many things were happening at once. "

Edda agrees.
"Edda: Okay, right."

Ok right, good plan. We fixed that little problem.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/D ... all_To_Mom
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... the_detai/
Top Profile 

Offline jaybee51


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 pm

Posts: 112

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

So why did Amanda ring her mother? What did she say? She spoke for about 88 seconds.
And it was obviously enough to get Edda booking tickets.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Jester wrote:
I'm curious about what Knox's mother said during testimony. That has not been completely translated.

I've always had the gut feeling that Knox's mother had a gut feeling that her daughter was involved in the murder. Even her expressions today seem to betray a sense of "what the heck?" It's bizarre that Eda Mellas learned that her daughter's roommate of a few weeks had been murdered and she was taking a work leave of absence and flying around the world to check things for herself. Sollecito's father didn't drive to Perugia to check things out, so what was the urgency from Seattle, if not that phone call? Oddly, while police were trying to understand why Knox had no memory of calling her mother in the middle of the night, her mother also was trying to understand this same point and in fact asked Knox why she made that phone call? It was almost like her mom was asking her why she did something so incriminating, but that can't be proven because apparently both Knox and Mellas have no memory of the phone call. Is that correct? Mellas has no memory of the phone call but in no time she was on her way to Perugia?

It sure would be helpful to know when exactly Mellas decided to drop everything and fly to Perugia, where nothing had yet happened. Or was it after the phone call two hours later, and the one right after that, and again. It doesn't appear that any other parents were panicking in the same way.

Thanks. I never thought about that Mellas came over before any arrest had happened. I sometimes wonder if the surprise of that forgotten phonecall was genuine to Mellas or if it was more like an urgent message. Maybe she was signalling to her daughter to better admit the phone call (because of phone records). Of course, in jail you can't discuss this in the open so it needs to be signalled.

She literally suggests to AK what to tell:
"Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house."

Lets say AK told her mother a bit more then just a broken window. Maybe she also told something about the police being there or about Meredith. This needs to be fixed. It does not necessarily look suspicious to call your mother while the police is in your house, but Mellas might have learned of the calls made by RS after that. So Mellas explains how she advised AK to call the police. Problem fixed. Oh, and let daughter know that it is really important to say that nothing happened yet.

Daughter is a bit stubborn and suggests that she doesn't remember.
"Amanda: I know I was making calls. I remember calling Filomena, but I really don’t remember calling anyone else. I just don’t remember having called you."

Oh ok, but what reason will you give for that? Why don't you say stress?
"Edda: Why would that be? Stress, you think?"

Amanda has another idea. Why not just because many things happened at once?
"Amanda: Maybe because so many things were happening at once. "

Edda agrees.
"Edda: Okay, right."

Ok right, good plan. We fixed that little problem.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/D ... all_To_Mom
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... the_detai/


Thank you for the link. That entire response to the questioning does not come off as genuine. The jail conversation comes off as a cooked up conversation. I am curious about Edda's response to the same questions.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It's not only that call that there's a problem with, it's also the first call. The interesting thing is that the first phone call didn't go down as originally described, not according to Chris Mellas, who was there when the call came. Mellas came on Haloscan, years ago, and told us that in the first call, Amanda told them she was alone at the cottage, that there was blood in the bathroom, that there was poo in the loo and she thought someone may have been in the house with her and that she was leaving to go back to Raffaele's flat to get him. But, we know this wasn't true, because by the time of the first phone call, Raffaele was already with Amanda. So, why the lie from Amanda to her parents that Raffaele wasn't there? My guess, is that it was to head off Edda's predictable instruction to phone the police immediately. Her claim was that she needed Raffaele to make the call. Amanda and Raffaele didn't want to call the police unless they had to (preferring someone like Filomena would come along and do it instead) and then if they were to find themselves having to, to delay making that call as long as possible (which they indeed did delay, three times they were told to call the police).

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


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I cannot see Knox running, hiding perhaps, but she is female, and everything she is, it seems, guilty of, could happen to her as a vulnerable female. Short of a full face transplant I cannot see how she could run AND hide. I can imagine her being kept hidden away, as she has a network of enablers who would help her it seems, a life that could never be.

At the moment a possible court ruling says guilty, and the supreme Court confirms, I think she'll go into hiding, wqhile in the meantime her enablers try to conjure uip even more mayhem by putting out false ideas, like they have, the enablers in the media have, by pretending it's a case of they let her off, and now they decided to try her AGAIN, when this was not the case and even they know that, yet at the level in American, where people have to decide whether an extradition order is correct, they are not going to be taking advice from King News, ABC News or the ex-judge who stepped out under a dark cloud for having misused his position, a set of other judges ruled that he had behaved incorrectly, he received punishment, but wait, isn't it judges who are supposed to be handing out punishments, the point where a judge starts getting punished for misbehaving is the point the judge's credibility is irreparably damaged. He was lucky he was about to retire.

1. You have the judge who gets punished.
2. The lawyer who:
a. gets drunk drives a car then
b. shouts abuse at the police who she actually had worked for (defending them) and so
imagined
c. she herself was above the law and
d. could even tell the police what to do by
e. threatening them.
f. The lawyer who is found guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol and is shown on video abusing the police she protected (please post video here)

3. Then as if she isn't bad enough, her brother seems to think he can help her cause by butting in, however, could she ever be credible again after what she did, is her credibility only zero at the point she next time simply shoots the cop that pulls her over, I mean, how is it that people like this can continue to pretend that they have any validity at all, threatening the police is a really serious matter and shows exactly how pompous she is to continue as if it is nothing and says nothing about her character and level of honesty. The shamelessness does fit the mould though.

4. Then you have the Dempsky and make a piece of your pension money, who writes like an excited child, on her blog, to her sister, saying woo hoo look at all of the traffic on my blog from all around the world... this was before the woman became far worse as time went by, yet, the traffic was never anything to do with her personality, it was not the case that she set up a blog/webpage and had lots of traffic because people thought she was great, just the same as no blog or webpage generated by Meredith's murder represents anyone's own popularity, it is about Meredith, and what happened to her, people wanted to talk about it, that is how traffic was and is generated.

Still, somehow, the person who has Italian blood yet strangely cannot do enough to put Italy and Italians down what with all of her self-awarded prizes and titles, did think it was all about her.

Within a few weeks most people realised what she was doing and left, it was also made known that she actually already had some kind of a book deal before Meredith's murder but no subject, Meredith's murder became her project, which she then attempted to turn from true or actual crime into a work of fiction, not fiction just in a book, but fiction as in turn the real murder into some fictitious thing. That is quite something.

Her censorship habits were an exact reflection of that, and this so early on, everything she didn't want in the story, she censored, she removed posts one after the other, making the blog unreadable. Yet if she was able, so early on, to take such a position, then the only thing I have ever been able to imagine is that she knew the family.

5. As an extension, there was a range of Americans with an Italian name but, from what has been shown, not a lot to do with Italy, presenting themselves as some kind of special person/expert, all of these fit in with the above woman, in their self-centred interests motivating what they did. Thankfully most shut up pretty fast too, perhaps they thought it was'nt going to pay them what they imagined they could get out of it. All of them did all they could to present Italy as incompetent and Italians as crooks.

6. After this, someone, somewhere, in America, got to work to have people like Moore, Simon, Heavey and the scientist fellows on board their ship.
Some of these, including the drunk cop defending/threatening lawyer seem to be more or less home grown, I mean, Mr Heavey, is there any particular reason you took the side of the family living just a few doors down from you? No, for I am seeking justice, the fact my daughter used to play with the accused has nothing to do with it, I am entirely impartial.

7. An Italian, abuser in his own right, not just of foreigners in whose country he is a guest, in whose house he is a guest, whose money he did take and who is a thretener of his own family, but additionally, enemy of the police, prosecution departments and courts of Italy, physical abuser of both men and women, becomes Mr Chief Spokesman of the FOA platform, as some kind of: See, he is Italian and he says they are all crooks, so he must be right, type of thing.

8. The worst staging is Knox pretending to be one of Meredith's friends, not just 'a' friend, but 'the' friend closest to Meredith.

All they repeat is how their lives are destroyed, how they need their lives, etc.: Meredith would have been well into her career by now, the lady who did not need to pose in front of big bookcases, pen in hand and suddenly appear like the hugely studious type, spectacles on the end of nose, in order to quantify her intellectual ability, Meredith DID do her work, in the time that it was NEEDED to be done, back then, not NOW like Knox does!!!

Does this mean that people can alter the past through such manoeuvres?

Knox wasn't doing what he needed, though her club tried to pretend that she was railroaded (as in the sense of being derailed), she was the one off track, she didn't need any help in that; hooking up with an Italian and immediately starting to live with him had nothing to do with integrating, it was easy and did not show an independent person.

Away from home, familiar props that supported the sense of identity gone, she apparently ran wild, observing the way her family has enabled her after the murder seems to point towards the reasons why she would have gone off track, free of their controlling ways, when out of their reach.

To get a real view, a realistic view, it's no good looking at the pair of them all polished and groomed and speaking in their pre-set interviews, the ones where the interviewers were and are nearly always accused-friendly; one must look at the images of them stood there outside the murder scene looking dirty, greasy, unkempt, ungroomed and very, very drained and tired, in fact exhausted, Sollecito not just pale faced but grey skinned, remember Knox said she'd been busy all morning showering. And, they had according to what they said, slept all night, so why so fatigued?

It is ironic that the only thing that is consistent is the inconsistencies, they all add up, there are far too many for it to be coincidence.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zinnia wrote:
McCall wrote:
Slade wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Kudos to McCall and the editors of the Meredith Kercher Wiki. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... se_from_o/

It's a wonder that so many have come to appreciate it so quickly, or that a few, well, remaining Amandites still attack it.


Oh yeah! FOAKers' undies are definitely in a wad over the wiki! FOAKers' hijacking of the US Wikipedia wiki on the subject, left a vacuum for those seeking valid information. McCall's format is excellent especially for those who still have doubts over AK's & RS's guilt, and for media. Prior to themurderofmeredithkercher.com we'd send case newbies, or those with only passing interest to either PMF boards or TJMK, or to Massei's motivation report (off-putting size), although comprehensive, none of these offer a central repository where evidence was tied together and explained in an orderly, easily digestible way from beginning to today's Nencini Apeal trial.


I am glad you like it. I wish I had done it earlier. There is also still so much to do. We have had a very kind volunteer offer to translate Stefanoni's testimony. That was very unexpected and great news.


McCall, thank you so much for your ongoing efforts. It is a real pleasure to find information I WISH I'd had and now do! I also wish I could translate so I could help, but alas.... I am extremely curious about the testimony of Biff's friends... is anyone working on a translation of those files? If I can be of help any other way, please feel free to let me know. th-)


One of the volunteers is doing a summary of each of their testimonies but it is mostly just Sollecito is a great guy. I've only read one out of the five and it was boilerplate character testimony.

I'm more interested in the testimony of the boys who lived downstairs. Apparently Amanda Knox had more contact with Rudy Guede than was previously suggested. Supposedly Knox and Guede were together four times in October. Three of those times were group gatherings where the downstairs neighbors were present and one was Guede going to the pub Knox worked at. The interesting part is that at one of the parties at the downstairs neighbors' appartment Knox and Guede left the group and went off together alone. The obvious implication of why they wanted privacy is apparently inferred. I have not read these transcripts but they are going to be moved up in priority since this would refute the myth that Knox and Guede hardly knew each other.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
zinnia wrote:
McCall wrote:
Slade wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Kudos to McCall and the editors of the Meredith Kercher Wiki. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... se_from_o/

It's a wonder that so many have come to appreciate it so quickly, or that a few, well, remaining Amandites still attack it.


Oh yeah! FOAKers' undies are definitely in a wad over the wiki! FOAKers' hijacking of the US Wikipedia wiki on the subject, left a vacuum for those seeking valid information. McCall's format is excellent especially for those who still have doubts over AK's & RS's guilt, and for media. Prior to themurderofmeredithkercher.com we'd send case newbies, or those with only passing interest to either PMF boards or TJMK, or to Massei's motivation report (off-putting size), although comprehensive, none of these offer a central repository where evidence was tied together and explained in an orderly, easily digestible way from beginning to today's Nencini Apeal trial.


I am glad you like it. I wish I had done it earlier. There is also still so much to do. We have had a very kind volunteer offer to translate Stefanoni's testimony. That was very unexpected and great news.


McCall, thank you so much for your ongoing efforts. It is a real pleasure to find information I WISH I'd had and now do! I also wish I could translate so I could help, but alas.... I am extremely curious about the testimony of Biff's friends... is anyone working on a translation of those files? If I can be of help any other way, please feel free to let me know. th-)


One of the volunteers is doing a summary of each of their testimonies but it is mostly just Sollecito is a great guy. I've only read one out of the five and it was boilerplate character testimony.

I'm more interested in the testimony of the boys who lived downstairs. Apparently Amanda Knox had more contact with Rudy Guede than was previously suggested. Supposedly Knox and Guede were together four times in October. Three of those times were group gatherings where the downstairs neighbors were present and one was Guede going to the pub Knox worked at. The interesting part is that at one of the parties at the downstairs neighbors' appartment Knox and Guede left the group and went off together alone. The obvious implication of why they wanted privacy is apparently inferred. I have not read these transcripts but they are going to be moved up in priority since this would refute the myth that Knox and Guede hardly knew each other.



Seems the neighbours were so shocked by it all, and not knowing anyone really well, thought it better to not get placed in the news.

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

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I'm curious about what Knox's mother said during testimony. That has not been completely translated.

I've always had the gut feeling that Knox's mother had a gut feeling that her daughter was involved in the murder. Even her expressions today seem to betray a sense of "what the heck?" It's bizarre that Eda Mellas learned that her daughter's roommate of a few weeks had been murdered and she was taking a work leave of absence and flying around the world to check things for herself. Sollecito's father didn't drive to Perugia to check things out, so what was the urgency from Seattle, if not that phone call? Oddly, while police were trying to understand why Knox had no memory of calling her mother in the middle of the night, her mother also was trying to understand this same point and in fact asked Knox why she made that phone call? It was almost like her mom was asking her why she did something so incriminating, but that can't be proven because apparently both Knox and Mellas have no memory of the phone call. Is that correct? Mellas has no memory of the phone call but in no time she was on her way to Perugia?

It sure would be helpful to know when exactly Mellas decided to drop everything and fly to Perugia, where nothing had yet happened. Or was it after the phone call two hours later, and the one right after that, and again. It doesn't appear that any other parents were panicking in the same way.


Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jaybee51 wrote:
So why did Amanda ring her mother? What did she say? She spoke for about 88 seconds.
And it was obviously enough to get Edda booking tickets.


There has been a minor burglary where nothing was stolen doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that would motivate a parent to fly halfway around the world.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Underhill


Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 80

Location: Suffolk, UK

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
I'm curious about what Knox's mother said during testimony. That has not been completely translated.

I've always had the gut feeling that Knox's mother had a gut feeling that her daughter was involved in the murder. Even her expressions today seem to betray a sense of "what the heck?" It's bizarre that Eda Mellas learned that her daughter's roommate of a few weeks had been murdered and she was taking a work leave of absence and flying around the world to check things for herself. Sollecito's father didn't drive to Perugia to check things out, so what was the urgency from Seattle, if not that phone call? Oddly, while police were trying to understand why Knox had no memory of calling her mother in the middle of the night, her mother also was trying to understand this same point and in fact asked Knox why she made that phone call? It was almost like her mom was asking her why she did something so incriminating, but that can't be proven because apparently both Knox and Mellas have no memory of the phone call. Is that correct? Mellas has no memory of the phone call but in no time she was on her way to Perugia?

It sure would be helpful to know when exactly Mellas decided to drop everything and fly to Perugia, where nothing had yet happened. Or was it after the phone call two hours later, and the one right after that, and again. It doesn't appear that any other parents were panicking in the same way.


Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.


It's ironic then, that Massei went on to use Francesco's testimony as evidence that Knox was lying about the time they at dinner. His reasoning was that that dinner occurred before the leak; the leak occurred before Francesco's call; Francesco's call was at about 8:40. Therefore Knox is lying when she says they ate at 10.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
jaybee51 wrote:
So why did Amanda ring her mother? What did she say? She spoke for about 88 seconds.
And it was obviously enough to get Edda booking tickets.
There has been a minor burglary where nothing was stolen doesn't really seem like the kind of thing that would motivate a parent to fly halfway around the world.

Yah, we can only guess what was said. Filomena was called at 12:08 and at 12:34 AK tells Filomena about the break-in. Cleanup about finished, and ready to start discovery with Filomena. They go outside to wait for Filomena. She would call the police and RS's sister would come to the rescue.

Then surprise, surprise ....within minutes 2 postal police show up. They tell the postals that they already called the Caribinieri. Probably hoping that the postals would go away. They didn't because they needed information about the phone, and so they tried to finish business with the postals asap. They still had some time till Filomena would show up after all. Then another surprise, Filomena's friends showed up. That wasn't the plan!

Things are totally messed up because the Postals are now certainly not leaving. Filomena is on the way but they already said they called the Caribinieri. What to do...what to do... Ok, lets quickly go inside the bedroom for a few minutes and make some phone calls. The postal police has only been here for 15 minutes and nobody will ever notice. I think they didn't even think of the phone records but were more concerned that the postal police would notice their lie about calling the Caribinieri.

Filomena shows up and people are getting worried about Meredith. AK tries one last time to get the postal police to leave. No, that door is always locked...please go away...but it is too late. The door is broken down. The Postal Police is on the case, and not the Caribinieri.


Last edited by max on Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jaybee51


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 pm

Posts: 112

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
I'm more interested in the testimony of the boys who lived downstairs. Apparently Amanda Knox had more contact with Rudy Guede than was previously suggested. Supposedly Knox and Guede were together four times in October. Three of those times were group gatherings where the downstairs neighbors were present and one was Guede going to the pub Knox worked at. The interesting part is that at one of the parties at the downstairs neighbors' appartment Knox and Guede left the group and went off together alone. The obvious implication of why they wanted privacy is apparently inferred. I have not read these transcripts but they are going to be moved up in priority since this would refute the myth that Knox and Guede hardly knew each other.



huh-) I am gob-smacked. If this was testified to in open court - why is this not common knowledge? Surely some reporter should have broadcast this far and wide.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hmm, just got this tweet:

El Presidente ‏@GuilterWatchin 39s
@NJusticAnywhere invites pro-guilt blogger "Edward McCall" @Red_0ak to discuss #AmandaKnox case on live broadcast. http://t.co/kNP1Hec7qn


Honest invitation? Or ruse to discover McCall's identity? ;)

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


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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ruse, Ruse, Ruse. my vote.

Ergon invited Knox to speak with him. The invitation was posted yesterday. Bruised posts his invitation to McCall today. Not that I think that McCall can't handle himself, but, I believe that the return invitation should have been extended to Ergon. Methinks Bruiser wants to know who McCall is because of his work on the Wiki page.
I smell stinky cheese. Not surprising. I always do where Bruce is concerned.


ETA: No insult intended to stinky cheese.


Last edited by Napia5 on Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

:-) I wondered about that, Napia5. Yes, Bruce did tell IIP about my invitation yesterday, but he feels I am not important enough for Amanda to speak to :(

He then issues his invitation to Ed McCall this morning to debate with him, and I am sure that is related but it doesn't take away the fact he does consider McCall and the Wiki enemy #1. It's up to McCall to respond, of course, and whatever he decides will be great.

Yes, I have not ever been interviewed by Diane Sawyer, so I'm not a celebrity or anything. But if she truly wants "to be heard", she might consider giving me a call. They have my contact information.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:




Away from home, familiar props that supported the sense of identity gone, she apparently ran wild, observing the way her family has enabled her after the murder seems to point towards the reasons why she would have gone off track, free of their controlling ways, when out of their reach.


Hi, Zorba. I always felt that this was definitely a key factor,which contributed to things going so far off-track.
With no structure, and lack of routine, things degenerated quickly. Young people of course want to 'try their wings.'It's a normal rite of passage. We all could share a story or two. But we all probably can remember also, that one person, male or female, who caused us a slight sense of anxiety, of not-rightness, whose behavior was over the top, beyond the norm, who tried too hard, laughed too loud, and would cause us to smile, in discomfort at their antics. And all the while, we just wished they'd shut up and go away. Realizing that you're trying, and failing, must be anger-producing, or rage-producing, especially if others seem to be able to pull this off without trying.
Meredith, for example.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:




Away from home, familiar props that supported the sense of identity gone, she apparently ran wild, observing the way her family has enabled her after the murder seems to point towards the reasons why she would have gone off track, free of their controlling ways, when out of their reach.


Hi, Zorba. I always felt that this was definitely a key factor,which contributed to things going so far off-track.
With no structure, and lack of routine, things degenerated quickly. Young people of course want to 'try their wings. 'It's a normal rite of passage. We all could share a story or two. But we all probably can remember also, that one person, male or female, who caused us a slight sense of anxiety, of not-rightness, whose behavior was over the top, beyond the norm, who tried too hard, laughed too loud, and would cause us to smile, in discomfort at their antics. And all the while, we just wished they'd shut up and go away. Realizing that you're trying, and failing, must be anger-producing, or rage-producing, especially if others seem to be able to pull this off without trying.
Meredith, for example.



Hello Napia, I've met plenty of people who acted like Knox and Sollecito, that is; like them up until the murder.

One of the most noticeable main phenomena that always been how people, some, act so differently in various settings, so a person alone or with a couple of others may act totally different where there are larger numbers of people. It's a natural thing, some become afraid to say anything, others get on an ego trip and in fact it has been deetermined how some people will do things in a group that they'd never do among just one or two others, one of the worst things that some end up doingin a group is being able to inflict violence on others, often joining in thorugh a kind of need for appraisal, too afraid to be assertive and make an own stand, something of this may have played a part in this case, even if the group was very small at least as far as sheep go Siollecito seems like one, about Guede, it's hard to say much as he has said so little. To say what he has, the way he said it, where he did point to stuff concerning the other two but not being completely honest, not saying exactly what happened, shows he knew he was stuck but the element of having them caught out and then revealing what he did, seems klike it was all to much like that, and again, in this way, he seems very Italian, still, he knew rthere was no way he was getting to walk away from it all so I reckon he worked out/decided it'd be better to leave it as it is, he does not want to admit his involvement, because of the shame he will feel knowing those who believed him would know exactly what he did. Being insecure as it seemw he probably has been, growing up by the sound of it, alone, means what he had, hiis helpers, those that cared for him, were important to him ewven if he did fail them/himself, but to not have been perfect would never be something unique to him, rebelling, not wanting to go to school and things is not out of the ordinary, telling lies is also not out of the ordinary, because everyone has told a lie at some time, it is the degree to which one takes to lying and in relation to what, that makes the difference. Many people can go quite far yet know when they are going too far as they do not want to be so bad, they'd cave in sooner and just come out with the truth.

In a sense, I almost feel more angry towards Guede, given it is pretty much clear that he did not stab Meredith, the fact that he allows this false sense of pride and shame get in the way, his shame about sexual molestation and how it was he too participated, evebn if he could not have suspected thoings were going to go so bad, he still was involved in part of rthe bad, it's this that makes me see it aa a quite swift result of spontaneity, since it's well known that people do the maddest things that way, spontaneously, and if they had time to think things over they would often think better of it. I cannot sense sheer wickedness about Guede that's why I in no way can see him having been instructed as to a plan to murder Meredith. I do see him as being weak enough to tag along and lose his own bearings, becoming overcome with sexual urges, taking advantage of the situation, in the minute, with no thought of consequences, that to me says smashed on pills and powders, lost in the moment.
If there was premeditation, it in no way has to mean he was part of that, I just cannot see it, him involved that way. If they'd wanted to murder Meredith, they'd hardly have wanted witnesses, which Guede was, and I can't see that they'd go so far as to try to murder Meredith but have him blamed for it, far too complicated and the risks attached far too many, risk number 1 being Guede immediately revealing everything.

I took a look at Mother Mellas' testimony, it's long, will take out all the stuff throughout referring to the interpreter.

It starts out with Massei explaining that Mother M does not have to testify, the bond as a family member, means she has a choice, he says.
The interpreter then says, she wants to testify.
Judge Massei then states, in that case, since she wants to testify, the rules applied to others shall apply to her irrespective of the family bond, and the same consequences; she is required to tell the truth.
She agrees, and they then proceed.

I suspect that had Patrick had some really fast-witted lawyer, the lawyer could really have got something more out of it, at the moment Knox's mother stood there, referring to the call that Knox then apparently could not recall, her mother's dumbfounded look says it all, yet her manner shows too that she was swiftly aware of it being a sore point and swiftly aware of what her daughter was up to, specifically; telling lies since mom knew full-well that her daughter definitely could never have forgotten it, it's plain to see they'd spoken about it dozens of times, mom just wasn't expecting her daughter to flatly deny that it had even taken place. For me, that moment was so telling, the lawyer should have found a way to stick at that spot, and to get the truth out. It would have been terrible for Knox and the opportunity was to have the truth revealed by mother. What, was she going to do, start calling her mother, who was there testifying in her defence, a liar?

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

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Underhill wrote:
McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
I'm curious about what Knox's mother said during testimony. That has not been completely translated.

I've always had the gut feeling that Knox's mother had a gut feeling that her daughter was involved in the murder. Even her expressions today seem to betray a sense of "what the heck?" It's bizarre that Eda Mellas learned that her daughter's roommate of a few weeks had been murdered and she was taking a work leave of absence and flying around the world to check things for herself. Sollecito's father didn't drive to Perugia to check things out, so what was the urgency from Seattle, if not that phone call? Oddly, while police were trying to understand why Knox had no memory of calling her mother in the middle of the night, her mother also was trying to understand this same point and in fact asked Knox why she made that phone call? It was almost like her mom was asking her why she did something so incriminating, but that can't be proven because apparently both Knox and Mellas have no memory of the phone call. Is that correct? Mellas has no memory of the phone call but in no time she was on her way to Perugia?

It sure would be helpful to know when exactly Mellas decided to drop everything and fly to Perugia, where nothing had yet happened. Or was it after the phone call two hours later, and the one right after that, and again. It doesn't appear that any other parents were panicking in the same way.


Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.


It's ironic then, that Massei went on to use Francesco's testimony as evidence that Knox was lying about the time they at dinner. His reasoning was that that dinner occurred before the leak; the leak occurred before Francesco's call; Francesco's call was at about 8:40. Therefore Knox is lying when she says they ate at 10.


This is the relevant section

GCM: perchè lei prima a domanda del pubblico ministero che le chiedeva quando lei fa la telefonata delle 20:42 suo figlio dove sta lei ha detto che non lo sapeva.

FS: io ho detto questo perchè è evidente che ho chiamato da un cellulare da un altro cellulare in teoria mio figlio poteva essere da qualsiasi parte. Ma facendo riferimento invece alla perdita dello scarico devo dedurre in questo momento lo deduco categoricamente che mio figlio in quel momento si trovava a casa sua.

GCM: perchè suo figlio che cosa le dice che stava in casa.

FS: che stava in casa e che stava armeggiando in cucina e gli era successo questo guaio insomma. Che si era accorto mentre lavava i piatti che si versava l'acqua per terra.

GCM: mentre lavava i piatti.

FS: mentre lavava i piatti.

Earlier FS had said he didn't know where Raffaele was when he called him but now that it was time to discuss the pipe leak FS said his son was washing the dishes. GCM picks up on that and asks FS why he previously said that he did not know where his son was. FS gives some excuse about how he was calling from a cell phone to a cell phone so he could be anywhere but he was definitely washing dishes. If this was true FS never would have made the previous statement about not knowing where RS was when he received the call. The memory would have been formed with RS at home washing dishes but instead FS only remembers the dishes part when it comes time to discuss the water leak.

Both FS and Sollecito's landlady also discuss issues with the plumbing but despite both being very specific about everything else when it comes to the plumbing issue they are very vague. Nobody remembers dates of when either of the plumbers came out. Since RS was supposed to be out of the apartment on Oct 31st and only extended his stay until the 15th it is safe to conclude that the plumbing issue was at least a few weeks before this. The problem was that RS was getting insufficient hot water but that is something you could live with if you were moving out in a few days. They just want to use that there was a need to call a plumber previously as a way to make the leak easier to accept. What they end up doing is the exact opposite. Because they get so sketchy about the dates the plumbers came out you know that something is afoot. In an effort to support their lie they manage to draw more attention to the lie and make it easier to detect.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jaybee51 wrote:
McCall wrote:
I'm more interested in the testimony of the boys who lived downstairs. Apparently Amanda Knox had more contact with Rudy Guede than was previously suggested. Supposedly Knox and Guede were together four times in October. Three of those times were group gatherings where the downstairs neighbors were present and one was Guede going to the pub Knox worked at. The interesting part is that at one of the parties at the downstairs neighbors' appartment Knox and Guede left the group and went off together alone. The obvious implication of why they wanted privacy is apparently inferred. I have not read these transcripts but they are going to be moved up in priority since this would refute the myth that Knox and Guede hardly knew each other.



huh-) I am gob-smacked. If this was testified to in open court - why is this not common knowledge? Surely some reporter should have broadcast this far and wide.


It was reported by Frank on Perugia Shock and I've since asked other people who are knowledgeable and they confirmed that the Amanda and Rudy leaving the group alone was public knowledge. I have the transcripts for some of the neighbours from downstairs but I have only skimmed one because I assumed it wouldn't be an important witness. I'm going to read it again as well as the other guys who lived downstairs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, Zorba. You've certainly been following this sad case much longer than me, and have the ability also, to translate the Italian you read and hear, and I'd like to ask you a question:

Do you remember when, exactly, you became convinced that Knox and Sollecito were involved? Was there a defining moment, an aha one, where all of it came together for you?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Hmm, just got this tweet:

El Presidente ‏@GuilterWatchin 39s
@NJusticAnywhere invites pro-guilt blogger "Edward McCall" @Red_0ak to discuss #AmandaKnox case on live broadcast. http://t.co/kNP1Hec7qn


Honest invitation? Or ruse to discover McCall's identity? ;)


I think he is just upset because I made him look foolish in the comments of Hard Knocks for Amanda Knox: The Case Against the American Girl. Bruce's posts got deleted which I don't agree with but given how bad it was going it might have been because he asked to have them removed. I obviously have no interest on wasting my time with his internet radio show. Bruce is a joke and the show has no audience. That I even responded to his tweet was already giving him more legitimacy than he deserves.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 3:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
:-) I wondered about that, Napia5. Yes, Bruce did tell IIP about my invitation yesterday, but he feels I am not important enough for Amanda to speak to :(

He then issues his invitation to Ed McCall this morning to debate with him, and I am sure that is related but it doesn't take away the fact he does consider McCall and the Wiki enemy #1. It's up to McCall to respond, of course, and whatever he decides will be great.

Yes, I have not ever been interviewed by Diane Sawyer, so I'm not a celebrity or anything. But if she truly wants "to be heard", she might consider giving me a call. They have my contact information.


I thought your offer to talk to Knox was brilliant, by the way. Hair up on the back of the neck brilliant. For all of the obvious reasons, it won't happen.

However, as to what McCall might do, if asked my opinion, (which he hasn't, but that never stops me from offering one), I would actually suggest that he decline. The Big Bruise is currently wrapped up with an audience of no one except his own crazies. What a living hell that must be. And deservedly so. I've long entertained myself with visions of just how many short-leashes he has to hang onto, to keep his nuts noosed and under control, and I suggest that he just be left to it. He can simply yank them all along to his next endeavor. Push PayPal, please.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:

Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.


If the leak never happened - which makes a lot more sense than leaving a water spill on the kitchen floor for sixteen hours - then the story from Knox about carrying a mop through Perugia at 10:30 in the morning takes on a different meaning as well. The mop story always seemed out of place. It seemed like something that Knox came up with to cover the possibility that someone saw her that morning with cleaning supplies. Sollecito also said something about Knox carry a bag. Does that mean that Knox took cleaning supplies from Sollecito's apartment (possibly purchased at 8 that morning in the shop near Sollecito's apartment) to the cottage at about 10am and cleaned the place, and then she disposed of some of the supplies as she walked to Sollecito's apartment for lunch? Didn't the cleaning lady say that there was more bleach at Sollecito's apartment than she last saw?
Top Profile 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Does Francesco say for sure that Raffaele mentions a water leak to him, or is it that he just mentions washing up the dishes? If just the latter then that does not mean that he is caught in a contradiction because unless he was told otherwise it would at least be possible that RS was washing dishes at the cottage. What it would mean, however, is that there is no third party confirmation that the story about a leak was true.


Last edited by jape on Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:35 pm, 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: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Michael wrote:
Hmm, just got this tweet:

El Presidente ‏@GuilterWatchin 39s
@NJusticAnywhere invites pro-guilt blogger "Edward McCall" @Red_0ak to discuss #AmandaKnox case on live broadcast. http://t.co/kNP1Hec7qn


Honest invitation? Or ruse to discover McCall's identity? ;)


I think he is just upset because I made him look foolish in the comments of Hard Knocks for Amanda Knox: The Case Against the American Girl. Bruce's posts got deleted which I don't agree with but given how bad it was going it might have been because he asked to have them removed. I obviously have no interest on wasting my time with his internet radio show. Bruce is a joke and the show has no audience. That I even responded to his tweet was already giving him more legitimacy than he deserves.



Indeed. But also, don't underestimate their desperation to find out your identity. When they are faced with a threat and they are unable to find a way to smear that threat, smear being their only defence, then they are at a complete loss and all of a panic. I don't think it's a coincidence either, that Steve Moore has recently been ranting on about members of our camp being anonymous or working under a pseudonym. They desperately want a way to get at that Wiki and since they can't get at it by arguing the facts or with truth, their only option is to go after the architects. And all the time they're faceless, they're stumped.

_________________
"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 Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jape wrote:
Does Francesco say for sure that Raffaele mentions a water leak to him, or is it that he just mentions washing up the dishes?


On page 62 of the Massei report, there is a discussion of Dr Sollecito's phone call to his son at 8:42pm where he learned that the water spilled onto the floor while he was washing dishes.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:

Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.


If the leak never happened - which makes a lot more sense than leaving a water spill on the kitchen floor for sixteen hours - then the story from Knox about carrying a mop through Perugia at 10:30 in the morning takes on a different meaning as well. The mop story always seemed out of place. It seemed like something that Knox came up with to cover the possibility that someone saw her that morning with cleaning supplies. Sollecito also said something about Knox carry a bag. Does that mean that Knox took cleaning supplies from Sollecito's apartment (possibly purchased at 8 that morning in the shop near Sollecito's apartment) to the cottage at about 10am and cleaned the place, and then she disposed of some of the supplies as she walked to Sollecito's apartment for lunch? Didn't the cleaning lady say that there was more bleach at Sollecito's apartment than she last saw?



The bag is a problem. The claim was, it was to collect laundry. So, where was this laundry...what was done with it...and the bag? What about the cottage washing machine that already had items of Knox's clothing in it? And so then, why the need to collect laundry? Wasn't it already done in the cottage machine? If not, why couldn't the next load be done in there, why the need to take it away from the cottage? And where was it destined for...Raffaele's washing machine? The launderette? Why the pressing need to do laundry, it couldn't be ready for Gubbio, so why not leave it until the next day? Lots of questions, few answers.

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


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Ergon wrote:
:-) I wondered about that, Napia5. Yes, Bruce did tell IIP about my invitation yesterday, but he feels I am not important enough for Amanda to speak to :(

He then issues his invitation to Ed McCall this morning to debate with him, and I am sure that is related but it doesn't take away the fact he does consider McCall and the Wiki enemy #1. It's up to McCall to respond, of course, and whatever he decides will be great.

Yes, I have not ever been interviewed by Diane Sawyer, so I'm not a celebrity or anything. But if she truly wants "to be heard", she might consider giving me a call. They have my contact information.


I thought your offer to talk to Knox was brilliant, by the way. Hair up on the back of the neck brilliant. For all of the obvious reasons, it won't happen.

However, as to what McCall might do, if asked my opinion, (which he hasn't, but that never stops me from offering one), I would actually suggest that he decline. The Big Bruise is currently wrapped up with an audience of no one except his own crazies. What a living hell that must be. And deservedly so. I've long entertained myself with visions of just how many short-leashes he has to hang onto, to keep his nuts noosed and under control, and I suggest that he just be left to it. He can simply yank them all along to his next endeavor. Push PayPal, please.


Thanks, Napia5. It's funny that Bruce, and now his site moderator "DougM" (Doug Bremner?) are both chiming in there and on twitter saying she shouldn't be talking to me. Raffaele Sollecito started talking to me on Twitter, then a follower told him not to, so he blocked me. LOL.

I promised to listen. Can Amanda Knox not speak for herself?
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 Oct 26, 2013 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Ergon wrote:
:-) I wondered about that, Napia5. Yes, Bruce did tell IIP about my invitation yesterday, but he feels I am not important enough for Amanda to speak to :(

He then issues his invitation to Ed McCall this morning to debate with him, and I am sure that is related but it doesn't take away the fact he does consider McCall and the Wiki enemy #1. It's up to McCall to respond, of course, and whatever he decides will be great.

Yes, I have not ever been interviewed by Diane Sawyer, so I'm not a celebrity or anything. But if she truly wants "to be heard", she might consider giving me a call. They have my contact information.


I thought your offer to talk to Knox was brilliant, by the way. Hair up on the back of the neck brilliant. For all of the obvious reasons, it won't happen.

However, as to what McCall might do, if asked my opinion, (which he hasn't, but that never stops me from offering one), I would actually suggest that he decline. The Big Bruise is currently wrapped up with an audience of no one except his own crazies. What a living hell that must be. And deservedly so. I've long entertained myself with visions of just how many short-leashes he has to hang onto, to keep his nuts noosed and under control, and I suggest that he just be left to it. He can simply yank them all along to his next endeavor. Push PayPal, please.


Thanks, Napia5. It's funny that Bruce, and now his site moderator "DougM" (Doug Bremner?) are both chiming in there and on twitter saying she shouldn't be talking to me. Raffaele Sollecito started talking to me on Twitter, then a follower told him not to, so he blocked me. LOL.

I promised to listen. Can Amanda Knox not speak for herself?



Self appointed guardians of Amanda Knox. And yeah, DougM is Doug Bremner. Foaming at the mouth fanatic and compulsive liar that he 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 Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Ergon wrote:
:-) I wondered about that, Napia5. Yes, Bruce did tell IIP about my invitation yesterday, but he feels I am not important enough for Amanda to speak to :(

He then issues his invitation to Ed McCall this morning to debate with him, and I am sure that is related but it doesn't take away the fact he does consider McCall and the Wiki enemy #1. It's up to McCall to respond, of course, and whatever he decides will be great.

Yes, I have not ever been interviewed by Diane Sawyer, so I'm not a celebrity or anything. But if she truly wants "to be heard", she might consider giving me a call. They have my contact information.


I thought your offer to talk to Knox was brilliant, by the way. Hair up on the back of the neck brilliant. For all of the obvious reasons, it won't happen.

However, as to what McCall might do, if asked my opinion, (which he hasn't, but that never stops me from offering one), I would actually suggest that he decline. The Big Bruise is currently wrapped up with an audience of no one except his own crazies. What a living hell that must be. And deservedly so. I've long entertained myself with visions of just how many short-leashes he has to hang onto, to keep his nuts noosed and under control, and I suggest that he just be left to it. He can simply yank them all along to his next endeavor. Push PayPal, please.


Thanks, Napia5. It's funny that Bruce, and now his site moderator "DougM" (Doug Bremner?) are both chiming in there and on twitter saying she shouldn't be talking to me. Raffaele Sollecito started talking to me on Twitter, then a follower told him not to, so he blocked me. LOL.

I promised to listen. Can Amanda Knox not speak for herself?


Of course she can! Which is the exact reason why you will never be given access. But, maybe Bruce will offer to interview her. Or has he already? Is he enough of a celebrity?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

While I'm here, Jester, I truly enjoy your take on all of the little details that pop up with regard to the 'story' as told by Knox. You commented the other day about Knox stating she ran outside to the downstairs flat to contact the residents there. I have to wonder whether this was another red herring, meant to cover any footprints she may have been worried about that may have been left when retrieving the rock. Interesting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
While I'm here, Jester, I truly enjoy your take on all of the little details that pop up with regard to the 'story' as told by Knox. You commented the other day about Knox stating she ran outside to the downstairs flat to contact the residents there. I have to wonder whether this was another red herring, meant to cover any footprints she may have been worried about that may have been left when retrieving the rock. Interesting.


There are so many small details that stayed in my memory because they didn't fit with the stories given by Sollecito and Knox. They had plans to spend the day in Gubbio, but by morning, nothing they did fit with the plan they had the night before. It seems that they tried to cook up a story to explain anything that they thought might incriminate them, but in doing so, they missed the mark and instead added unnecessary details that only created more questions.
Top Profile 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:

Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.


If the leak never happened - which makes a lot more sense than leaving a water spill on the kitchen floor for sixteen hours - then the story from Knox about carrying a mop through Perugia at 10:30 in the morning takes on a different meaning as well. The mop story always seemed out of place. It seemed like something that Knox came up with to cover the possibility that someone saw her that morning with cleaning supplies. Sollecito also said something about Knox carry a bag. Does that mean that Knox took cleaning supplies from Sollecito's apartment (possibly purchased at 8 that morning in the shop near Sollecito's apartment) to the cottage at about 10am and cleaned the place, and then she disposed of some of the supplies as she walked to Sollecito's apartment for lunch? Didn't the cleaning lady say that there was more bleach at Sollecito's apartment than she last saw?


Even if a leak had happened there would be no water 16 hours later. The rate of evaporation is something that can be calculated and even assuming the most favourable conditions it is impossible. The rate of evaporation is correlated with the amount of surface area so if you have a large leak on a surface like a floor it will evaporate in about the same time as a small leak. A pot of water will take a long time to evaporate because the amount of surface area is small compared to the quantity of water but a spill on the floor will just expand so it has a lot of surface area relative to the amount of water.

Sollecito's had two cleaning ladies. His original cleaning lady was pregnant and so could not continue with her duties so had a friend take over for October. The new cleaning lady said no bleach was present and that when she took over the job she was told to never use bleach. The original cleaning lady originally told the police that there was no bleach. She later changed that and said she had requested Sollecito purchase bleach for her. When the police asked why she had previously said there was no bleach she explained that she only remembered the bleach after speaking to Sollecito's lawyer. The implication is that she was convinced to change her statement. The transcript is available Ana Marina Chiriboga's Testimony and she comes across as someone who is being deceitful.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jape wrote:
Does Francesco say for sure that Raffaele mentions a water leak to him, or is it that he just mentions washing up the dishes? If just the latter then that does not mean that he is caught in a contradiction because unless he was told otherwise it would at least be possible that RS was washing dishes at the cottage. What it would mean, however, is that there is no third party confirmation that the story about a leak was true.


Yes. He says Sollecito told him about the leak. Sollecito's cell phone puts him at the cottage and so does Jovana Popovic so he was there but he was not washing dishes. Francesco when he formed the memory did not know where Sollecito was. The washing dishes was added after to offer a natural segue into the leak.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
jape wrote:
Does Francesco say for sure that Raffaele mentions a water leak to him, or is it that he just mentions washing up the dishes?


On page 62 of the Massei report, there is a discussion of Dr Sollecito's phone call to his son at 8:42pm where he learned that the water spilled onto the floor while he was washing dishes.


Francesco Sollecito's Testimony

It is not translated but if you use Chrome as your browser you can just right click and and select translate to English. Machine translation is not perfect and it is especially bad with genders but you can read it and understand what is being said.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:

If the leak never happened - which makes a lot more sense than leaving a water spill on the kitchen floor for sixteen hours - then the story from Knox about carrying a mop through Perugia at 10:30 in the morning takes on a different meaning as well. The mop story always seemed out of place. It seemed like something that Knox came up with to cover the possibility that someone saw her that morning with cleaning supplies. Sollecito also said something about Knox carry a bag. Does that mean that Knox took cleaning supplies from Sollecito's apartment (possibly purchased at 8 that morning in the shop near Sollecito's apartment) to the cottage at about 10am and cleaned the place, and then she disposed of some of the supplies as she walked to Sollecito's apartment for lunch? Didn't the cleaning lady say that there was more bleach at Sollecito's apartment than she last saw?



The bag is a problem. The claim was, it was to collect laundry. So, where was this laundry...what was done with it...and the bag? What about the cottage washing machine that already had items of Knox's clothing in it? And so then, why the need to collect laundry? Wasn't it already done in the cottage machine? If not, why couldn't the next load be done in there, why the need to take it away from the cottage? And where was it destined for...Raffaele's washing machine? The launderette? Why the pressing need to do laundry, it couldn't be ready for Gubbio, so why not leave it until the next day? Lots of questions, few answers.


If Knox and Sollecito were scheming to ensure that they had covered their tracks, one point that would come up is: what if someone saw Knox walking from Sollecito's apartment to the cottage with cleaning supplies. The bag with laundry never made sense, but it does fit as a story in the event that a witness came forward describing Knox walking through Perugia with cleaning supplies and a bag of rags.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:

Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.


If the leak never happened - which makes a lot more sense than leaving a water spill on the kitchen floor for sixteen hours - then the story from Knox about carrying a mop through Perugia at 10:30 in the morning takes on a different meaning as well. The mop story always seemed out of place. It seemed like something that Knox came up with to cover the possibility that someone saw her that morning with cleaning supplies. Sollecito also said something about Knox carry a bag. Does that mean that Knox took cleaning supplies from Sollecito's apartment (possibly purchased at 8 that morning in the shop near Sollecito's apartment) to the cottage at about 10am and cleaned the place, and then she disposed of some of the supplies as she walked to Sollecito's apartment for lunch? Didn't the cleaning lady say that there was more bleach at Sollecito's apartment than she last saw?


Even if a leak had happened there would be no water 16 hours later. The rate of evaporation is something that can be calculated and even assuming the most favourable conditions it is impossible. The rate of evaporation is correlated with the amount of surface area so if you have a large leak on a surface like a floor it will evaporate in about the same time as a small leak. A pot of water will take a long time to evaporate because the amount of surface area is small compared to the quantity of water but a spill on the floor will just expand so it has a lot of surface area relative to the amount of water.

Sollecito's had two cleaning ladies. His original cleaning lady was pregnant and so could not continue with her duties so had a friend take over for October. The new cleaning lady said no bleach was present and that when she took over the job she was told to never use bleach. The original cleaning lady originally told the police that there was no bleach. She later changed that and said she had requested Sollecito purchase bleach for her. When the police asked why she had previously said there was no bleach she explained that she only remembered the bleach after speaking to Sollecito's lawyer. The implication is that she was convinced to change her statement. The transcript is available Ana Marina Chiriboga's Testimony and she comes across as someone who is being deceitful.


Thanks. So there was no bleach at Sollecito's apartment, but after the murder, there was bleach - bleach that was purchased at 8am, carried to the cottage and then returned to the apartment?
Top Profile 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:

Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.


If the leak never happened - which makes a lot more sense than leaving a water spill on the kitchen floor for sixteen hours - then the story from Knox about carrying a mop through Perugia at 10:30 in the morning takes on a different meaning as well. The mop story always seemed out of place. It seemed like something that Knox came up with to cover the possibility that someone saw her that morning with cleaning supplies. Sollecito also said something about Knox carry a bag. Does that mean that Knox took cleaning supplies from Sollecito's apartment (possibly purchased at 8 that morning in the shop near Sollecito's apartment) to the cottage at about 10am and cleaned the place, and then she disposed of some of the supplies as she walked to Sollecito's apartment for lunch? Didn't the cleaning lady say that there was more bleach at Sollecito's apartment than she last saw?


Even if a leak had happened there would be no water 16 hours later. The rate of evaporation is something that can be calculated and even assuming the most favourable conditions it is impossible. The rate of evaporation is correlated with the amount of surface area so if you have a large leak on a surface like a floor it will evaporate in about the same time as a small leak. A pot of water will take a long time to evaporate because the amount of surface area is small compared to the quantity of water but a spill on the floor will just expand so it has a lot of surface area relative to the amount of water.

Sollecito's had two cleaning ladies. His original cleaning lady was pregnant and so could not continue with her duties so had a friend take over for October. The new cleaning lady said no bleach was present and that when she took over the job she was told to never use bleach. The original cleaning lady originally told the police that there was no bleach. She later changed that and said she had requested Sollecito purchase bleach for her. When the police asked why she had previously said there was no bleach she explained that she only remembered the bleach after speaking to Sollecito's lawyer. The implication is that she was convinced to change her statement. The transcript is available Ana Marina Chiriboga's Testimony and she comes across as someone who is being deceitful.


Thanks. So there was no bleach at Sollecito's apartment, but after the murder, there was bleach - bleach that was purchased at 8am, carried to the cottage and then returned to the apartment?


I don't know if it was taken to the cottage but both maids originally said no bleach was present and then one of them changed her story after meeting with Sollecito's lawyer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Hi, Zorba. You've certainly been following this sad case much longer than me, and have the ability also, to translate the Italian you read and hear, and I'd like to ask you a question:

Do you remember when, exactly, you became convinced that Knox and Sollecito were involved? Was there a defining moment, an aha one, where all of it came together for you?


Hi Napia, Yes, in a way, or no, in another way.
To be exact, from the very moment I heard what had happened and then heard a very few details, and saw them at the cottage, I could smell something really bad about them.

The way they were stood together, was not in any way how people comfort one another, neither looked upset, Knox I could see had a very hard look in her eye, in the different pictures, Sollecito had a most vacant look about him, void of feeling, he did not at all appear to be acting in the way a person does who is comforting someone because they were comforting them in relation to their being very upset about someone they cared about dying, and definitely not dying through murder, to me he appeared to be comforting in a there there, you couldn't help it, it's unfortunate, you could not help it, you were right, Sollecito's grinding-like jaw, I mean I've seen dozens of speed freaks and he looked like one and he just had a truly mean look about him, I've always, whenever I look at those images, imagined him stabbing Meredith to death. These are first impressions, without WANTING to think one thing or the other. To me, they appeared to be hiding in one another, they looked shady, they looked dirty. If anyone has ever heard of haptonomy, well, a person can put an arm on or around someone in many different ways; with aggression, assuring, guiding someone, in a sexual, patronising, threatening way, but when the person is touched, the toucher feels something and so does the person touched, one of the ideas about haptomony, is the getting in touch with how you feel when touched by someone else, what I saw was not someone comforting another in relation to any upset about a third party, it was assuring in relation to some kind of thing being experienced by the touched, Amanda Knox by Sollecito. This went on through to court where in the early days Knox immediately sought out Sollecito, sizing him up, because when imprisoned you do not get to talk with the other in your case, if the other is placed in a different institution, there's no way they could communicate and I think Knox was sizing him up to see what his moves were going to be, after all, she knew he already made a move to distance himself from her when saying he told lies for her, not thinking of the inconsistencies, maybe she sneaked out in the night, I am not sure she was with me, maybe she did sneak out and used my knife.

Used my knife, was yet another pre-emptive attempt to safeguard his own position if any traces were found from Meredith on his knife, knowing Meredith's traces ought not be on the knife (but obviously, he knew they could be, at least he did if Knox and Amanda murdered Meredith) he was thinking ahead and blaming Knox beforehand, just in case, she knew these things an in court could not know what he was about to do, as time progressed she became sure they were acting unilaterally, and relaxed.

If you see people who are genuinely upset, not for themselves but about someone else they cared for, in no way do they stand around in the weay Knox and Sollecito did, they do not kiss in the sxualised way those two did, and they express things spontaneously and most often quite uncontrollable, the chief factor with those two was controlled behaviour, that's when my antennae pricked up and swivelled into their direction. I just thought, NO.

There are then numerous contents that were all wrong with the two, from the very beginning, I don't usually follow such things but I just sensed they were faking and I got drawn into it. The paternal side of the family all came from the Croydon area, I am from London and I've lived in Italy, so somehow different things made me interested but mostly the, what appeared to be, great injustice was the main factor right from the start.

With each thing that happened such as making up the stuff about Patrick, I became more certain, in fact, it WAS the Patrick element that I recognised as being what someone does to get the police off their back, it's then I really KNEW.

If you have nothing to hide, you do not need to get the police off your back, even if you did you would never accuse an innocent man the way Knox did, there's no excuse.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:

Edda's testimony has not been translated. I thought it would be an easy translation since Edda's part would already be in English but the transcript doesn't contain Edda's response only the interpreter's Italian translation of Edda's response. Edda knows Amanda was involved but since there was more than one person involved she will diminish Amanda's role and blame the others for getting her daughter involved in this.

I have finished reading Francesco Sollecito's testimony and you end with him getting caught lying about the water spill conversation. Massei is the one who catches him in a contradiction that strongly implies Francesco is lying. When you combine that with Francesco's and Boccali's testimony about the plumbing problems the leak never happened and Francesco is lying to protect his son.


If the leak never happened - which makes a lot more sense than leaving a water spill on the kitchen floor for sixteen hours - then the story from Knox about carrying a mop through Perugia at 10:30 in the morning takes on a different meaning as well. The mop story always seemed out of place. It seemed like something that Knox came up with to cover the possibility that someone saw her that morning with cleaning supplies. Sollecito also said something about Knox carry a bag. Does that mean that Knox took cleaning supplies from Sollecito's apartment (possibly purchased at 8 that morning in the shop near Sollecito's apartment) to the cottage at about 10am and cleaned the place, and then she disposed of some of the supplies as she walked to Sollecito's apartment for lunch? Didn't the cleaning lady say that there was more bleach at Sollecito's apartment than she last saw?


Even if a leak had happened there would be no water 16 hours later. The rate of evaporation is something that can be calculated and even assuming the most favourable conditions it is impossible. The rate of evaporation is correlated with the amount of surface area so if you have a large leak on a surface like a floor it will evaporate in about the same time as a small leak. A pot of water will take a long time to evaporate because the amount of surface area is small compared to the quantity of water but a spill on the floor will just expand so it has a lot of surface area relative to the amount of water.

Sollecito's had two cleaning ladies. His original cleaning lady was pregnant and so could not continue with her duties so had a friend take over for October. The new cleaning lady said no bleach was present and that when she took over the job she was told to never use bleach. The original cleaning lady originally told the police that there was no bleach. She later changed that and said she had requested Sollecito purchase bleach for her. When the police asked why she had previously said there was no bleach she explained that she only remembered the bleach after speaking to Sollecito's lawyer. The implication is that she was convinced to change her statement. The transcript is available Ana Marina Chiriboga's Testimony and she comes across as someone who is being deceitful.


And just to establish in everyone's mind, it is the same Ana Marina Chiriboga who was working in Quintavalle's store as a shop assistant the morning of November 02 and testified to not ever seeing Knox in the store.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

From Injustice-Anywhere, re their 'invite to Ed McCall: Source
couldbeher wrote:
Hans wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:
Injustice Anywhere invites pro-guilt blogger Edward McCall to discuss Meredith Kercher case on live broadcast

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/injustice-anywhere-invites-pro-guilt-blogger-edward-mccall-to-discuss-meredith-kercher-case-on-live-broadcast/

McCall 26 Oct 2013, 14:32 wrote:
Underhill wrote:
rxflg wrote:
The only time I might listen to that ridiculous radio program:
Injustice Anywhere invites pro-guilt blogger Edward McCall to discuss Meredith Kercher case on live broadcast

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/injus ... broadcast/


Odd, though, that Fischer has invited Edward McCall by posting a letter on his own (Fischer's) blog. Why not just send it to Edward McCall, to make sure the intended recipient actually sees it?


He sent me a tweet as well otherwise I'd have no idea. I've already explained that I don't have any respect for Bruce and that his show has no audience. Responding to decline was more legitimacy than he deserves.


At the risk of sounding like a cliche bully type:

Somebody's chicken...


So, to ask them back, If Amanda Knox declines my invitation to discuss the case with her, she is er, chicken? ih)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I think the mop story was invented as a pretext to have Amanda return home. They didn't need a cover for this, it's not unusual to want to shower at your own place with your own stuff if it's convenient, but clearly she felt like her return to the house needed legitimizing, as though she didn't have a right to be there anymore.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Have you guys seen this?: http://www.amandaknox.com/


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Edited to unparse link

_________________
"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 tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:

You crack me up. Hahahah
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Have you guys seen this?: http:



That's brutal

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Bury it. Nasty piece of trash.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Be warned, the link Michael provided is a direct link to Amanda Knox's apparently new website where for info it says email Mr Marriot at the PR firm's email address.

Nauseating that she is presenting herself as a writer, a bestselling writer, she must have caught Dempsey's idiotic disease. I no longer know exactly who is chief village fool.

If you click on the link you generate traffic, that is my first and last time visit, what she has could be cantagious, if I had known I would not have bothered clicking.

Really, those people are stark raving mad, bestselling author my arse.

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

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I've told Bruce I'd be open to reconsidering my decision of refusing to go on the show if he answer some questions just to make it clear to be that if I agree it would be a honest productive dialogue and he is refusing to answer the questions. As I suspected there is no reason to take a joke like him seriously.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Have you guys seen this?: http://www.amandaknox.com/


Amanda Knox re-writes history about her strained relationship with Meredith. Considering the witness testimony, the statements made by the Kercher family and given the circumstances, this is an atrocious act.

She has such an ability to steep to new lows.


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Edited to unparse link in quote.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Be warned, the link Michael provided is a direct link to Amanda Knox's apparently new website where for info it says email Mr Marriot at the PR firm's email address.

Nauseating that she is presenting herself as a writer, a bestselling writer, she must have caught Dempsey's idiotic disease. I no longer know exactly who is chief village fool.

If you click on the link you generate traffic, that is my first and last time visit, what she has could be cantagious, if I had known I would not have bothered clicking.

Really, those people are stark raving mad, bestselling author my arse.


I read a discussion about this site earlier. Did you notice if she is accepting comments? My guess would be "no".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
Be warned, the link Michael provided is a direct link to Amanda Knox's apparently new website where for info it says email Mr Marriot at the PR firm's email address.

Nauseating that she is presenting herself as a writer, a bestselling writer, she must have caught Dempsey's idiotic disease. I no longer know exactly who is chief village fool.

If you click on the link you generate traffic, that is my first and last time visit, what she has could be cantagious, if I had known I would not have bothered clicking.

Really, those people are stark raving mad, bestselling author my arse.


I read a discussion about this site earlier. Did you notice if she is accepting comments? My guess would be "no".



No, didn't notice, well I did not stay long, I was curious to see who the contact would be too, imagining maybe an email address to her yet knowing already it would not be, knowing it would not actually be to her but then seeing the name Marriot I knew exactly what time it was, showtime; how brutal can she get, they get, it is appalling, presenting herself as some kind of star who wrote a bestseller, damn, she didn't have to murder someone to get a career.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I think that from now on, we'll only post an unparsed version of linkage to "that" site. This is so as to limit traffic sent that way and to not help raise it in Google rankings.

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


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
I think that from now on, we'll only post an unparsed version of linkage to "that" site. This is so as to limit traffic sent that way and to not help raise it in Google rankings.



Good move, stating it is there once is enough. I always think things cannot get worse, but they do.

What comes to mind, right, a person could work in PR, do a job, whatever the beliefs are, but when he works in this way, joining in with what is lying about what she is, that shows at the personal level the man is a rat too.

I expect to see site two appearing soon, Career Advice Centre Knox, I can imagine the interviewee asking, but what do I need to do to get ahead Miss. Well, if you murder someone it'll get you in the news and you'll have a subject.

How nuts is all this!!!

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Is it legally actionable if I wish someone would choke on a furball?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Is it legally actionable if I wish someone would choke on a furball?


No it isn't, better though is to hope and pray that what goes around does come around, it's you reap what you sow.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

On the her About Page, it starts out describing her, in the third person, so like as though it is someone else describing her when if anyone has any sense they will know this is an often used online presentation practice and it is nothing more than the person whom it is about writing about their self as if someone else is doing it, that's convenient when you are falsely claiming that you are a famous writer, the intention is to make out you are famous for your best selling books, when in fact you are famous for murder and the book is not a best seller at all.

Nobody would have ever heard of you if you had not been involved as one of the main accused in a murder, if she had written a book, if Dempsey had written a book, separate from, and without, this murder, would anyone have ever got to even hear about these books????

I do not think so somehow, there are so many people putting out books, and that is exactly why Dempsey jumped on what she thought would be a money tree down the end of her garden.

Still, worse than the aforesaid person is the accused herself, this is like a Nazi being tried at Nuremberg, writing a book about it, then claiming that the fame is because of the book, when the fame is not fame but infamy in relation to the terrible things you were accused of. Herr Schmitt is a famous writer living in Paraguay, he has a house, a wife, 3 kids and a dog, oh by the way, he was a concentration camp director but was only taking orders, he worked directing kitchen staff.


People who tend to call themselves best this and that, tend not to be it, since titles like that are supposed to be awarded by others.

So there she is writing about herself as though someone else is responsible for it, ... K is a best selling author who is also studying creative writing.
After fields full of flowery nonsense just as though a murder never took place, a new paragraph kind of says at the bottom of the page, in words to the following effect: oh by the way, don't take any notice but you may have heard, she is currently involved in a ''review'' of the prize she was awarded for being found guilty of murder.

It seems she and her family are using this entire thing as though it 'is' a prize, it's called Enterprise/Enter Prize Murder PLC.

The woman is found guilty of murder, writes 1 book about the murder and therefore she is a best selling author?
What kind of message would this be sending out if it were not for the fact kids are hardly going to start lining up for a course in how to start a family bizzniss a la FortKnox.Crumb, you too can commit a murder, get famous and get rich?

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


Last edited by zorba on Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Shock? A bit. Revulsion? Surely some.
But surprise? No, not really.
How does that saying go? Insanity is watching something over and over expecting a different result. Something like that, I think.
Expecting her and her group of ____________(fill in with whatever) to EVER show compassion, common sense, remorse, grief, discretion, empathy, kindness, or dignity, is the same thing as watching a snake, expecting it to get up and do the hula. It's never going to happen, it's not in it's nature, it can never be trained to do this. It can't even fake it effectively.

I doubt that we've seen the end. Makes me feel like my eyes need a shower.
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 Oct 27, 2013 12:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I would actually be surprised if anyone is surprised by this point. The clearest signal that there was no low to which she wasn't willing to sink, was her declaring that she wanted the Kerchers to take her to Meredith's grave. And just to make it clear that that was no mere slip-up, she repeated it in multiple interviews. After that, is it possible for anyone to be surprised as to what this woman's willing to do? The only thing that surprises me, is that her handlers seem to think that this is the best course to her endearing herself to the public and extracting herself from the situation she's placed herself in. On this, I can see no reason or logic. Her behaviour, to any observer (aside from her sycophants), is just as crass and as much a PR fail as O J Simpson deciding to write "If I Did It". Is this what millions of dollars worth of professional PR gets you these days?

_________________
"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: Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I can look at this new endeavor in a number of ways.
Many people have blogs. To reach out to others. To get to know, to share. This could be considered as an option if it were not for the fact that the PR logo is present. So then I need ask, what are the possible reasons for this?
1). to maintain a fan base, to keep the faithful engaged
2). to expand a fan base, attract new followers
3). to alter a fan base, change the appeal, to change the type of people presently purchasing the Kool-Aid.

Whoever is in charge just can't seem to settle on anything, can they? Let's see. We had the 'sex sells' to generate interest in the sale of the memoir. Then comes the "Oh woe is me, victim", for some of the interviews. Stink bomb. Then we move to the 'distancing from the innocent little girl'. Yeah, right. Zero interest. And now, moving right along to the 'if I add a fireplace and a chain on my glasses, I'd have the stereotypical spinster from the 50s' look. What's with the freakin' pictures of feet and legs? Is this on purpose? Too much avant-garde for me. Over my head and all. I'm just not sensitive or educated enough to get this. Thank God.

ETA: I almost forgot. Before anyone slips into the 'She just can't do anything right, every move is watched, and analyzed in the worst possible light' mode, please keep this in mind. I'm more or less analyzing the PR machinations, and their failure to successfully present their brand. Nothing personal.
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 Oct 27, 2013 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised 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 zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Marriot: Hi there Murderer's Dad, how ya doing?

Murderer's Dad; Not bad, not bad, by the way thanks for everything like I tell ya each time I see ya down here on the golf course

Marriot: Ah don't thank me, I told ya, what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine, you don't owe me a penny, never have, the amount of free publicity I got out of this generated more business than we had in years, it's on me, I'll see ya after this round down the clubhouse for a drink, you driving?
Murderer's Dad: Oh no, never drink and drive, got my chauffeur Ms Bremner picking me up, she's a call girl, I call her and she comes, I just love how we are all so insular around these parts, ya seen the judge around?

Marriot: Yeah he'll be down around hole 20 right now, holding a meeting with the other guy in his big organisation, your daughter was with him carrying his clubs and filling in her books as she went while providing her versions to Ted, she was taking care of a class of 5-year olds at the same time and teaching them the dangers of knives and crime, is it true she's starting a help group for victims of violent crime?

Murderer's dad: Yep, that's correct

Marriot: I was just testing ya, I knew, it was me who advised her to do it

Murderer's dad: I thought so, did you tell her to say she'd just love to visit that girl's grave and did you then try to get her in some more photo opportunities arm in arm with the victim's parents?

Marriot: All my own work

Murderer's dad: You are a genius

Marriot: I know

Murderer's Dad: So how much have you earned with your new customers through all of this free advertising I gave ya?

Marriot: About 20 mill net.

Murderer's Dad: 20....???? Listen, I know I ain't never had to pay you, or anyone else but could you cut me in on the deal

Marriot: Sorry Murderer's Dad, you're a nice fella but this is my business, I make a living by walking over the dead and stamping all over their graves

Murderer's dad: Okay, guess I'll apply for a loan to my daughter

Marriot: Yeah, do that, keep it in the family, she's loaded after all the interviews I arranged for her, other than that the best advice I can give ya is call up her ex, he collects money online from stupid people and then sort of sets up his retirement in the sun aged 30

Murderer's Dad: Mmm, I saw, but this is all his fault

Marriot: Well, his dad says it's your girl's fault, I don't know I'm sure they are all as innocent as lambs, at your service, anyway, they is all innocent as a quick round of sex in a train with a stranger

Murderer's Dad: Who you referring to there?

Marriot: Oh no one, you will never be able to thank me enough, I own you, in the world of PR I am the criminal's heroin, they need me

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

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.


The site was first created on March 21, 2009. whois.net gives a history of the site, although today it is simply a blog created through wordpress. What happened on March 21, 2009?
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.



Never thought of that angle, you could well be right. They want to keep defying, by repetition, to try to turn what they invent into reality.

In a way they got away with a lot by doing that.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.


The site was first created on March 21, 2009. whois.net gives a history of the site, although today it is simply a blog created through wordpress. What happened on March 21, 2009?



They probably had no formal plans at that time, at least nothing more then vague ideas. I think the domain was bought back then more to prevent cybersquatting or/and other parties using it for their own profit or/and to prevent anyone from our camp using it to present information negative to their PR efforts (not that we would, because we don't work in underhand ways like they do). Anyway, it was bought because they realised it needed guarding and in the future, that domain could be worth a lot of money should they choose to sell it.

It's worthy of note that the domain is a .com not a .org. That signifies that its core purpose was always intended to be commercial.

_________________
"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 Oct 27, 2013 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.



Never thought of that angle, you could well be right. They want to keep defying, by repetition, to try to turn what they invent into reality.

In a way they got away with a lot by doing that.



Their problem, was their having the acquittal rubber stamped by the High Court and afterward turning Amanda Knox into a full celebrity and commercial brand in her own right was their Plan A, but they never had a Plan B and still don't. So, what they've done, is just continue with Plan A with a few tweaks tacked onto it. This is why everything they've been doing has seemed so incongruous with reality.

_________________
"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: Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yes. They may have purchased the rights in 2009, but I doubt that this 'persona' with the present content was the actual planned end-result. Can you imagine a final verdict in her favor and THEN posting what she has?
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 Oct 27, 2013 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

No, I can't. But, we're talking about inside their heads right now. They felt, that in 'victory', they would be entitled. In fact, I strongly suspect that had they actually had their victory, her site would be even worse then it is now...I think it may be toned down a little compared to what it would have been like.

_________________
"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: Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The present endeavor has 'they' stamped all over it. Replacing the 'mask of the assassin' with the 'mask of the tree-perching kitty cuddler.' In the end, if 'they' continue to be in control, more nastiness will ensue, I agree. If 'they' is replaced by 'she', I see a quick wave toodle-do to poor Meredith's memory followed closely thereafter by me, me, a thousand times me. No willingness to share a stage here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Not breaking news, but there is an interesting article in The Age today about PR campaigns that use Wikipedia to promote their interests: Is Wikipedia getting worse?

Quote from the article:

Behind the scenes, though, Wikipedia has been roiled with controversy. The latest round began with revelations that the site's volunteer editors had uncovered a major ring of "sockpuppets", or bogus user accounts, that were allegedly editing articles on behalf of paying clients. That's a serious problem, because Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, not promotional. And they're supposed to be written and edited by disinterested experts – not PR firms.

As an excellent article in the Daily Dot revealed, these sockpuppet accounts were linked via a meticulous investigation to one original bogus account with the username Morning277, which had been active since November 2008. The articles written and edited by the Morning277 network tended to deal with relatively obscure companies and products that might not otherwise merit their own Wikipedia pages. To make them look more credible, the articles would often be written and edited by several different accounts working together, and would contain vague citations to mainstream news accounts that crumbled upon closer inspection.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:33 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:
No, I can't. But, we're talking about inside their heads right now. They felt, that in 'victory', they would be entitled. In fact, I strongly suspect that had they actually had their victory, her site would be even worse then it is now...I think it may be toned down a little compared to what it would have been like.


I agree with your sentiment. I browsed through the website yesterday and the only page I read from top to bottom was the one "dedicated" to The Meredith Kercher case. After blurting out in court how "yuck" her death must have been, bleargh, and rather then remembering Meredith "her friend", Knox was already focusing on going forward with her own life, this "dedication" is a complete surprise and tasteless considering that she is accused and provisionally convicted of her murder. It is also hard to ignore that Knox is the only one who insists they enjoyed each others company. Witness testimony from roommates and friends of Meredith said otherwise - all of them.


I thought an integral part of a PR campaign was to be able to predict peoples reaction in order to control them. This is how manipulation works. You expect a certain reaction to a particular message, otherwise it would be pointless. So who is in charge of that nasty piece of a website promoting Amanda Knox's book and pretending to care about Meredith Kercher?

Whoever it is, he/she needs to be fired. Knox has to shut up.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Okay, I'm about to barricade my place up. We've got a rather big storm coming in and I'm right in the path of the worst of it and 80 mph winds have hit just down the road from me and are heading my way. I don't know how well my Internet or power is going to hold up.

_________________
"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 McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.


The site was first created on March 21, 2009. whois.net gives a history of the site, although today it is simply a blog created through wordpress. What happened on March 21, 2009?


There was nothing there. You can buy domains and do nothing with them. Often you do this because you don't want someone else to get that domain. I own both the .net and the .org versions of the wiki domain just to keep people from getting them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.


The site was first created on March 21, 2009. whois.net gives a history of the site, although today it is simply a blog created through wordpress. What happened on March 21, 2009?



They probably had no formal plans at that time, at least nothing more then vague ideas. I think the domain was bought back then more to prevent cybersquatting or/and other parties using it for their own profit or/and to prevent anyone from our camp using it to present information negative to their PR efforts (not that we would, because we don't work in underhand ways like they do). Anyway, it was bought because they realised it needed guarding and in the future, that domain could be worth a lot of money should they choose to sell it.

It's worthy of note that the domain is a .com not a .org. That signifies that its core purpose was always intended to be commercial.


When the top level domains were introduced .org was supposed to be for non-commercial purposes and .com for commercial but I don't believe anyone honors that intended purposes these days. If the .com is available I'll always take it over any other option regardless of my intended purpose.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Okay, I'm about to barricade my place up. We've got a rather big storm coming in and I'm right in the path of the worst of it and 80 mph winds have hit just down the road from me and are heading my way. I don't know how well my Internet or power is going to hold up.


Stay Warm! This is what I woke up with ... the neighbour's bicycle:

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.


The site was first created on March 21, 2009. whois.net gives a history of the site, although today it is simply a blog created through wordpress. What happened on March 21, 2009?


There was nothing there. You can buy domains and do nothing with them. Often you do this because you don't want someone else to get that domain. I own both the .net and the .org versions of the wiki domain just to keep people from getting them.


Indeed, but this was done on March 21, 2009, almost two years after Meredith was murdered. The PR team was at work long beforehand. The conviction was in December 2009. Perhaps they were already planning the victory in 2009, but there was no victory. Didn't the PR team have the media on-hand in December to interview the "wrongly accused"? Maybe the website was ready to launch the talking head circuit, and so much more. That was all dampened when the appeal was annulled. Perhaps that's why the site is seeping out today, ready to pounce when the next verdict is read.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I see that Knox is bent on asserting the people should only look at Meredith's bedroom as the crime scene. She further asserts that people only pay attention to the fact that no DNA from Knox was found in the bedroom; not even on her lamp, which sat on the floor behind the locked bedroom door. The bloody shoe print that corresponds to her shoe size on the pillow case in the bedroom is not debated in the Massei Report, because it is pointed out that there are bloody bare foot prints implicating Knox in the hallway and in Filomina's bedroom. The bloody shoe print is not necessary to demonstrate that Knox was there during the murder.

Knox doesn't want people to know that the court ruled that what is outside the bedroom is more important than what is inside the bedroom. Knox is not only counting on people believing what they hear if they hear it often enough, but she is also anticipating that she can convince people to exclude and ignore evidence from the murder investigation. Why would Knox want anyone to ignore evidence linked to the murder of Meredith Kercher? She claims that Meredith was her friend, and in the next breath asserts that we should no further than Meredith's bedroom for evidence.

Knox cannot have it both ways. Either she cared about Meredith and wants investigators to look at all the evidence, or she murdered Meredith and doesn't want anyone to look at evidence outside the bedroom door.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Stay Warm! This is what I woke up with ... the neighbour's bicycle:


Well, staying warm certainly isn't an issue. It's too warm in fact, I'm having to have the fan on. It's almost like a summer storm...albeit much more powerful.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.


The site was first created on March 21, 2009. whois.net gives a history of the site, although today it is simply a blog created through wordpress. What happened on March 21, 2009?


There was nothing there. You can buy domains and do nothing with them. Often you do this because you don't want someone else to get that domain. I own both the .net and the .org versions of the wiki domain just to keep people from getting them.


Indeed, but this was done on March 21, 2009, almost two years after Meredith was murdered. The PR team was at work long beforehand. The conviction was in December 2009. Perhaps they were already planning the victory in 2009, but there was no victory. Didn't the PR team have the media on-hand in December to interview the "wrongly accused"? Maybe the website was ready to launch the talking head circuit, and so much more. That was all dampened when the appeal was annulled. Perhaps that's why the site is seeping out today, ready to pounce when the next verdict is read.



I think it was around that time that they started to realise that Knox had the potential to become a very lucrative brand. Around then, the major networks were starting to jockey for position (and making bids behind the scenes) to get the "jailhouse Interview" and also to be granted the first exclusive interview on her release should she have been acquitted. Up to that point, they'd seen the media simply as a means of putting out their propaganda and covering some of their expenses. Once they realised they could also potentially, further down the road, not only pay off all their debts but even make them a healthy profit, the commercial opportunities aspect became a core element of their long-term plans. Or to put it in stark terms, to exploit Meredith's murder for their personal gain.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I see that Knox is bent on asserting the people should only look at Meredith's bedroom as the crime scene. She further asserts that people only pay attention to the fact that no DNA from Knox was found in the bedroom; not even on her lamp, which sat on the floor behind the locked bedroom door.


Which serves as proof in its own right of just how difficult it is to leave DNA on things. If a lamp which Knox had used for a full two months had none of her DNA on it, why then must everyone expect that Knox must leave DNA plastered all over Meredith's room if she'd really been in there, a room in which she'd have spent less than half an hour in on the night of the murder? In effect, Knox is contradicting the argument she's trying to make with the very same evidence she's using to make 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 Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
Stay Warm! This is what I woke up with ... the neighbour's bicycle:


Well, staying warm certainly isn't an issue. It's too warm in fact, I'm having to have the fan on. It's almost like a summer storm...albeit much more powerful.


Looks serious! Stay safe. Major Altantic storm incoming ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24690552
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks!!! I don't think I'm in any danger though, it's just going to be a bloody mess. I'm more worried about my power, Internet and computer. I've already had one brown out today. They can cause serious damage to a computer. Fortunately, I have protection against power surges. Not much can be done about power brown outs and failures though.

But, most importantly of all, I hope this storm doesn't kill people.

_________________
"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 McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.


The site was first created on March 21, 2009. whois.net gives a history of the site, although today it is simply a blog created through wordpress. What happened on March 21, 2009?


There was nothing there. You can buy domains and do nothing with them. Often you do this because you don't want someone else to get that domain. I own both the .net and the .org versions of the wiki domain just to keep people from getting them.


Indeed, but this was done on March 21, 2009, almost two years after Meredith was murdered. The PR team was at work long beforehand. The conviction was in December 2009. Perhaps they were already planning the victory in 2009, but there was no victory. Didn't the PR team have the media on-hand in December to interview the "wrongly accused"? Maybe the website was ready to launch the talking head circuit, and so much more. That was all dampened when the appeal was annulled. Perhaps that's why the site is seeping out today, ready to pounce when the next verdict is read.


The registration was November 9 2007 so three days after Amanda Knox was arrested. I am not sure if I should be impressed that they thought to lock down the name or appalled that the first reaction of the family was to lock down the domain.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
I see that Knox is bent on asserting the people should only look at Meredith's bedroom as the crime scene. She further asserts that people only pay attention to the fact that no DNA from Knox was found in the bedroom; not even on her lamp, which sat on the floor behind the locked bedroom door.


Which serves as proof in its own right of just how difficult it is to leave DNA on things. If a lamp which Knox had used for a full two months had none of her DNA on it, why then must everyone expect that Knox must leave DNA plastered all over Meredith's room if she'd really been in there, a room in which she'd have spent less than half an hour in on the night of the murder? In effect, Knox is contradicting the argument she's trying to make with the very same evidence she's using to make it.


Knox claims that Guede, who was only in the bedroom for the duration of the murder, left DNA "everywhere", so it follows that if she was involved, her DNA should also be "everywhere". I do realize that DNA in the bedroom implicating Guede was related to the sexual assault. Does Knox expect that if a man and a woman murder a woman, there should be evidence of sexual assault on behalf of the woman as well as the man ... and if there is no sexual assault related DNA implicating the woman, she must be innocent? Did she also think like that on the night of the murder?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:

There was nothing there. You can buy domains and do nothing with them. Often you do this because you don't want someone else to get that domain. I own both the .net and the .org versions of the wiki domain just to keep people from getting them.


Indeed, but this was done on March 21, 2009, almost two years after Meredith was murdered. The PR team was at work long beforehand. The conviction was in December 2009. Perhaps they were already planning the victory in 2009, but there was no victory. Didn't the PR team have the media on-hand in December to interview the "wrongly accused"? Maybe the website was ready to launch the talking head circuit, and so much more. That was all dampened when the appeal was annulled. Perhaps that's why the site is seeping out today, ready to pounce when the next verdict is read.


The registration was November 9 2007 so three days after Amanda Knox was arrested. I am not sure if I should be impressed that they thought to lock down the name or appalled that the first reaction of the family was to lock down the domain.


Thanks for looking into that further. So the website name was secured immediately, when Knox was just arrested, but it was not activated until March 21, 2009. That, in itself, suggests that when Edda got on the plane, they knew this was not going to end well. Who grabs a website name the minute someone has been arrested due to a misunderstanding, unless they know that this will be a big story!
Top Profile 

Offline jaybee51


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 pm

Posts: 112

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:

Love your work Jester
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, to get what it's about, you said it in your last sentence. The purpose of the site is purely about promotion, promotion of brand Knox. How it looks to me, is that the whole idea for this site was developed back before the High Court annulled the acquittal and they were expecting the acquittal to be upheld at which time, Knox could then become the full commercial product. But of course, the acquittal WAS annulled and she now currently stands convicted of murder, but they've decided to go ahead with it as per the old plan all the same. This is why, to everyone's eyes, it appears completely out of place....that's because it is...it's straight out of that alternate universe where Knox was acquitted and the High Court have finalised it.


The site was first created on March 21, 2009. whois.net gives a history of the site, although today it is simply a blog created through wordpress. What happened on March 21, 2009?


There was nothing there. You can buy domains and do nothing with them. Often you do this because you don't want someone else to get that domain. I own both the .net and the .org versions of the wiki domain just to keep people from getting them.


Indeed, but this was done on March 21, 2009, almost two years after Meredith was murdered. The PR team was at work long beforehand. The conviction was in December 2009. Perhaps they were already planning the victory in 2009, but there was no victory. Didn't the PR team have the media on-hand in December to interview the "wrongly accused"? Maybe the website was ready to launch the talking head circuit, and so much more. That was all dampened when the appeal was annulled. Perhaps that's why the site is seeping out today, ready to pounce when the next verdict is read.


The registration was November 9 2007 so three days after Amanda Knox was arrested. I am not sure if I should be impressed that they thought to lock down the name or appalled that the first reaction of the family was to lock down the domain.



That would be IT guy Chris Mellas, who also registered Raffaele Sollecito ORG 12 December 2009. Transfered to RS recently. What's more interesting is the different ownership, registrants, and creation dates of Knoxi Net, Org, and Com.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jaybee51 wrote:
Love your work Jester


Thanks. Sometimes it's easier to express what is felt in a graphic. The woman has blood on her hands, and no amount of restricting the crime scene to walls of Meredith's bedroom can white wash this murderer. At the very least, she interfered with a murder investigation by lying to police, and perpetrating that lie until such time (two weeks later) that DNA exonerated the man she falsely implicated in the murder. I do hope that Patrick is successful in his application to have the court find that she deliberately implicated him to save her own skin.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
McCall wrote:

The registration was November 9 2007 so three days after Amanda Knox was arrested. I am not sure if I should be impressed that they thought to lock down the name or appalled that the first reaction of the family was to lock down the domain.



That would be IT guy Chris Mellas, who also registered Raffaele Sollecito ORG 12 December 2009. Transfered to RS recently. What's more interesting is the different ownership, registrants, and creation dates of Knoxi Net, Org, and Com.


Wasn't he a busy little man given that his wife had just dropped everything to fly halfway around the world to attend to her daughter, who's roommate had been found murdered. I wonder what it was about that first phone call at 4am that had him thinking along those lines only a few days later. Was he already seeing dollar signs in his eyes? Why would he think that Knox and Sollecito would be worth website money if it was all a misunderstanding? That would be after Edda asked Knox about the odd phone call, where they both seemed to agree that it would not be discussed, ever, nothing more than forgotten stress.
Top Profile 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:

There was nothing there. You can buy domains and do nothing with them. Often you do this because you don't want someone else to get that domain. I own both the .net and the .org versions of the wiki domain just to keep people from getting them.


Indeed, but this was done on March 21, 2009, almost two years after Meredith was murdered. The PR team was at work long beforehand. The conviction was in December 2009. Perhaps they were already planning the victory in 2009, but there was no victory. Didn't the PR team have the media on-hand in December to interview the "wrongly accused"? Maybe the website was ready to launch the talking head circuit, and so much more. That was all dampened when the appeal was annulled. Perhaps that's why the site is seeping out today, ready to pounce when the next verdict is read.


The registration was November 9 2007 so three days after Amanda Knox was arrested. I am not sure if I should be impressed that they thought to lock down the name or appalled that the first reaction of the family was to lock down the domain.


Thanks for looking into that further. So the website name was secured immediately, when Knox was just arrested, but it was not activated until March 21, 2009. That, in itself, suggests that when Edda got on the plane, they knew this was not going to end well. Who grabs a website name the minute someone has been arrested due to a misunderstanding, unless they know that this will be a big story!


The name was acquired on November 9 2007. It does appear to have been used at various time between 2009 and the present although never to host a website. The March 21 2009 date is when it got transferred from having Dynadot as the registrar to having Domain.com. It has nothing to do with activating. The site was up for renewal and the owner just wanted to use a new company. It is possible they allowed the name to expire. The person who owns it has only been registering a year and a time. That can lead to forgetting and having the domain expire. I only registered the wiki for a year but next time I'm purchasing services I'll add a ten year extension that way I don't need to worry about it. For the Amanda Knox's site in 7 years they have switched registrars five times and it appears always because they allowed the domain to expire.

Originally the site was not private but privacy has since been added. Privacy makes it impossible to know who owns that site but since Amanda Knox is blogging from it I think that mystery is solved. Previously it was registered to Knox's step-dad but I can't see that now since once the site goes private previous ownership is hidden as well.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCann discussions are not allowed on this forum but that case gave me somewhat of an understanding how people can end up supporting the Knox family. IMO, it has a lot to do with where you come from, what media you read/watch, who do you trust, a basic understanding of the evidence/probabilities, etc. I am sure, there are many more little factors on what people base there opinion.

All we can do is watch, wonder, hope and learn.

Madeleine McCann Suspect E-Fit 'Produced By Former Spies In 2008 And Suppressed By Parents'


Last edited by max on Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Does anyone happen to know why we have never seen RS's signed statement of November 5th?
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/R ... the_Police
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 5 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 30  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,890,363 Views