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: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:57 am
It is currently Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:57 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It centers on Exhibit 36, ttrroonniicc. The Double DNA Knife

The knife was sampled in nine places along the blade and where the blade meets the handle by Stefanoni and then Conti-Vecchiotti. Several TMB tests were conducted and tested negative for blood, which as bucketoftea (a hematologist) reminds us, is quite normal, since copious washing removes blood traces. Bleach can also degrade DNA (but not eliminate it, especially by the diluted kind sold for household use) so enough LCN DNA survived to provide non-replicable results of Meredith's DNA in one of the nicks along the blade (Sample "B"), Amanda Knox's DNA near the handle (Sample "A". Those findings by Stefanoni remain, and cannot be changed by the Nencini Court. However, there were two traces identified by Conti and Vecchiotti, "H", and "I". They not only considered those new samples to be too small, they stated they most likely were 'starch'. Whether from pasta or the cornstarch used on the forensic gloves, we do not know. But, they also identified some DNA, which is the "too small" sample referred to by C & V, and which the court has ruled on. Trace 36-I will be tested by the carabinieri scientific investigators, for the first time.

What they find, will be interesting :)

a) lab technician's DNA? C or V? :) b) nothing c) Meredith's DNA? The last, would be best, but remember, there still is sufficient evidence to convict.

Edited to correct some minor points
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Hi Zorba. I think, for some of us, we are just undumbing to how dumbed up we've been.
Maybe, some of us are just becoming sensitive to how insensitive we've been. I don't know how to better put it.
I'm pretty sure that Ms. Vogt just saw an opportunity to slide in a sarcastic comment about the proceedings, and why not? She's basically spent her time in the trenches, as it were, and the onslaught of the media probably DOES represent a movie set,, cameras and all....however. I didn't like the headline. The movie star and celebrity references are really putting me on tilt, to steal a phrase. There are a couple things this time around that are really pushing my buttons, and the use of these celebrity phrases is just one of them.
I'm not going to grind away about it, it just gets on my last nerve.



Yeah me too, last nerve and all I mean.
Anyway, Vogt has, seemed to me (seemed yes), to be the best up until now. The headlines though are something the editors do, I think or the captioms department but I couldn't allow it, I'd withdraw my article.

I'm too sensitive but when I saw that Barbie Nadeau had been dining with a group of journos one of which was Pisa I instantly was unable to not trust things there, because that man is a shark. It seemed like he influenced her thinking, apparently he's been in Italy years but I do not like him one bit, I don't because of his terrible articles for the tabloids.

You can't trust people like him, he too can sign a contract and get paid for it, by the familiy's of the accused parties, a nice little earner, that's why the ethics the codes are supposed to be akin to those of surgeons and doctors.

And that is because of the power the media has to influence minds and opinions.

However, seems to me these are not adhered to like they used to be, by most.


I can understand your feelings about the headline etc., but I think one shouldn't overinterpret either. "Stars of the show" at least puts it in context (of the media blitz), "star defendant" (Barbie's choice of word) not so much. Both Andrea and Barbie are trying to do their jobs, I guess, and who knows what's really behind a single expression or line in their articles. It would be hard to bear the Mandy/Raffie media phenomenon without the help of sarcasm...


Hi Ava,

Yes, but that is the point of my criticism, where to those who have no idea about these things, they will not know what they are referring to, so I would think it is not okay to write such things, it is not then sarcasm, it's just helping to misguide people, whether intentional or not, that is what I am afraid of, because the Knox PR firm only too gladly have them, as stars, I think many people will not get the sarcasm.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

About Nadeau I'm not wrong however, because she took part in an article (3 people CNN) where they refer it it as a retrial

I'm saying, if I were her, I would not okay the piece if I knew they were going to put incorrect details in it, again referring to it as a retrial, but it is not, Barbie Nadeau of all people should know better, as fluent Italian speaker, that it is not a retrial.

I don't see just doing their jobs as a reasonable excuse for inaccurate details, not in a murder case.

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks, zorba, This is where I get all uppity about terminology, when inaccurate it influences people wrongly :(
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, max. Carabinieri team to inspect the knife trace will be named Friday. They will have till end of November (other reports say 60 days) to submit a report, so that may move the trial calendar into December. Also keep in mind that Judge Nencini has reserved judgement on whether to order other testing.

Thanks. Doesn't need to take that long. Depends on their schedule I guess. My guess is it will be short and the report will be short. The days of C&V are long gone :)

Next question. Why was Lumumba added as a civil party? His case is already over I thought. Was that purely because now the calluna case is related to the murder case again? Or because Knox didn't pay him? What kind of legal consequences does it have if she doesn't pay? Maybe that is one of the reasons why she is not coming to Italy? Could she be arrested for that?
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The headline of Nadeu's Daily Beast article also refers to it as a "Retrial". That is inaccurate and she should have challenged her headline writer about it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Thanks, zorba, This is where I get all uppity about terminology, when inaccurate it influences people wrongly :(



The undermining of this case has been all about misrepresentation of the actual facts through the tool of inaccuracy.

This is a single trial, was never finished, and Knox, her family, Sollecito, his family all knew that, as the lawyers in Italy would have made them very well aware of it.

So it cannot constitute double jeopardy.

Just like Knox's lawyer now doing the emotional stuff again, the heartrending plea of can a trial go on forever, like exactly what the Knoxo's themselves have been trying to have everyone believe, when the lawyer knows full well that the trial will not go on forever, knows full well that there is a series of possible appeals, ending in a definitive ruling from the supreme court, and knowing full well that a nullified appeal means a new appeal. Starting off by insulting the intelligence of the Italian judiciary is not a clever move or a powerful one either, from the Knox lawyer.

This type of misrepresentation is too yet another ploy aimed at the undermining of a fair trial, fair means not exclusively for and as regards Knox and Sollecito, but for the entirety, not least for Meredith who is not there, and her ill parents and her loving brothers and sister, and for the name and sake of the justice concept itself.

Should I saw Amen,

Amen
Awomen

Person: Well sir, if you are ever in Seattle, your barbecue chair is always set, in fact we have a special seat like in a movie, for the director, your name on it

Lawyer white hair: O shucks, for me? that's fan tas tic O, did ya see how I cuddled the defendant, your ragazza, well don't thank me, that's what lawyers are for, did ya see that Phil Spector getting cuddled n all, all the time, by that old guy, or even by that young female lawyer he hired, yeah me neither. That would have looked juistswell wouldn't it, ah come here booo boo

When lawyers have nothing to put forward, that's what they need to do, make idiotic statements and gets ta cuddling, we all did it, remarked white hair, we don't go as a far as pinching bottoms but I wouldn't like to get on the wrong side of this particular client, just look what she might make up, oh yes, he always came into my cell, and asked about do I like the position, or which position I like best, I told her, you asleep and me with a chicken leg, well my fantasy is getting carried away, but she might say that so I'm doing my best to defend the undefendable, shit happens, I need to get on with MY life, the one I have, it's mine, look what they've done to me she fucking bled to death I paced up and down the hall I was angry.com.


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

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Michael wrote:
McCall wrote:
Michael wrote:
The only thing that makes me nervous about the order to retest the knife, is that it suggests that a conviction is dependent upon it, or more to the point, what is or isn't found on it.


I don't see it suggesting that at all. The conviction is not in doubt. The testing of the knife is a required procedure to fix Hellmann's mistake of not testing it. The outcome will have no significance. It just needs to be tested because that is what needs to happen.


I really hope, that's all it is. Despite that though, I can't help constantly thinking that V & C have had their corrupt grubby little mitts all over that knife.

I share your fears, Michael. C+V, as well as Ms Bongiorno, proved to have criminal energy in the past. I'm a little reassured though, now that it's clear the test only concerns the new DNA trace.


Yes, lest we forget: The planted "butter knife" in the cottage garden, Kokomani threatened and offered a bribe to leave Italy, the break-in to the cottage via kitchen window, the bribing of prison snitches, rumours of threats to Guede, rumours of bribe to Hellmann, rumours of bribing V & C, collaborating with V & C, falsely claiming to media that Mignini was arguing a Satanic murder, leaking the video of Meredith's body to Telenorba, the using of individuals like Frank Sforza, the smear and PR campaign with endless lies to the media, deals with the media, the campaign of intimidation on the web of those with opposing views...the list goes on.

So, when their agents get their hands on the murder weapon...I worry.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Max wrote:
Next question. Why was Lumumba added as a civil party? His case is already over I thought. Was that purely because now the calluna case is related to the murder case again? Or because Knox didn't pay him? What kind of legal consequences does it have if she doesn't pay? Maybe that is one of the reasons why she is not coming to Italy? Could she be arrested for that?


I'm assuming it's because 1) Knox has not paid him a penny of the damages and costs he's been awarded and 2) The element of "continuation" in regard to the calunnia conviction is still to be resolved.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, max. Carabinieri team to inspect the knife trace will be named Friday. They will have till end of November (other reports say 60 days) to submit a report, so that may move the trial calendar into December. Also keep in mind that Judge Nencini has reserved judgement on whether to order other testing.



It does make you wonder why, Hellmann didn't go to the Carabinieri RIS, who everyone seems happy with, instead of going straight to dodgy V & C. It leaves one thinking that the events of Hellmann's trial were all planned long before it even started.

_________________
"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: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, max. Yes, it need not take that long to test trace "I", but the court will probably make a final decision this Friday.

You raise a good point concerning the civil party, Patrick Lumumba. Not only did the SC say the calunnia should have been considered as possible evidence of Knox's guilt, but it might well be he was given standing to pursue a further civil suit against Knox. I'm not sure the current criminal fine against her (4000 Euros) is sufficient to have her arrested if she were to return to Italy, and he will have to apply to a magistrate to pursue collection action, and she has no realizable assets in Italy, and hidden her US earnings. That's why she's pleading poverty right now, because she's scared of civil suits in the US.

But one thing is for sure, and why I think neither Knox, nor Sollecito will ever willingly return to Italy:

They are liable to have complaints filed against them for criminal defamation by PM Mignini as soon as they step on Italian soil, for the lies against him in their books. And, he can well make the case they pose a flight risk ;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Emerald wrote:
Hi everyone.

Read Raff was seeking donations for his defense costs, then took a vacation to the Caribbean. Now seeking to maybe move there. Some are now questioning how donations were really spent.


That is very similar to Frank Sfarzos modus operandi..and there was the same wave of anger...and then everybody forgot how they were hustled...and the game went on. Slow learners o'er there.
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: INTERESTING NEWS   

Ergon wrote:
Freak tornado, (winds up to 110 mph, winter storm, hits Seattle September 30 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/cap ... r-seattle/

Almost 20,000 without electricity. Ahem.


Yeah.. pp-(

Michael..I liked your comment about chinese curses..funny.
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Ava, for the tweets. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Ava wrote:
Michael wrote:
McCall wrote:
Michael wrote:
The only thing that makes me nervous about the order to retest the knife, is that it suggests that a conviction is dependent upon it, or more to the point, what is or isn't found on it.


I don't see it suggesting that at all. The conviction is not in doubt. The testing of the knife is a required procedure to fix Hellmann's mistake of not testing it. The outcome will have no significance. It just needs to be tested because that is what needs to happen.


I really hope, that's all it is. Despite that though, I can't help constantly thinking that V & C have had their corrupt grubby little mitts all over that knife.

I share your fears, Michael. C+V, as well as Ms Bongiorno, proved to have criminal energy in the past. I'm a little reassured though, now that it's clear the test only concerns the new DNA trace.


Yes, lest we forget: The planted "butter knife" in the cottage garden, Kokomani threatened and offered a bribe to leave Italy, the break-in to the cottage via kitchen window, the bribing of prison snitches, rumours of threats to Guede, rumours of bribe to Hellmann, rumours of bribing V & C, collaborating with V & C, falsely claiming to media that Mignini was arguing a Satanic murder, leaking the video of Meredith's body to Telenorba, the using of individuals like Frank Sforza, the smear and PR campaign with endless lies to the media, deals with the media, the campaign of intimidation on the web of those with opposing views...the list goes on.

So, when their agents get their hands on the murder weapon...I worry.


Is there are source for Kokamani being offered a bribe? I'd like to incorporate that into wiki discussion of him but need something to reference.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael has the HK information down pat... he has 'fixed' me on that subject several times.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Ava wrote:
zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Hi Zorba. I think, for some of us, we are just undumbing to how dumbed up we've been.
Maybe, some of us are just becoming sensitive to how insensitive we've been. I don't know how to better put it.
I'm pretty sure that Ms. Vogt just saw an opportunity to slide in a sarcastic comment about the proceedings, and why not? She's basically spent her time in the trenches, as it were, and the onslaught of the media probably DOES represent a movie set,, cameras and all....however. I didn't like the headline. The movie star and celebrity references are really putting me on tilt, to steal a phrase. There are a couple things this time around that are really pushing my buttons, and the use of these celebrity phrases is just one of them.
I'm not going to grind away about it, it just gets on my last nerve.



Yeah me too, last nerve and all I mean.
Anyway, Vogt has, seemed to me (seemed yes), to be the best up until now. The headlines though are something the editors do, I think or the captioms department but I couldn't allow it, I'd withdraw my article.

I'm too sensitive but when I saw that Barbie Nadeau had been dining with a group of journos one of which was Pisa I instantly was unable to not trust things there, because that man is a shark. It seemed like he influenced her thinking, apparently he's been in Italy years but I do not like him one bit, I don't because of his terrible articles for the tabloids.

You can't trust people like him, he too can sign a contract and get paid for it, by the familiy's of the accused parties, a nice little earner, that's why the ethics the codes are supposed to be akin to those of surgeons and doctors.

And that is because of the power the media has to influence minds and opinions.

However, seems to me these are not adhered to like they used to be, by most.


I can understand your feelings about the headline etc., but I think one shouldn't overinterpret either. "Stars of the show" at least puts it in context (of the media blitz), "star defendant" (Barbie's choice of word) not so much. Both Andrea and Barbie are trying to do their jobs, I guess, and who knows what's really behind a single expression or line in their articles. It would be hard to bear the Mandy/Raffie media phenomenon without the help of sarcasm...


Hi Ava,

Yes, but that is the point of my criticism, where to those who have no idea about these things, they will not know what they are referring to, so I would think it is not okay to write such things, it is not then sarcasm, it's just helping to misguide people, whether intentional or not, that is what I am afraid of, because the Knox PR firm only too gladly have them, as stars, I think many people will not get the sarcasm.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

About Nadeau I'm not wrong however, because she took part in an article (3 people CNN) where they refer it it as a retrial

I'm saying, if I were her, I would not okay the piece if I knew they were going to put incorrect details in it, again referring to it as a retrial, but it is not, Barbie Nadeau of all people should know better, as fluent Italian speaker, that it is not a retrial.

I don't see just doing their jobs as a reasonable excuse for inaccurate details, not in a murder case.


Hi Napia and zorba,

I don't like the referencing either, after all it's still a murder trial, and it's real.
If I didn't know anything about the case I think I might understand it right in Andrea Vogt's article and would probably find it weird to call a convicted/accused murderer a 'star defendant' as Barbie Nadeau does in her piece. I don't want to pass moral judgement on them about that though. Barbie seems to be not so well prepared this time, and Andrea has always been factual and accurate until now, iirc.

I too am wondering about the sound bytes...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Is there are source for Kokamani being offered a bribe? I'd like to incorporate that into wiki discussion of him but need something to reference.


Yes, there are sources, but from years ago, so there's no chance of my remembering what and where. I'm not even sure if you could find them with a search on PMF...they could be from our True Crime Weblog Message Board days (which no longer exists)...or even back on Haloscan/Disqus on the True Crime Weblog comments sections. And I'm not even sure if that aspect was reported in the Anglo media, but may be limited to Italian media...way back. You could try Google, but it may be tough. A brief try has shown me that one needs a spare hour or two.

_________________
"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: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I'll see if I can find it. I'm doing one day witnesses of Massei per day but still a few days away from getting to HK.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 10:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Best of luck. You may never find it. Some of those sources may have been from the Italian locals and they didn't used to keep their articles online for long...others were paywalled. Many we got only because Damian was in Italy and he transcribed (and translated) them up for us. You might get lucky, though.

_________________
"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: Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
zorba wrote:
Ava wrote:
zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Hi Zorba. I think, for some of us, we are just undumbing to how dumbed up we've been.
Maybe, some of us are just becoming sensitive to how insensitive we've been. I don't know how to better put it.
I'm pretty sure that Ms. Vogt just saw an opportunity to slide in a sarcastic comment about the proceedings, and why not? She's basically spent her time in the trenches, as it were, and the onslaught of the media probably DOES represent a movie set,, cameras and all....however. I didn't like the headline. The movie star and celebrity references are really putting me on tilt, to steal a phrase. There are a couple things this time around that are really pushing my buttons, and the use of these celebrity phrases is just one of them.
I'm not going to grind away about it, it just gets on my last nerve.



Yeah me too, last nerve and all I mean.
Anyway, Vogt has, seemed to me (seemed yes), to be the best up until now. The headlines though are something the editors do, I think or the captioms department but I couldn't allow it, I'd withdraw my article.

I'm too sensitive but when I saw that Barbie Nadeau had been dining with a group of journos one of which was Pisa I instantly was unable to not trust things there, because that man is a shark. It seemed like he influenced her thinking, apparently he's been in Italy years but I do not like him one bit, I don't because of his terrible articles for the tabloids.

You can't trust people like him, he too can sign a contract and get paid for it, by the familiy's of the accused parties, a nice little earner, that's why the ethics the codes are supposed to be akin to those of surgeons and doctors.

And that is because of the power the media has to influence minds and opinions.

However, seems to me these are not adhered to like they used to be, by most.


I can understand your feelings about the headline etc., but I think one shouldn't overinterpret either. "Stars of the show" at least puts it in context (of the media blitz), "star defendant" (Barbie's choice of word) not so much. Both Andrea and Barbie are trying to do their jobs, I guess, and who knows what's really behind a single expression or line in their articles. It would be hard to bear the Mandy/Raffie media phenomenon without the help of sarcasm...


Hi Ava,

Yes, but that is the point of my criticism, where to those who have no idea about these things, they will not know what they are referring to, so I would think it is not okay to write such things, it is not then sarcasm, it's just helping to misguide people, whether intentional or not, that is what I am afraid of, because the Knox PR firm only too gladly have them, as stars, I think many people will not get the sarcasm.

Maybe I'm wrong though.

About Nadeau I'm not wrong however, because she took part in an article (3 people CNN) where they refer it it as a retrial

I'm saying, if I were her, I would not okay the piece if I knew they were going to put incorrect details in it, again referring to it as a retrial, but it is not, Barbie Nadeau of all people should know better, as fluent Italian speaker, that it is not a retrial.

I don't see just doing their jobs as a reasonable excuse for inaccurate details, not in a murder case.


Hi Napia and zorba,

I don't like the referencing either, after all it's still a murder trial, and it's real.
If I didn't know anything about the case I think I might understand it right in Andrea Vogt's article and would probably find it weird to call a convicted/accused murderer a 'star defendant' as Barbie Nadeau does in her piece. I don't want to pass moral judgement on them about that though. Barbie seems to be not so well prepared this time, and Andrea has always been factual and accurate until now, iirc.

I too am wondering about the sound bytes...



Hi Ava,

Yes I understand.

I shouldn't be so harsh, in a way, but murder is as harsh as it gets, apart from torture, but, because I appreciate these people, both, I expect a bit better from Barbie, and From Andrea, I mean it isn't bad to criticise them, because they ARE in positions of power, writing reports as they do, being paid for it, reaching a wide audience, so there is all that responsibility, and because there has been just about zero quality anywhere else I find it upsetting, even if they do work hard, when they help make things unclear, in a trial that has been obfuscated by the defendants and their families, on purpose, as a way to defend, because on ordinary grounds, they cannot defend.

With Barbie, I really have liked her, but in the end I started getting confused about her, as I thought she was careless to be referring to everyone as obsessed, as that is not the case, and it is a fact that she has written a book, she has been there, she is courtroom tweeting, so that just pissed me off, her saying that; she is not obsessed just because she gets paid to be there?
I thought it was a great insult from her to say that both sides are obsessed, that is an insult to the intellect. And it is patronising, but worse it is putting people like us on here in a box with the people defending Knox and Sollecito, that is why I take great offence from her comment. No, it is called sticking up for Meredith in the face of incredible injustice generated by the defendants' families after the initial ill being generated by both persons found guilty of Meredith's murder.

Andrea doesn't seem to be so unclear, in that I do no see her working for media outlets who are as bad as I think CNN is, still, I better say, that Barbie did pretty well to at least say some things that were definitely nothing to do with being all bought up and paid for, like having a boss who somehow is influenced by connections, like those which a PR firm has, and which the Marriot firm most definitely has, meaning they in that way, don't play fair as there are manipulative, dirty tricks going on behind the curtains.

So you think this guy is all out there on his own saying what he does, discrediting someone and not writing things correctly, but if you could know his higher ups have given him orders to say this, say that, do this, do that, and nothing MR Reporter Joe submits anyway is going to get through without it all being edited, then you'd say to yourself huh, but this is really terrible, this is not reporting, the connections from the PR firm have connected their friends in TV, in Newspapers, in every different thing in business and so on, and they are doing one another favours, then little Joe reporter guy who is glad have a tidy little job, is forced to put any idea he had of ethics to the side and just do what they want, because he in no way wants to lose his comfortable lifestyle, which comes from his comfortable nicely paid job. Because it's hard tmes these days, and people are desperate for work especially now there is no surety that you can keep a position.

So when I see people I want to like for the 100%, like Barbie and Andrea, I wonder what is going on, like I said, with Barbie for instance, when her name is printed along with 2 others but they are telling everyone it is a retrial.

That is really not okay, and I'm sure Barbie must understand what is what, so I wonder how afraid she is of spoeaking her mind or is she little Joe the reporter guy's female equivalent? As that's what I think if she allows inaccurate reporting to have her name on it.

Because the main theme of the lastest lot of media mayhem, has been this portraying it as if Knox is being hounded, because after all that, she has to go through a trial AGAIN, but she isn't, as it is not a trial, and it is not the case that she was off, it was always going to be done when it weas done which was not at the moment they got released and Knox's lawyers, like Sollecito's too, would have told them that, but, they didn't even need to tell them, as they both knew.

So this is why it so pisses me off to see Barbie participating in such shit propaganda.

It's the starting to use words that the Knox family and supporters put in there to belittle and undermine, words like shoddy used by people like Wilkes, then seeing Barbie adopting the very same words which are used like terms through their repetition. I couldn't believe it, it's like she forgot where she heard it, and the thought that those bastards are getting their way when they get the negative and misleading terms of reference put into it all by people who should know better, is really too much, like the stuff about Guede that Dempsey started, the words like teensy weensy bra clip, park bench, tramp, junkie, drifter, drug pusher, about various people but about Guede, the witnesses, etc, mostly.

It's all part of that you see, that the inaccurate stuff is linked too.
You read Dempsey, or I did right from the start, make up horrible stuff like that, park-bench about Antonio, I mean he may have been an ex heroin addict living on the street but he was old, so he wasn't getting up to a lot was he and he is now dead, but even though he may have used hard drugs in the past, looking at him you could see he was one of those pretty harmless types, because fact is not all heroin addicts are awful people, in fact often they can be very sensitive people, under all of their problems and that is the very reason they of all people ended up on hard drugs, as they cannot take the hardness of life, it's not only that but not every problem person is the same, so to depersonalise the man, when he did nothing wrong, as she did by referring to him as park-bench, is yet another little detail I'm not about to forget and just shows what a delightful little personality that self-proclaimed TOP author is. And the fact Dempsey wrote, just after Meredith had been found, or after the clip had been found, ah, teensy weensy bra clip, made me sick to the stomach, because it was just so cruel, it was Meredith's bra clasp and to write it with that slant, was so unfair and it made me realise why she is writing blogs whilst proclaiming to be a top author while the only thing she is is a failure, successful journalists don't start out at 65 years of age or whatever her age is.

You can have an ugly face and have a face lift but if your mind is ugly there's no surgeon that can put it into shape and to me that Dempsey witch is one of the worst examples of a spiteful hag I've ever heard of or had the displeasure to witness, sneaking around with her teensy weensy toy-like camera out of a candy bag she got for free, saying such terribly rotten things, lying, and then being right there in the hotel the Kercher family were staying in, opening doors for them; if it was a war about upholding humanity, I'd say she deserved to be taken out and shot for being a disgrace to the human race. Dis grace, no grace. Graceless.

Unacceptable words

Park bench
Drifter
Shoddy
Contamination
Good kids
Drug pusher
Retrial

there are more

_________________
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 02, 2013 1:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Regarding the headline of AV & BN's articles, I understand it to be irony. I don't think any of them actually sees either AK or RS as stars.

Barely anyone remembers OJ as the professional football player he was or for having starred in movies, the world knows him for having gotten away with the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are known to the world for having taken part in Meredith's murder. Their lies and the incriminating evidence pointing to their guilt will be remembered, nothing more. They are both notorious. So calling them "stars" has nothing to do with glamour at all.

Far worse is that Barbie Nadeau does not seem to remember what went on in the trial she herself covered for almost 6 years and gets important details wrong.
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 02, 2013 1:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:

Is there are source for Kokamani being offered a bribe? I'd like to incorporate that into wiki discussion of him but need something to reference.


There you go, McCall: The Guardian

Quote:
Phone-tap drama in Meredith murder
Suspect's family 'made plans to get politicians to remove detectives'

Tom Kington in Rome
The Observer, Sunday 22 June 2008

The investigation into the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Italy took a dramatic twist yesterday when the family of one of the suspects was accused of attempting to interfere with the inquiry.

Police tapping the phones of the father of Italian student Raffaele Sollecito overheard discussions that appeared to suggest plans being made to get senior politicians to use their influence and get detectives whom the Sollecitos considered hostile taken off the case. The phone tap information is in files handed over to lawyers as magistrate Giuliano Mignini officially completed the investigation into the strangling and stabbing of Kercher, from Surrey, who was found on 2 November semi-naked in a pool of blood in her bedroom in Perugia.

'We've got to flay the Perugia flying squad,' a family member was overheard saying, according to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. 'If we can get rid of the head of homicide and that other one, we'll be OK.'

Relatives of Sollecito, including his sister, a policewoman, were also overheard discussing politicians who could help their case. Giulia Buongiorno, a lawyer and MP in Silvio Berlusconi's ruling coalition, has now been retained to represent Sollecito. 'She can help out on this case at a political level,' Sollecito's father was overheard saying.

Sollecito's father, Franco, a well-to-do doctor from Bari in southern Italy, has campaigned to prove his son's innocence, even to the point of allegedly leaking to a TV station a video obtained from the crime scene showing Kercher's corpse, as well as highlighting perceived errors by the investigators, including the delayed recovery of parts of Kercher's bra strap which were found to carry Sollecito's DNA. Police are holding in custody Sollecito, 24; his former girlfriend and Kercher's flatmate, American student Amanda Knox, 20; and a third suspect, Rudy Guede, 21. All three deny involvement in the vicious killing.

The files also contain testimony of a witness who may prove vital for the prosecution. An Albanian, Hekuran Kokomani, told police he saw Knox and Sollecito outside Kercher's house on the night of the murder. The third suspect, Italo-Ivorian Guede, whom Kokomani knew, was also near the house, he said. As he approached, Kokomani was chased away by Sollecito and Knox, who had a large knife, he said. Kokomani first told police the encounter took place the night before the murder, but has now asserted it was the night that Kercher was killed. Knox and Sollecito claim they spent the night of the murder at Sollecito's house. Police have found a kitchen knife there that they believe could be the murder weapon, which has traces of Kercher's and Knox's DNA on it.

Kokomani also says he was offered €100,000 to return to Albania and not testify. A source in the investigation yesterday said police were not drawing conclusions about who offered the bribe and have yet to open an investigation into the alleged offer. Knox's mother has accused the police of bullying her daughter into confessing to the murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Well done Ergon, good find.

There are/were more detailed reports though, explaining more of what Kokomani said on the matter. From memory, two guys who he believed to be agents of Sollecito's father, knocked on his door and offered him the money to disappear. The interesting part, was this supposedly happened before he'd even come forward as a witness and Sollecito senior would have had knowledge of him via the media or lawyers, which in turn suggests the source must have been Sollecito junior, which in turn suggests Kokomani indeed saw something he shouldn't have. Is it true? Make of it what you will.

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


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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

From his stupid court testimony... I believe he indeed got something or is avoiding something.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hey Michael. Didn't he also have a picture that he showed to friends long before reporting it? Or did he just tell them. I don't recall the full story either even tho you told me before somewhere?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

So I'm wandering around over at Twitter, learning how to navigate, and I come across what I consider to be the comment of the day.

Edward McCall to Candace Dempsey: How did you write a book on this and still know nothing?

Solid gold comment. I'll let you know how long it takes me to stop laughing!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
Hey Michael. Didn't he also have a picture that he showed to friends long before reporting it? Or did he just tell them. I don't recall the full story either even tho you told me before somewhere?


Yeah, the night of the murder in fact, he supposedly showed other Albanians (at a cafe or bar) the photos he took on his phone and told them what happened. But, the photos didn't come out properly. Anyway, they allegedly told him to shut up about it and pressured him not to go to the police as they didn't want trouble....omerta and all that.

_________________
"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: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
So I'm wandering around over at Twitter, learning how to navigate, and I come across what I consider to be the comment of the day.

Edward McCall to Candace Dempsey: How did you write a book on this and still know nothing?

Solid gold comment. I'll let you know how long it takes me to stop laughing!


And why did Candace know nothing? Because Frank Sfarzo was her source for the book, with over 43 mentions of his name, and this is how he came to be unleashed on vulnerable American groupies. And you know how he strung them along? Well, he had a source in the Questura who gave him confidential information, and, he told his fans, would one day get a hold of the interrogation tapes for Amanda Knox. That don't exist, of course, but he convinced them otherwise :)
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: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Perhaps I'm being a little pickyunish (is that a word) here, but while reading through McCall's wiki, I came across this quote from AK's e-mail:

AK wrote:
i ran outside and down to our neighbors door. the lights were out but i banged ont he door anyway. i wanted to ask them if they had heard anything the night before but no one was home. i ran back into the house. in the living room raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and cracked the door, but we couldnt open it. it was then that we decided to call the cops


I curious. If AK was innocent, then why would she want to ask about ". . .the night before. . .". For all an innocent person would know, the incident could have happened that very morning, just hours or maybe only minutes before she allegedly arrived to take her shower.

huh-)

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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nice find! Maybe only an hour or two before for all she knew.
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 02, 2013 3:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Her story how she reacted to finding the front door open and blood in the bathroom is not believable and full of contradictions, which begs the question why she would lie about it. There is only one answer.
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 02, 2013 6:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael has already voiced concerns about Carla Vecchiotti having handled the evidence and the fear she might have been tempering with the remaining sample.

On .org Yummi commented as follows:

Quote:
Re: XXXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 -
by Yummi » 02 Oct 2013, 01:02

Quote:
WantsJustice wrote:
Very interesting, as always Yummi. You seem to be saying that the Florence court will conclude that the bra clasp had Sollecito's DNA on it--which is my read also. But if that is the case, why test the additional material on the knife? Finding more of Meredith's DNA on the knife wouldn't make any difference in the outcome. What if the untested material doesn't belong to Meredith?


I think the further DNA test on the knife would be unnecessary; but the DNA has been already extracted and is in Vecchiotti's laboratory, it's the completing of a previous test. It was requested by all parties - including the Kercher and the Prosecutor General at the time - and also the completing of procedures was ordered by the SC. I think the court follows the suggestion of parties and Supreme Court.


If you read the comments that follow, it becomes clear we are not the only ones worried about this circumstance.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Regarding the headline of AV & BN's articles, I understand it to be irony. I don't think any of them actually sees either AK or RS as stars.

Barely anyone remembers OJ as the professional football player he was or for having starred in movies, the world knows him for having gotten away with the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are known to the world for having taken part in Meredith's murder. Their lies and the incriminating evidence pointing to their guilt will be remembered, nothing more. They are both notorious. So calling them "stars" has nothing to do with glamour at all.

Far worse is that Barbie Nadeau does not seem to remember what went on in the trial she herself covered for almost 6 years and gets important details wrong.



Hello Nell, no THEY (the reporters) don't think that,

They don't think that Knox and Sollecito are stars, but as writers distributing news to people who in some cases will know nothing, if you write titles like that, you may create, incorrect, strange, misleading impressions.
And the fact is, if you look at Knox and Sollecito's PERFORMANCES on TV shows, they have been glammed (specifically to make them seem like some kind of Hollywood and innocent celebrities) up to LOOK like stars. And Knox's family and Knox herself have played in and UP TO THAT!!!!
Sollecito TOO.

So I'm afraid I totally disagree with you on this, I think you are not getting where the point ties into the rest, and why it is so important.
It's exactly because of the way the TV interviews have already been busy presenting the pair leading up to the appeal (Knox and Sollecito) as glammed up and as celebrities, which has definitely been part of a PR firm orchestrated propaganda campaign --where Knox almost never had any difficulty of doing her act-- that is so misleading. The campaign has been very important to them, if Andrea wants to touch on thsat she needs to elaborate on it, which itself would be a very good thing to do, to point out what has been going on, how on almost no TV show they STARRED in, were they properly confronted, they were PANDERED to, by Knox and Sollecito-friendly interviewers. So why is that not being pointed out by journalists?

And this is what I am pointing out. Just like the case itself: you cannot take these events separately.


So this is what I am getting at, if you are going to point that out, then you have to make it clear, and not have articles where it says yes The Knox Trial

In which they go on to say it is a retrial

where they go on to say:





1)
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's retrial: View from inside the courtroom


By Barbie Latza Nadeau, CNN

October 1, 2013 -- Updated 1606 GMT (0006 HKT)


2)
In 2011, they were acquitted of the crime, but in March 2013 Italy's high court ordered a retrial


3) Amanda Knox retrial over killing of Meredith Kercher begins in Italy


By Jethro Mullen. Erin McLaughlin and Barbie Latza Nadeau, CNN

September 30, 2013 -- Updated 2234 GMT (0634 HKT)


a/ Criticism: why is the title of number 3 written as though this concerns only Knox?

But Italy's Supreme Court decided last year to retry the case, saying the jury that acquitted Knox didn't consider all the evidence, and that discrepancies in testimony needed to be answered.


The retrial's opening day Monday was dominated by procedural items


b) Okay, so far, but in the very same article a piece says in America it might be interpreted as double jeopardy but continues by saying: Riccardo Montana, law lecturer at City University London, says that this is not the case since it is the SAME trial, so how then can they repeatedly write that it is a retrial, creating there the impression that the trials are independent of one another and that there had already BEEN CLOSURE when that is UNTRUE, there never was closure and everyone involved KNEW that, so why not Barbie Nadeau is the very same article, cites a law lecturer who clearly states why it can never be called or taken as double jeopardy because it is NOT?????


Quote from the article:
The Supreme Court's decision to send the case back to the appeal court for retrial "may be interpreted by the American authorities as double jeopardy -- twice tried for the same fact or the same case," said Riccardo Montana, a law lecturer at City University in London. "In Italy it's not like this, because this is still the same trial."

Quote from the article:
Citing health reasons, Kercher's family said in a statement that they decided not to return to Italy for the beginning of the trial [should read appeal] after speaking "at great length."


Unquote:

c) Why not write the Kercher family.

It may be just me but, Meredith to who they refer, is dead, and one could use one more word and call her by her first name coupled with the surname, thus Meredith Kercher, because after all she is not on trial, or at the very least they could say the Kercher family, as it is not about Meredith, she was never going to be in court.
I just think it is lousy writing style and no way would I refer to them as Kercher's: the Kercher family was not in court. BASTA.

Because it is very, very impersonal, to write Kercher's, when writing about someone who already suffered a terrible death, and the individual is thus stone cold DEAD, so why write about Meredith as though she is on trial? by actually leaving the small remaining personal part about her out, by using the army-like second name terms, the same shit as was (and still is probably) practiced in British schools, where it was not allowed to talk to the pupils using a first name, I know exactly where this type of depersonalisation comes from and as regards Meredith, there has been so much of it, so very much that Meredith is not even pictured in the minds of (many) people, because it is all about KNOX KNOX KNOX.

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


Last edited by zorba on Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Michael has already voiced concerns about Carla Vecchiotti having handled the evidence and the fear she might have been tempering with the remaining sample.

On .org Yummi commented as follows:

Quote:
Re: XXXIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 -
by Yummi » 02 Oct 2013, 01:02

Quote:
WantsJustice wrote:
Very interesting, as always Yummi. You seem to be saying that the Florence court will conclude that the bra clasp had Sollecito's DNA on it--which is my read also. But if that is the case, why test the additional material on the knife? Finding more of Meredith's DNA on the knife wouldn't make any difference in the outcome. What if the untested material doesn't belong to Meredith?


I think the further DNA test on the knife would be unnecessary; but the DNA has been already extracted and is in Vecchiotti's laboratory, it's the completing of a previous test. It was requested by all parties - including the Kercher and the Prosecutor General at the time - and also the completing of procedures was ordered by the SC. I think the court follows the suggestion of parties and Supreme Court.


If you read the comments that follow, it becomes clear we are not the only ones worried about this circumstance.



Well, that's just ruined my day.

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


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Well, that's just ruined my day.


I think the chances to find Meredith's DNA a second time on the blade were slim to begin with. Now that it seems Carla Vecchiotti, the DNA expert of very questionable reputation, was allowed to store it, I am not optimistic.

The case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is still strong though.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I hope Yummi is mistaken because that would cause some concern. It isn't enough concern that I would change my opinion that a conviction is inevitable given the evidence but I don't like the idea that those two had the knife to themselves. Yummi knows Italian procedures better so I have to accept that he is correct but in the States C&V would never have had the knife to themselves. They would only get access to it at the police lab and always under supervision.

One thing that can be said is that if C&V had done something to the knife then I don't imagine Hellmann would have refused to allow the additional DNA tests. I know that Stefanoni as well as defense and civil party experts were present when the knife testing was done.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well, that's just ruined my day.


I think the chances to find Meredith's DNA a second time on the blade were slim to begin with. Now that it seems Carla Vecchiotti, the DNA expert of very questionable reputation, was allowed to store it, I am not optimistic.

The case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is still strong though.



The chances of that sample now rendering positive for Meredith are somewhere between zero and none. And there is to be no retest on the knife itself and certainly no taking of it apart. Instead, it all depends on a single sample that was extracted and has been in the hands of a defence stooge for the past two years, one who has done her level best to subvert this case.

I'm not feeling very cheerful.

Yes, the case against the pair is still strong. But, I do feel sorry for the Kerchers as they wanted that knife/sample retested because they believed that the results may have given them some degree of personal closure. And any negative test on that sample, or worse, it reading as someone elses profile as a result of it having been switched, would give defenders of Knox ammunition to argue Knox's innocence even if the process renders a guilty verdict, so robbing the Kerchers of some of the closure they may have had.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
One thing that can be said is that if C&V had done something to the knife then I don't imagine Hellmann would have refused to allow the additional DNA tests. I know that Stefanoni as well as defense and civil party experts were present when the knife testing was done.


Yes, but the issue of the day is not the knife, that's not being retested, it's that sample 36-I or whatever it is. And that sample has been sitting in Vecchiotti's lab for two years...unsupervised. A sample Vecchiotti desperately didn't want tested.

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


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
McCall wrote:
One thing that can be said is that if C&V had done something to the knife then I don't imagine Hellmann would have refused to allow the additional DNA tests. I know that Stefanoni as well as defense and civil party experts were present when the knife testing was done.


Yes, but the issue of the day is not the knife, that's not being retested, it's that sample I-39 or whatever it is. And that sample has been sitting in Vecchiotti's lab for two years...unsupervised. A sample Vecchiotti desperately didn't want tested.


Hi Michael,

I cannot imagine a sample that has been free to roam, in some lab one not belonging to the government, could be entered into evidence, if they were barking about a 46-day same room location of a piece of evidence, the clasp, well, a piece of evidence not kept by the authorities for safekeeping (authorities whichthe two Helmann so-called specialists are not) surely could never be used as contamination-free evidence?

Cannot see that.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
I hope Yummi is mistaken because that would cause some concern. It isn't enough concern that I would change my opinion that a conviction is inevitable given the evidence but I don't like the idea that those two had the knife to themselves. Yummi knows Italian procedures better so I have to accept that he is correct but in the States C&V would never have had the knife to themselves. They would only get access to it at the police lab and always under supervision.

One thing that can be said is that if C&V had done something to the knife then I don't imagine Hellmann would have refused to allow the additional DNA tests. I know that Stefanoni as well as defense and civil party experts were present when the knife testing was done.



Cannot see that they had it to themselves, that would mean any old tom dick or harry could do whatever they liked

_________________
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: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Michael wrote:
McCall wrote:
One thing that can be said is that if C&V had done something to the knife then I don't imagine Hellmann would have refused to allow the additional DNA tests. I know that Stefanoni as well as defense and civil party experts were present when the knife testing was done.


Yes, but the issue of the day is not the knife, that's not being retested, it's that sample I-39 or whatever it is. And that sample has been sitting in Vecchiotti's lab for two years...unsupervised. A sample Vecchiotti desperately didn't want tested.


Hi Michael,

I cannot imagine a sample that has been free to roam, in some lab one not belonging to the government, could be entered into evidence, if they were barking about a 46-day same room location of a piece of evidence, the clasp, well, a piece of evidence not kept by the authorities for safekeeping (authorities whichthe two Helmann so-called specialists are not) surely could never be used as contamination-free evidence?

Cannot see that.



It's beyond me as well.

_________________
"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: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

That sample which Vecchiotti extracted on March 21, 2011 (we posted the picture of it in July, btw) would have been sealed, or the prosecution would yell bloody murder. I don't think Vecchiotti tampered with it , nor has she tested it, without the parties being present. It might well just test negative, and it might have Knox DNA. I just am not worried, but understand, early days nervousness. Nencini is NOT Hellmann.

The question is, did Vecchiotti meet with the defense lawyers in Perugia?

And a missed opportunity. Remember Sollecito forensic specialist Vincenzo Pascali, who quit in May 2009 when his findings showed the presence of Amanda Knox's DNA on the bra clasp and Bongiorno objected to him saying so in court as it would place her with Sollecito in Meredith's room? :)

Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, p 154.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I have seen it said that Barbie has previously stated she had pictures of C&V dining with Papa Sollecito. I've never seen Barbie say this myself so possibly it is an urban legend. If Barbie does have those pictures she should be sharing them as that would be a significant story.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
I have seen it said that Barbie has previously stated she had pictures of C&V dining with Papa Sollecito. I've never seen Barbie say this myself so possibly it is an urban legend. If Barbie does have those pictures she should be sharing them as that would be a significant story.


Surely during a trial, such experts meeting with someone with a more than huge part in said trial would be an unacceptable, perhaps even illegal thing, a huge conflict of interests.

you might then just as well ask the defendants to select the experts!!!

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


Last edited by zorba on Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
McCall wrote:
I have seen it said that Barbie has previously stated she had pictures of C&V dining with Papa Sollecito. I've never seen Barbie say this myself so possibly it is an urban legend. If Barbie does have those pictures she should be sharing them as that would be a significant story.


Surely during a trial, such experts meeting with someone with a more than huge part in said trial would be an unacceptable, perhaps even illegal thing a huge conflict of interests

you might then just as well as the defendants to select the experts


It is, of course it is. Which is why, after this process, the Kerchers may request a judicial enquiry (as reported by Barbie Nadeau).

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


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yummi has provided brilliant insights in the past, and I always wondered what he is, I thought a lawyer, anyway, still, seeing how he wrote English, which was not bad in that he is so intelligent he makes astounding points, based on knowledge I mean too, yet his English.. he had more typos than me, I'm not sure he always writes what he means in English.

I wonder if the soldiers in Seattle had to pay Sfarzioni off, he hasn't manage to re-engage, I cannot imagine it is because of not wanting to; he saw it as a business option/opportunity, I mean getting right in with all of those North Americans, in Seattle I mean, welcoming you in, initially like you were Lord Muck, then kind of overstaying his welcome before he even stayed, ahaha, it's incredible, I mean with all of what happened and getting up there on your high seat like you had this enormous self-righteousness, accusing Mignini of things, accusing the police of things, shite mouthing everyone so very much that one could only wonder what the hell ever in the world happened to him to hate his own society that much, but then there, there he is in Seattle and was into seducing Knox or as he may have seen it, into being seduced by her, well, maybe there was just no train for taking a ride around there, yet, what would he have been up to had he stayed; offering to babysit the kids? the two blond minors?
Oh how they pandered to his every wish and adored his every one of ascerbic well, battery acid-filled words, anyway, who knows if he blackmailed whoever he could.

It seems likely he wound up with a bunch of cash or well, bunch of filled accounts, you had the judge, you had the Canadian but there were others with plenty off lovely money, who knows. Maybe even Knox and Sollecito showed him a token of their extreme gratitude for lying for them.

It is rather a wide expanse, Canada, America to Hawaii, managing to get into dire straits in all 3, quite an achievement for a sausage selling used car salesmen type of guy who though he was a journalist like Knox, Sollecito, Dempsey think they are authors.

_________________
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 02, 2013 2:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:
Regarding the headline of AV & BN's articles, I understand it to be irony. I don't think any of them actually sees either AK or RS as stars.

Barely anyone remembers OJ as the professional football player he was or for having starred in movies, the world knows him for having gotten away with the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are known to the world for having taken part in Meredith's murder. Their lies and the incriminating evidence pointing to their guilt will be remembered, nothing more. They are both notorious. So calling them "stars" has nothing to do with glamour at all.

Far worse is that Barbie Nadeau does not seem to remember what went on in the trial she herself covered for almost 6 years and gets important details wrong.



Hello Nell, no THEY (the reporters) don't think that,

They don't think that Knox and Sollecito are stars, but as writers distributing news to people who in some cases will know nothing, if you write titles like that, you may create, incorrect, strange, misleading impressions.
And the fact is, if you look at Knox and Sollecito's PERFORMANCES on TV shows, they have been glammed (specifically to make them seem like some kind of Hollywood and innocent celebrities) up to LOOK like stars. And Knox's family and Knox herself have played in and UP TO THAT!!!!
Sollecito TOO.

So I'm afraid I totally disagree with you on this, I think you are not getting where the point ties into the rest, and why it is so important.
It's exactly because of the way the TV interviews have already been busy presenting the pair leading up to the appeal (Knox and Sollecito) as glammed up and as celebrities, which has definitely been part of a PR firm orchestrated propaganda campaign --where Knox almost never had any difficulty of doing her act-- that is so misleading. The campaign has been very important to them, if Andrea wants to touch on thsat she needs to elaborate on it, which itself would be a very good thing to do, to point out what has been going on, how on almost no TV show they STARRED in, were they properly confronted, they were PANDERED to, by Knox and Sollecito-friendly interviewers. So why is that not being pointed out by journalists?

And this is what I am pointing out. Just like the case itself: you cannot take these events separately.


So this is what I am getting at, if you are going to point that out, then you have to make it clear, and not have articles where it says yes The Knox Trial

In which they go on to say it is a retrial

where they go on to say:





1)
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's retrial: View from inside the courtroom


By Barbie Latza Nadeau, CNN

October 1, 2013 -- Updated 1606 GMT (0006 HKT)


2)
In 2011, they were acquitted of the crime, but in March 2013 Italy's high court ordered a retrial


3) Amanda Knox retrial over killing of Meredith Kercher begins in Italy


By Jethro Mullen. Erin McLaughlin and Barbie Latza Nadeau, CNN

September 30, 2013 -- Updated 2234 GMT (0634 HKT)


a/ Criticism: why is the title of number 3 written as though this concerns only Knox?

But Italy's Supreme Court decided last year to retry the case, saying the jury that acquitted Knox didn't consider all the evidence, and that discrepancies in testimony needed to be answered.


The retrial's opening day Monday was dominated by procedural items


b) Okay, so far, but in the very same article a piece says in America it might be interpreted as double jeopardy but continues by saying: Riccardo Montana, law lecturer at City University London, says that this is not the case since it is the SAME trial, so how then can they repeatedly write that it is a retrial, creating there the impression that the trials are independent of one another and that there had already BEEN CLOSURE when that is UNTRUE, there never was closure and everyone involved KNEW that, so why not Barbie Nadeau is the very same article, cites a law lecturer who clearly states why it can never be called or taken as double jeopardy because it is NOT?????


Quote from the article:
The Supreme Court's decision to send the case back to the appeal court for retrial "may be interpreted by the American authorities as double jeopardy -- twice tried for the same fact or the same case," said Riccardo Montana, a law lecturer at City University in London. "In Italy it's not like this, because this is still the same trial."

Quote from the article:
Citing health reasons, Kercher's family said in a statement that they decided not to return to Italy for the beginning of the trial [should read appeal] after speaking "at great length."


Unquote:

c) Why not write the Kercher family.

It may be just me but, Meredith to who they refer, is dead, and one could use one more word and call her by her first name coupled with the surname, thus Meredith Kercher, because after all she is not on trial, or at the very least they could say the Kercher family, as it is not about Meredith, she was never going to be in court.
I just think it is lousy writing style and no way would I refer to them as Kercher's: the Kercher family was not in court. BASTA.

Because it is very, very impersonal, to write Kercher's, when writing about someone who already suffered a terrible death, and the individual is thus stone cold DEAD, so why write about Meredith as though she is on trial? by actually leaving the small remaining personal part about her out, by using the army-like second name terms, the same shit as was (and still is probably) practiced in British schools, where it was not allowed to talk to the pupils using a first name, I know exactly where this type of depersonalisation comes from and as regards Meredith, there has been so much of it, so very much that Meredith is not even pictured in the minds of (many) people, because it is all about KNOX KNOX KNOX.


Hi Zorba,

I am not in disagreement with you, in fact everything you point out in your comment is exactly what has haunted this case right from the start: inaccurate and bad reporting.

Regarding the "celebrity" status of the two defendants, I don't think we will ever see an article that highlights and explains the pr media campaign behind the new created image for Knox. The only journalist who had the courage to do that was Barbie Nadeau. She wrote about the biased media and the manipulation in her book "Angel Face". Besides that, there is only TJMK and PMF who revealed the main players if the propaganda campaign and their relationship to the Knox family.

Regarding the inaccurate reporting, I don't have an answer for that. I believe Barbie Nadeau is in a privileged position to explain to her readers the difference between the two judicial systems as she knows both, but for some reason she adds to the confusion. I don't know why.

In any case, all of them could have written more about Meredith and the suffering of her family instead of showing us Knox's childhood photos.

Thankfully there are people who notice what's going on and who have not forgotten about the real victim, Meredith, despite all efforts to manipulate the public.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi Nell,

I didn't know Barbie had written about that in her book, that's good, I really don't dislike her, only me I'm different, I could not continue, if I wasn't free to say what I needed to, because of being afraid of losing a well-paid job, I say that but I share that dilemma with her as I do something in which I'm not free to criticise, but it doesn't involve murder, that would be too much. The only book I have, butt haven;t yet had the frame of mind to start on, is John's book. All of the others, I find premature. Dempsey basically wrote hers before Meredith was murdered.
You wouldn't want someone writing a book about the marathon all about the first mile.

I do think it will come out, but it is going to take some time.

_________________
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: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
zorba wrote:
McCall wrote:
I have seen it said that Barbie has previously stated she had pictures of C&V dining with Papa Sollecito. I've never seen Barbie say this myself so possibly it is an urban legend. If Barbie does have those pictures she should be sharing them as that would be a significant story.


Surely during a trial, such experts meeting with someone with a more than huge part in said trial would be an unacceptable, perhaps even illegal thing a huge conflict of interests

you might then just as well as the defendants to select the experts


It is, of course it is. Which is why, after this process, the Kerchers may request a judicial enquiry (as reported by Barbie Nadeau).


I think there is plenty of evidence that C&V did not write their own report. That might be hard to prove but establishing the view didn't meet the required standards would be easy. The review is complete rubbish. It might fool journalists but if other experts look at it they will see it is not a valid review. At a minimum they should be forced to return the payment and disciplined. A proper resolution would be for them to be charged.
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 02, 2013 3:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Hi Nell,

I didn't know Barbie had written about that in her book, that's good, I really don't dislike her, only me I'm different, I could not continue, if I wasn't free to say what I needed to, because of being afraid of losing a well-paid job, I say that but I share that dilemma with her as I do something in which I'm not free to criticise, but it doesn't involve murder, that would be too much. The only book I have, butt haven;t yet had the frame of mind to start on, is John's book. All of the others, I find premature. Dempsey basically wrote hers before Meredith was murdered.
You wouldn't want someone writing a book about the marathon all about the first mile.

I do think it will come out, but it is going to take some time.


I thought John Kercher's book would be very hard to read and I almost dreaded to begin reading it, but I did not regret it. The Kercher family has something so positive about them. John Kercher speaks his mind, but he is never unfair or insulting. If you compare that to Knox's and Sollecito's books, they hate everyone who they perceive is their enemy. Amanda Knox was very indiscreet in her book about things she was told in confidence by her Italian roommates, but she reveals these details in her book - even though they do not add anything of value to her story - just to get back at them. John Kercher has lost a daughter, yet he is restrained, kind and fair.
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 02, 2013 3:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
Michael wrote:
zorba wrote:
McCall wrote:
I have seen it said that Barbie has previously stated she had pictures of C&V dining with Papa Sollecito. I've never seen Barbie say this myself so possibly it is an urban legend. If Barbie does have those pictures she should be sharing them as that would be a significant story.


Surely during a trial, such experts meeting with someone with a more than huge part in said trial would be an unacceptable, perhaps even illegal thing a huge conflict of interests

you might then just as well as the defendants to select the experts


It is, of course it is. Which is why, after this process, the Kerchers may request a judicial enquiry (as reported by Barbie Nadeau).


I think there is plenty of evidence that C&V did not write their own report. That might be hard to prove but establishing the view didn't meet the required standards would be easy. The review is complete rubbish. It might fool journalists but if other experts look at it they will see it is not a valid review. At a minimum they should be forced to return the payment and disciplined. A proper resolution would be for them to be charged.


I agree with you, but I believe that is wishful thinking.

Carla Vecchiotti declared a man dead, Andrea Ghira, a rapist and murderer on the run. Turned out the sample she tested did not belong to him as later tests confirmed. The guy was the nephew of one of her professors.

I don't know about you, but I believe she matched that sample to him so they would declare him dead and the police would stop looking for him.

If she can get away with that, then Greg Hampikian's report, which she only signed with her name after printing it on her paper, is nothing.

She is a corrupt gun for hire, not worried at all about her reputation.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Hi Ava,

Yes I understand.

I shouldn't be so harsh, in a way, but murder is as harsh as it gets, apart from torture, but, because I appreciate these people, both, I expect a bit better from Barbie, and From Andrea, I mean it isn't bad to criticise them, because they ARE in positions of power, writing reports as they do, being paid for it, reaching a wide audience, so there is all that responsibility, and because there has been just about zero quality anywhere else I find it upsetting, even if they do work hard, when they help make things unclear, in a trial that has been obfuscated by the defendants and their families, on purpose, as a way to defend, because on ordinary grounds, they cannot defend.

With Barbie, I really have liked her, but in the end I started getting confused about her, as I thought she was careless to be referring to everyone as obsessed, as that is not the case, and it is a fact that she has written a book, she has been there, she is courtroom tweeting, so that just pissed me off, her saying that; she is not obsessed just because she gets paid to be there?
I thought it was a great insult from her to say that both sides are obsessed, that is an insult to the intellect. And it is patronising, but worse it is putting people like us on here in a box with the people defending Knox and Sollecito, that is why I take great offence from her comment. No, it is called sticking up for Meredith in the face of incredible injustice generated by the defendants' families after the initial ill being generated by both persons found guilty of Meredith's murder.

Andrea doesn't seem to be so unclear, in that I do no see her working for media outlets who are as bad as I think CNN is, still, I better say, that Barbie did pretty well to at least say some things that were definitely nothing to do with being all bought up and paid for, like having a boss who somehow is influenced by connections, like those which a PR firm has, and which the Marriot firm most definitely has, meaning they in that way, don't play fair as there are manipulative, dirty tricks going on behind the curtains.

So you think this guy is all out there on his own saying what he does, discrediting someone and not writing things correctly, but if you could know his higher ups have given him orders to say this, say that, do this, do that, and nothing MR Reporter Joe submits anyway is going to get through without it all being edited, then you'd say to yourself huh, but this is really terrible, this is not reporting, the connections from the PR firm have connected their friends in TV, in Newspapers, in every different thing in business and so on, and they are doing one another favours, then little Joe reporter guy who is glad have a tidy little job, is forced to put any idea he had of ethics to the side and just do what they want, because he in no way wants to lose his comfortable lifestyle, which comes from his comfortable nicely paid job. Because it's hard tmes these days, and people are desperate for work especially now there is no surety that you can keep a position.

So when I see people I want to like for the 100%, like Barbie and Andrea, I wonder what is going on, like I said, with Barbie for instance, when her name is printed along with 2 others but they are telling everyone it is a retrial.

That is really not okay, and I'm sure Barbie must understand what is what, so I wonder how afraid she is of spoeaking her mind or is she little Joe the reporter guy's female equivalent? As that's what I think if she allows inaccurate reporting to have her name on it.

Because the main theme of the lastest lot of media mayhem, has been this portraying it as if Knox is being hounded, because after all that, she has to go through a trial AGAIN, but she isn't, as it is not a trial, and it is not the case that she was off, it was always going to be done when it weas done which was not at the moment they got released and Knox's lawyers, like Sollecito's too, would have told them that, but, they didn't even need to tell them, as they both knew.

So this is why it so pisses me off to see Barbie participating in such shit propaganda.

It's the starting to use words that the Knox family and supporters put in there to belittle and undermine, words like shoddy used by people like Wilkes, then seeing Barbie adopting the very same words which are used like terms through their repetition. I couldn't believe it, it's like she forgot where she heard it, and the thought that those bastards are getting their way when they get the negative and misleading terms of reference put into it all by people who should know better, is really too much, like the stuff about Guede that Dempsey started, the words like teensy weensy bra clip, park bench, tramp, junkie, drifter, drug pusher, about various people but about Guede, the witnesses, etc, mostly.

It's all part of that you see, that the inaccurate stuff is linked too.
You read Dempsey, or I did right from the start, make up horrible stuff like that, park-bench about Antonio, I mean he may have been an ex heroin addict living on the street but he was old, so he wasn't getting up to a lot was he and he is now dead, but even though he may have used hard drugs in the past, looking at him you could see he was one of those pretty harmless types, because fact is not all heroin addicts are awful people, in fact often they can be very sensitive people, under all of their problems and that is the very reason they of all people ended up on hard drugs, as they cannot take the hardness of life, it's not only that but not every problem person is the same, so to depersonalise the man, when he did nothing wrong, as she did by referring to him as park-bench, is yet another little detail I'm not about to forget and just shows what a delightful little personality that self-proclaimed TOP author is. And the fact Dempsey wrote, just after Meredith had been found, or after the clip had been found, ah, teensy weensy bra clip, made me sick to the stomach, because it was just so cruel, it was Meredith's bra clasp and to write it with that slant, was so unfair and it made me realise why she is writing blogs whilst proclaiming to be a top author while the only thing she is is a failure, successful journalists don't start out at 65 years of age or whatever her age is.

You can have an ugly face and have a face lift but if your mind is ugly there's no surgeon that can put it into shape and to me that Dempsey witch is one of the worst examples of a spiteful hag I've ever heard of or had the displeasure to witness, sneaking around with her teensy weensy toy-like camera out of a candy bag she got for free, saying such terribly rotten things, lying, and then being right there in the hotel the Kercher family were staying in, opening doors for them; if it was a war about upholding humanity, I'd say she deserved to be taken out and shot for being a disgrace to the human race. Dis grace, no grace. Graceless.

Unacceptable words

Park bench
Drifter
Shoddy
Contamination
Good kids
Drug pusher
Retrial

there are more


Hi zorba,

yes, but what can you do? She is free to work for whomever she chooses to.
re the wrong terminology, she did make the following tweet on Monday:
"Important to note this is not a retrial but a new appeal #amandaknox and #sollecito are appealing conviction for murder of #meredithkercher"

So I am guessing CNN have decided to call it 'retrial' (Associated Press says '2nd appeal'), probably not even because they want to allude to double jeopardy or anything like that, but because they think it's more simple and catchy (and because they generally assume their viewers/readers are a little stupid).
There were a few times when I found her a bit tactless too (we've discussed 'obsessed' before, I believe), but she was also the only reporter who cared to do an interview with the Kerchers (Arline, Stephanie, I don't remember if Lyle was present) after the appeal in October 2011 which I thought was very touching.

And I do agree about Dempsey and the plastic surgeon ;)
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 02, 2013 4:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
I have seen it said that Barbie has previously stated she had pictures of C&V dining with Papa Sollecito. I've never seen Barbie say this myself so possibly it is an urban legend. If Barbie does have those pictures she should be sharing them as that would be a significant story.


No, I think she said they were seen meeting with Sollecito defense team. Will have to look it up but it matches with my lengthy back and forth with Chris Halkides about him and Hampikian stovepiping their faulty analysis through C&V, which I always thought looked like it was written in America.
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 02, 2013 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It should be pointed out that Barbie Nadeau was the 'female reporter' who received an obscene text from Chris Mellas. Her book helped me fill in many of the gaps in this case, and even if some of its information seems dated now, I still refer to it when I need to refresh some detail. Keep in mind she was one of the first, and consequently got the most abuse, more so than John Follain. There are also more pressures on her as she works for American publications, while Andrea Vogt sells mostly in Europe.

But I do wish they'd be more accurate when it comes to terminology.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
zorba wrote:
Hi Ava,

Yes I understand.

I shouldn't be so harsh, in a way, but murder is as harsh as it gets, apart from torture, but, because I appreciate these people, both, I expect a bit better from Barbie, and From Andrea, I mean it isn't bad to criticise them, because they ARE in positions of power, writing reports as they do, being paid for it, reaching a wide audience, so there is all that responsibility, and because there has been just about zero quality anywhere else I find it upsetting, even if they do work hard, when they help make things unclear, in a trial that has been obfuscated by the defendants and their families, on purpose, as a way to defend, because on ordinary grounds, they cannot defend.

With Barbie, I really have liked her, but in the end I started getting confused about her, as I thought she was careless to be referring to everyone as obsessed, as that is not the case, and it is a fact that she has written a book, she has been there, she is courtroom tweeting, so that just pissed me off, her saying that; she is not obsessed just because she gets paid to be there?
I thought it was a great insult from her to say that both sides are obsessed, that is an insult to the intellect. And it is patronising, but worse it is putting people like us on here in a box with the people defending Knox and Sollecito, that is why I take great offence from her comment. No, it is called sticking up for Meredith in the face of incredible injustice generated by the defendants' families after the initial ill being generated by both persons found guilty of Meredith's murder.

Andrea doesn't seem to be so unclear, in that I do no see her working for media outlets who are as bad as I think CNN is, still, I better say, that Barbie did pretty well to at least say some things that were definitely nothing to do with being all bought up and paid for, like having a boss who somehow is influenced by connections, like those which a PR firm has, and which the Marriot firm most definitely has, meaning they in that way, don't play fair as there are manipulative, dirty tricks going on behind the curtains.

So you think this guy is all out there on his own saying what he does, discrediting someone and not writing things correctly, but if you could know his higher ups have given him orders to say this, say that, do this, do that, and nothing MR Reporter Joe submits anyway is going to get through without it all being edited, then you'd say to yourself huh, but this is really terrible, this is not reporting, the connections from the PR firm have connected their friends in TV, in Newspapers, in every different thing in business and so on, and they are doing one another favours, then little Joe reporter guy who is glad have a tidy little job, is forced to put any idea he had of ethics to the side and just do what they want, because he in no way wants to lose his comfortable lifestyle, which comes from his comfortable nicely paid job. Because it's hard tmes these days, and people are desperate for work especially now there is no surety that you can keep a position.

So when I see people I want to like for the 100%, like Barbie and Andrea, I wonder what is going on, like I said, with Barbie for instance, when her name is printed along with 2 others but they are telling everyone it is a retrial.

That is really not okay, and I'm sure Barbie must understand what is what, so I wonder how afraid she is of spoeaking her mind or is she little Joe the reporter guy's female equivalent? As that's what I think if she allows inaccurate reporting to have her name on it.

Because the main theme of the lastest lot of media mayhem, has been this portraying it as if Knox is being hounded, because after all that, she has to go through a trial AGAIN, but she isn't, as it is not a trial, and it is not the case that she was off, it was always going to be done when it weas done which was not at the moment they got released and Knox's lawyers, like Sollecito's too, would have told them that, but, they didn't even need to tell them, as they both knew.

So this is why it so pisses me off to see Barbie participating in such shit propaganda.

It's the starting to use words that the Knox family and supporters put in there to belittle and undermine, words like shoddy used by people like Wilkes, then seeing Barbie adopting the very same words which are used like terms through their repetition. I couldn't believe it, it's like she forgot where she heard it, and the thought that those bastards are getting their way when they get the negative and misleading terms of reference put into it all by people who should know better, is really too much, like the stuff about Guede that Dempsey started, the words like teensy weensy bra clip, park bench, tramp, junkie, drifter, drug pusher, about various people but about Guede, the witnesses, etc, mostly.

It's all part of that you see, that the inaccurate stuff is linked too.
You read Dempsey, or I did right from the start, make up horrible stuff like that, park-bench about Antonio, I mean he may have been an ex heroin addict living on the street but he was old, so he wasn't getting up to a lot was he and he is now dead, but even though he may have used hard drugs in the past, looking at him you could see he was one of those pretty harmless types, because fact is not all heroin addicts are awful people, in fact often they can be very sensitive people, under all of their problems and that is the very reason they of all people ended up on hard drugs, as they cannot take the hardness of life, it's not only that but not every problem person is the same, so to depersonalise the man, when he did nothing wrong, as she did by referring to him as park-bench, is yet another little detail I'm not about to forget and just shows what a delightful little personality that self-proclaimed TOP author is. And the fact Dempsey wrote, just after Meredith had been found, or after the clip had been found, ah, teensy weensy bra clip, made me sick to the stomach, because it was just so cruel, it was Meredith's bra clasp and to write it with that slant, was so unfair and it made me realise why she is writing blogs whilst proclaiming to be a top author while the only thing she is is a failure, successful journalists don't start out at 65 years of age or whatever her age is.

You can have an ugly face and have a face lift but if your mind is ugly there's no surgeon that can put it into shape and to me that Dempsey witch is one of the worst examples of a spiteful hag I've ever heard of or had the displeasure to witness, sneaking around with her teensy weensy toy-like camera out of a candy bag she got for free, saying such terribly rotten things, lying, and then being right there in the hotel the Kercher family were staying in, opening doors for them; if it was a war about upholding humanity, I'd say she deserved to be taken out and shot for being a disgrace to the human race. Dis grace, no grace. Graceless.

Unacceptable words

Park bench
Drifter
Shoddy
Contamination
Good kids
Drug pusher
Retrial

there are more


Hi zorba,

yes, but what can you do? She is free to work for whomever she chooses to.
re the wrong terminology, she did make the following tweet on Monday:
"Important to note this is not a retrial but a new appeal #amandaknox and #sollecito are appealing conviction for murder of #meredithkercher"

So I am guessing CNN have decided to call it 'retrial' (Associated Press says '2nd appeal'), probably not even because they want to allude to double jeopardy or anything like that, but because they think it's more simple and catchy (and because they generally assume their viewers/readers are a little stupid).
There were a few times when I found her a bit tactless too (we've discussed 'obsessed' before, I believe), but she was also the only reporter who cared to do an interview with the Kerchers (Arline, Stephanie, I don't remember if Lyle was present) after the appeal in October 2011 which I thought was very touching.

And I do agree about Dempsey and the plastic surgeon ;)


Hi Ava, yes of course, I think that having a job with CNN is a hard thing to give up, I know I'd love the money, but I wonder i it is a fixed job basis or freelancing, I know a friend, who is a journalist, said times have become so hard that the standard of journalism has gone right down and most will go along with the editing ,there's no money for allowing proper research, and it was also normal for practice for someone else to write the titles but also delete part of the body of your text and so make it appear as though you are saying something entirely different, what he said was that he has always refused to allow that with his work, and so he has withdrawn pieces rather than lose sight of what he himself stands for, and also have others think stuff about him because of the way his texts are put out, and that means money or no money.

As you say, Barbie noted it is not a retrial, then seeing as how since the 30th of September in different articles with her name as autghor, it says retrial, then she must be powerless short of quitting, and they edit her work. surely she cannot like that.

I have to say these things but I'd better say I'd marry her tomorrow to cheer things back up, as I am not at all saying she is like all the rest. It's juat such a horrible neverending sequence of events, and it's painful to see someone like her being confused with those who are really out to cause damage, but ashe did take on the very same kind of words, this word shoddy is a perfectly ordinary English word but it was the Knox Savages who used it first when trying to undermine the police so that's why, suddenly seeing her use it too, I thought hey, for God's sake use some other word,

So many false accusations
first
Patrick
then Mignini
the police,
the forensic science (police)
the prison officer,
the interpreter
the shopkeeper

then picking up on Knox's behaviour her family and supporters have been trying to have people believe that Massei was no good when everything he said wws so thoroughly and logically substantiated, entirely unlike Hellmann

Knox even tries to put Patrick down, after all of this, she does that; SHE forgives HIM, I mean this is so potty.
Going on to add insult to injury , that he only said things to win the case, so even now she refused to leave him alone, she has absolutely no right to protest his wqords, he does have right to say them, she has no right to say anything at all in any way not one word about Patrick.


It's all part of the same conspiracy to undermine the case.

But I am forgetting with my list many, many more, cannot think right now

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ha ha, Ava, I think her surgeon carried out better work later on, a month after doing her he had his eyes lazered, up until then he walked around with a dog and a white stick

oh I love taking the piss out of people like that, because they DO deserve it

_________________
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 02, 2013 5:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

As if on cue, here's a new one from her http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/opinion/i ... =allsearch which contradicts what Andrea Vogt and our reporter kathleen gadalof said: will one trace on the knife be tested, or two?

My feeling is that only trace 36-I will be tested, but we shall see on Friday. In the mean time, and I say this with respect, but I think a lot of people are burned out over this case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
As if on cue, here's a new one from her http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/opinion/i ... =allsearch which contradicts what Andrea Vogt and our reporter kathleen gadalof said: will one trace on the knife be tested, or two?

My feeling is that only trace 36-I will be tested, but we shall see on Friday. In the mean time, and I say this with respect, but I think a lot of people are burned out over this case.


Me, too.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ha ha, Ava, I think her surgeon carried out better work later on, a month after doing her he had his eyes lazered, up until then he walked around with a dog and a white stick

oh I love taking the piss out of people like that, because they DO deserve it

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Can anyone explain the scope of the requests. By that I mean, if a picture of Raffaele's hands is reviewed, does this allow the defense to then call in expert witness to explain further whatever it is that is the defense's point?
I'm not following how all of this works. If they want pictures, surely there is some theory or explanation they plan to make.

Note: Please excuse some typos and failure to cap. Coffee drip on keyboard.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
So I'm wandering around over at Twitter, learning how to navigate, and I come across what I consider to be the comment of the day.

Edward McCall to Candace Dempsey: How did you write a book on this and still know nothing?

Solid gold comment. I'll let you know how long it takes me to stop laughing!


And why did Candace know nothing? Because Frank Sfarzo was her source for the book, with over 43 mentions of his name, and this is how he came to be unleashed on vulnerable American groupies. And you know how he strung them along? Well, he had a source in the Questura who gave him confidential information, and, he told his fans, would one day get a hold of the interrogation tapes for Amanda Knox. That don't exist, of course, but he convinced them otherwise :)

Haha it seems the italian blogger is a low down con and liar. I am so totally surprided. Haha pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Ergon wrote:
As if on cue, here's a new one from her http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/opinion/i ... =allsearch which contradicts what Andrea Vogt and our reporter kathleen gadalof said: will one trace on the knife be tested, or two?

My feeling is that only trace 36-I will be tested, but we shall see on Friday. In the mean time, and I say this with respect, but I think a lot of people are burned out over this case.


Me, too.


Me too....but I will be 'round for the important parts. Smile
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
McCall wrote:
I have seen it said that Barbie has previously stated she had pictures of C&V dining with Papa Sollecito. I've never seen Barbie say this myself so possibly it is an urban legend. If Barbie does have those pictures she should be sharing them as that would be a significant story.


No, I think she said they were seen meeting with Sollecito defense team. Will have to look it up but it matches with my lengthy back and forth with Chris Halkides about him and Hampikian stovepiping their faulty analysis through C&V, which I always thought looked like it was written in America.


Barbie said it was common knowledge among journos covering the appeal, as they'd hang out in the same bars they did.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Can anyone explain the scope of the requests. By that I mean, if a picture of Raffaele's hands is reviewed, does this allow the defense to then call in expert witness to explain further whatever it is that is the defense's point?
I'm not following how all of this works. If they want pictures, surely there is some theory or explanation they plan to make.

Note: Please excuse some typos and failure to cap. Coffee drip on keyboard.


I don't think they made any requests for new witnesses. If they have someone among their existing experts, they may put them up on the stand, but no new people have been called for.

_________________
"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 Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

How nice of them to do nothing about that, never mention it in their stories, or get a picture. Great journalism.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Can anyone explain the scope of the requests. By that I mean, if a picture of Raffaele's hands is reviewed, does this allow the defense to then call in expert witness to explain further whatever it is that is the defense's point?
I'm not following how all of this works. If they want pictures, surely there is some theory or explanation they plan to make.

Note: Please excuse some typos and failure to cap. Coffee drip on keyboard.


I don't think they made any requests for new witnesses. If they have someone among their existing experts, they may put them up on the stand, but no new people have been called for.


If this is the case, then I believe they are aiming for the "DNA transfer all over the cottage because he put his fingers in his mouth' defense. I could be wrong, but I just can't believe that anyone would try to float a theory that he couldn't remove the bra because he bites his nails. Nobody would admit to being that stupid.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The best information I've read about Kokomani is from a series of posts by Brian S. in June of 2009

The information is from a series of posts in a long-locked thread and I can't quote them. Therefore, I will be back later after I have typed them out in Word. sor-)


Last edited by beans on Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It actually seems like they are proving the prosecutions case instead of their supposed duties.

No nails- can't undo bra
No nails- must use fingers or knife to cut/tear

It is not (no nails) = can't undo bra so didn't do it or wasn't there. Jeez.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

beans wrote:
The best telling of Kokomani's story I've read is this series of posts by Brian S.


Well, hook us up. hugz-)

I read it a long time ago.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I'm not good with computers--therefore no links. The posts by Brian S. are:

Perugia Murder File . View Topic- IX MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - June 19, 2009

1) Gut Instinct 1 posted Sun June 14, 2009 2:39 am

2) Gut Instinct 1 posted Sun June 14, 2009 3:42 am

3) posted Sun June 14, 5:41 am

4) posted Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:43 am
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I see if I can help.
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: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
It actually seems like they are proving the prosecutions case instead of their supposed duties.

No nails- can't undo bra
No nails- must use fingers or knife to cut/tear

It is not (no nails) = can't undo bra so didn't do it or wasn't there. Jeez.


piktor wrote:
B. Nadeau reports from the Grasping At Straws Dept.:

The new appellate judge also accepted a request to enter into evidence photos of Sollecito's bitten fingernails taken the day after the murder. A lawyer for Sollecito, Luca Maori, told CNN that the photos proved that Sollecito did not have enough nail to successfully pry off the clasp of Kercher's bra.

"He bit his nails," Maori said. "There is no way he could have unclasped the bra."




Maybe Maori has never had the opportunity to undo a bra strap himself. bricks-)

He obviously thinks that bra straps are held together by a clasp of some sort. The kind that needs to be closed, and therefore needs fingernails to reopen. I think that may be a rare type of construction. Maori may be less experienced than RS.

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Holy cow! I think I can see where this is going!

Nail biting

Cat's blood


It's the nail biting cat!
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 02, 2013 8:06 pm   Post subject: RECAP OF DAY I   

New article on TJMK with translation of Umbria24 reporter Francesco Marrusco. Only trace "I" will be tested, as other reporters have also, said. Good summary of day's proceedings.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Here is around the area of discussion beans was posting about.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=148&start=2250


edit- mostly the page before this one. oops.


Last edited by dgfred on Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:09 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: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:09 pm   Post subject: NEW VIDEO TO BE SHOWN IN COURT   

Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Brian S.'s posts are in IX MAIN DISCUSSION MAY 22 - JUNE 19,2009 on page 9 starting about 2/3 of the way down the page.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yes. The main point being that regardless of what HK did on the stand, it was he that put all 3 at the crime scene before the murder had been reported. His information likely led to the tow truck driver and broken down car being found/questioned too. I think he was scared out of his skull (and maybe medicated by booze) when he was put on the stand. The prosecution basically only needed to show he was real... not what he was going to say/not say.

Thanks for the lead beans.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:47 pm   Post subject: Re: NEW VIDEO TO BE SHOWN IN COURT   

Ergon wrote:



Well bang goes that theory then, ti hi hi.

However, I would like to thank the defence for pointing out that though you don't need an able bodied seaman to undo one, most people could undo one, seeing this I expect pweople without habnds can get one off to, Sollecito however couldn't manage and that's why he used a knife.

I think the defence are giving up, decided to help the prosecution, there's no one who could of thought of a better way of pointing out that Sollecito needed a knife.

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

Offline Stan


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:35 am

Posts: 130

Highscores: 5

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

sherrel wrote:
dgfred wrote:
It actually seems like they are proving the prosecutions case instead of their supposed duties.

No nails- can't undo bra
No nails- must use fingers or knife to cut/tear

It is not (no nails) = can't undo bra so didn't do it or wasn't there. Jeez.


piktor wrote:
B. Nadeau reports from the Grasping At Straws Dept.:

The new appellate judge also accepted a request to enter into evidence photos of Sollecito's bitten fingernails taken the day after the murder. A lawyer for Sollecito, Luca Maori, told CNN that the photos proved that Sollecito did not have enough nail to successfully pry off the clasp of Kercher's bra.

"He bit his nails," Maori said. "There is no way he could have unclasped the bra."




Maybe Maori has never had the opportunity to undo a bra strap himself. bricks-)

He obviously thinks that bra straps are held together by a clasp of some sort. The kind that needs to be closed, and therefore needs fingernails to reopen. I think that may be a rare type of construction. Maori may be less experienced than RS.


I cant help thinking that as the SC has asked for a direct route for any contamination to be shown, the photos of Raff's fingers will be used to make some statement like "because of his chewed fingers it is a fact that he would leave DNA traces on anything he touched strongly. When he tried to open Merediths door and his attempt to break it down, he would have left copious amounts of his DNA on the door handle. The scientific police then inadvertantly transferred this to the bra clasp as multiple people, seen in the video, handled the clasp. In doing so they effectively wiped any traces from the door handle along with any blood traces that were also there"

Other than that, I cant see any valid reason why they would want the court to view photo's.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stan wrote:
sherrel wrote:
dgfred wrote:
It actually seems like they are proving the prosecutions case instead of their supposed duties.

No nails- can't undo bra
No nails- must use fingers or knife to cut/tear

It is not (no nails) = can't undo bra so didn't do it or wasn't there. Jeez.


piktor wrote:
B. Nadeau reports from the Grasping At Straws Dept.:

The new appellate judge also accepted a request to enter into evidence photos of Sollecito's bitten fingernails taken the day after the murder. A lawyer for Sollecito, Luca Maori, told CNN that the photos proved that Sollecito did not have enough nail to successfully pry off the clasp of Kercher's bra.

"He bit his nails," Maori said. "There is no way he could have unclasped the bra."




Maybe Maori has never had the opportunity to undo a bra strap himself. bricks-)

He obviously thinks that bra straps are held together by a clasp of some sort. The kind that needs to be closed, and therefore needs fingernails to reopen. I think that may be a rare type of construction. Maori may be less experienced than RS.


I cant help thinking that as the SC has asked for a direct route for any contamination to be shown, the photos of Raff's fingers will be used to make some statement like "because of his chewed fingers it is a fact that he would leave DNA traces on anything he touched strongly. When he tried to open Merediths door and his attempt to break it down, he would have left copious amounts of his DNA on the door handle. The scientific police then inadvertantly transferred this to the bra clasp as multiple people, seen in the video, handled the clasp. In doing so they effectively wiped any traces from the door handle along with any blood traces that were also there"

Other than that, I cant see any valid reason why they would want the court to view photo's.


Yes, exactly. DNA From his slobbery fingers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: RECAP OF DAY I   

Ergon wrote:
New article on TJMK with translation of Umbria24 reporter Francesco Marrusco. Only trace "I" will be tested, as other reporters have also, said. Good summary of day's proceedings.


Read it, it has been poorly translated by an Italian not fluent in English.
But as PQ is fluent he could at least take out the obvious faults.

The main bit that is wrong, is that about impunity.
What it is supposed to say, as I translated the point in a different article and know that point, is that the court has been directed by the Supreme Court to examine how it is Knox was given impunity to the extent she was, when in connection to the entirety of everything that happened, her naming Patrick that way is not just her naming him, it means the implication most certainly is, that she accused him because of her own involvement, so to still allow it to stand, as Hellmann did but dismiss the rest is ridiculous, but even the Massei court, it is now obvious, let her off far too lightly for that, because the type of sentence Patrick could have received, is so large that it means the ordinary sentencing for defamation or calumni no longer applies, and the aggravated circumstances do, but they are more than doubled, much more, thus no mitigation, and then the sentence possible for what she did as regards Patrick, is far, far more than 6 years max, you can get 20 years if you accuse someone and that someone could have received a life sentence, which Patrick could have.
So Knox and her family moaning and denying that she even deserved to have received any sentence at all for what she did, and acting as THOUGH she did not receive a sentence, by referring to it as: she spent 4 years in jail for nothing: she spent 4 years in jail for a crime she did not commit, is grossly ridiculous and disrespectful.

This is the reason I sought out all of the details of how the mitigation works (in the Italian Penal Code) and posted those details here awhile back, this included how the aggravated points count up, and how both (mit & agg) weigh up against one another, and exactly how, because at a certain point, even if there were mitigating factors, they are entirely nullified by the gravity of the aggravated content.

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


Last edited by zorba on Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:19 pm   Post subject: Re: NEW VIDEO TO BE SHOWN IN COURT   

Ergon wrote:


Something every 14 year old boy knows how to do .
nails or otherwise...

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
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 02, 2013 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Breaking News Raffaele Sollecito to appear on CNN's Piers Morgan tonight. Start your PVR's, massage your Twitter thumbs, polish your glasses :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Breaking News Raffaele Sollecito to appear on CNN's Piers Morgan tonight. Start your PVR's, massage your Twitter thumbs, polish your glasses :)


This should be good. Morgon has stated he does not believe Amanda Knox's version of events. He is also friends with John Kercher and used to be his editor. I really hope I'm not disappointed as I like Morgan and he comes across as a stand-up guy. His previous attempt to do a negative show on Knox was shut down by CNN so not sure how hard he'll be allowed to go tonight.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I think, that now they are having to put Knox's shills on TV, instead of/as well as Knox herself, is a silent admission that Knox herself isn't selling to the public in interviews. They've decided she needs reinforcements. They're right.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It's been great to see people bombarding Piers Morgan with Tweets and making some excellent points. Let's keep it going. He can be quite abrasive and he isn't afraid to ask tough questions. This could be a complete PR disaster for Sollecito.
Top Profile 

Offline ollie


Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:51 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

hi everyone, Has anyone got a look at Sollecito on Piers Morgan on CNN.? It is being reported on PMF.org that the bold Piers is, or had Judge Heavey with the glipe Steve Moore as invited guests. Now apparently after all it is Sollecito only with other guests. ??
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The Machine wrote:
It's been great to see people bombarding Piers Morgan with Tweets and making some excellent points. Let's keep it going. He can be quite abrasive and he isn't afraid to ask tough questions. This could be a complete PR disaster for Sollecito.


Lets hope so. He's been given far too much air.

I'm all in favour of using hashtag #MeredithKercher when tweeting Piers Morgan

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
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 02, 2013 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Here's another way to get your voices heard tonight: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/show/?s=pie ... ive&hdln=1 Please be polite, even about the accused :)
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 02, 2013 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ollie wrote:
hi everyone, Has anyone got a look at Sollecito on Piers Morgan on CNN.? It is being reported on PMF.org that the bold Piers is, or had Judge Heavey with the glipe Steve Moore as invited guests. Now apparently after all it is Sollecito only with other guests. ??


John Q Kelly and Steve Moore I think. Judge Heavey has a lot of baggage, which we tweeted at Piers tonight :)
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 02, 2013 11:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Here's what CNN's Ben Wedeman told me outside Cassazione on March 26, 2013. This after the shock decision to annul the acquittal. He just could not understand why the network wasn't covering the more important stories, like the economy. "The only people that care now are the families" were his exact words.

Piers Morgan's show is being cancelled BTW. We'll see tonight if he leaves with his dignity intact, or not.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

That's because the networks love to push out (hyped) stories on cases like these precisely to make people forget about the important things, like the economy, wars, etc,. There certainly is a "drugging the masses" element to the flag waving US mainstream news networks, which are little more then propaganda machines for the US establishment.

_________________
"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 DoctorRadias


Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:38 pm

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
That's because the networks love to push out (hyped) stories on cases like these precisely to make people forget about the important things, like the economy, wars, etc,. There certainly is a "drugging the masses" element to the flag waving US mainstream news networks, which are little more then propaganda machines for the US establishment.



Politics & Television = opium for the people

_________________
I'm not a doctor, I'm a very naughty boy
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

DoctorRadias wrote:
Michael wrote:
That's because the networks love to push out (hyped) stories on cases like these precisely to make people forget about the important things, like the economy, wars, etc,. There certainly is a "drugging the masses" element to the flag waving US mainstream news networks, which are little more then propaganda machines for the US establishment.



Politics & Television = opium for the people


Absolutely!

As a result, I'm very fussy about where I get my news these days. And I hardly watch any TV at all.

_________________
"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: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Just saw the Piers Morgan interview. pretty much FOA land. Heavey, Kelly Sollecito.
Sollecito seems like a totally different person than the one we have been seeing. Haunted look.
His English seems to be deteriorating. Really odd.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jaybee51


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 pm

Posts: 112

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Were they all in the studio together?
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

No, I don't believe so. I didn't catch the beginning, so I didn't see if Morgan announced where they all were, but it looked like Sollecito was in some sort of office. Kelly and Heavey appeared to be together.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jaybee51


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 pm

Posts: 112

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

So still hiding out in the Caribbean then....
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jaybee51 wrote:
So still hiding out in the Caribbean then....


I don't know. I'm anxious to see everyone's reaction. I was flipping channels and almost didn't realize that it was him when I first saw him.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito: "Nobody would ever stay in a situation like mine, my life now is a hell" (VIDEO)

CNN PIERS MORGAN LIVE
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks G. Who is he calling crazy??? Weird guy. Seems like he is on drugs or some medication. The article gives the answer as to his location: "Sollecito via satellite from the Dominican Republic".
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito: "Nobody would ever stay in a situation like mine, my life now is a hell" (VIDEO)

CNN PIERS MORGAN LIVE


Thanks for the link Guermantes.

I must say Raffaele Sollecito does not seem to be concerned at all how this will look to the wider public.

He does not cut a good figure. Tanned, calling from his hideout in Santo Domingo, obviosly unconcerned with the ongoing legal process in his home country where he stands accused of murder with aggravating circumstances.

He was not well prepared for this interview. I would have expected someone in his situation and given the opportunity to be interviewed for a major tv channel to present his arguments clearly. He had plenty of time to prepare a few sentences discussin the major points.

Is there someone who saw the whole thing? Did his short nails come up?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:45 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Can anyone explain the scope of the requests. By that I mean, if a picture of Raffaele's hands is reviewed, does this allow the defense to then call in expert witness to explain further whatever it is that is the defense's point?
I'm not following how all of this works. If they want pictures, surely there is some theory or explanation they plan to make.

Note: Please excuse some typos and failure to cap. Coffee drip on keyboard.


I don't think they made any requests for new witnesses. If they have someone among their existing experts, they may put them up on the stand, but no new people have been called for.


If this is the case, then I believe they are aiming for the "DNA transfer all over the cottage because he put his fingers in his mouth' defense. I could be wrong, but I just can't believe that anyone would try to float a theory that he couldn't remove the bra because he bites his nails. Nobody would admit to being that stupid.


Perhaps the argument will be that men that chew their nails are not nimble-fingered enough to manage a bra clasp. Maybe she will argue that men that chew their nails eat their DNA, so it is impossible that they deposit DNA at a murder scene. Perhaps it's a tangential argument from the defendant that only makes sense when presented with evidence that was rejected for re-consideration by the court.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I haven't seen this Morgan thing.

Yesterday thought I'd leave commenting out, because Mc said Morgan was a friend of Meredith's father, I never heard that before, Morgan is a former editor of the Daily Mail, for which John Kercher worked.

Personally, I could never stand Piers Morgan, he always seemed such an arrogant person, you do not really watch programmes like The Apprentice as you know they are awful, you detest Trumpo to start with, you watch as in observing, thinking what the hell, it's not watching with, I like this.

You are watching but not watching, you are looking at a thing in a state of incredulity, that they could make such shit stuff and then you see Morgan being more arrogant than Trump.

Anyway, I'm willing to give him a chance, and am curious as to what he asked, what the setup, angle, motivation was for Mr Morgan to cover this, and which way did he approach these people and did he have any incisive comments, questions, etc, towards these, what I would call, criminals.

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


Last edited by zorba on Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:12 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Raffy with the bitten fingernails - I wonder, how he managed to unzipp his trousers??

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Pelerine wrote:
Raffy with the bitten fingernails - I wonder, how he managed to unzipp his trousers??



He used to call his dad up every time

Dad, can you help me take my bra off, er, I mean my trousers

_________________
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 03, 2013 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I watched it.

I don't think Piers Morgan did very well. He got nothing. Cannot imagine he didn't try, if he really is one of John's friends.

Perhaps he didn't have long enough.

If an interviewer opens in an abrasive the interviewee immediately goes on the defensive, even walks out in some cases.

If intending truly to get something out of someone, like have someone slip up too, providing a real detail instead of what mostly seems like stuff read from a well-learned script, then the interviewer must not make the interviewee feel like the interviewer is against him/her, actually kind of msaking friends, so that the interviewee sort of getd tricked into rambling on, and then in between, tha'ts when all of a sudden a SHOWstopper has t come, by takinga person off guard and asking something tha'ts not on the interviewee's well-reheared SHOWreel.

Cause after all, these people are STARS, thet love pitting on a show.

Notice Sollecitós eyes every time he made ghis statements about not being responsible, his eyes dar to the right.

I cannot stand this lousy excuse for a man (I mean Sollecito).

He calls the prosecution the persecution, not on purpose but because of his lack of English speaking skills.

Was this interviewer so short?
Can't imagine this is the whole thing.

_________________
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 03, 2013 8:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

But actually, Piers Morgan did make a good point, when he put it into the context of the real hurt, that suffered by the actual victim, and Knox and Sollecito are not that, the victim is Meredith and this is what Morgan briefly put into context for Sollecito, so he says, yeah, you say YOUR life is a hell, but what do you think about Meredith's family? and I knew Mr Kercher because I used to work with him!

Sollecito says his usual empty spiel, he goes through the motions but at no time does one ever get the impression that he means it or cares, he says he feels all of this compassion but he clearly does not, he only feels for this over-exaggerated hell he supposedly is suffering because of everyone else, leading him therefore to never ever showing the slightest bit of compassion for Meredith, her family or anyone else.

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


Last edited by zorba on Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Way I see it, case may be, any donation deposited, my well be used to fight justice, yes by applying for citizenship in the Dominican Replublic and paying for it under the table.

That's justice for ya.

Could it be another Swiss Swizzle cheesy move, that'll backfire when DR citizens and institutions ask, but how did he get this, when he was one of the two main individuals in an ongoing murder trial.

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

Offline ollie


Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:51 am

Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thank you guermantes for this clip. Same old shite from Sollecito. Piers Morgan could poossibly if he is allowed to by the network put together a better more "investigative" approach.

Still it is awful to watch Sollecito ramble on about his innoncence.. Zorba is right about interviewing skills and putting the interviewee at their ease. As David Frost often said about his long interviews with Nixon...it;s not the questions you ask that are important its they answers and replies that you get back that are telling. Sollecito &Knox only know how to lie and use the media to promote their lies.

Get Lorraine Kelly with Knox in a relaxed studio ,live.Maybe even Piers Morgan could rise to the challenge of learning from David Frost.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

(( OT OT ))

It looks like Perugia plans to completely redesign and renovate Piazza Grimana so it's no longer such a sleazy place. There have recently been major protests from locals about the state of the place. These are the proposals, GOOGLE TRANSLATION:



Perugia , the new square Grimana a garden, minibus and roads rethought

The proposal illustrated the University for Foreigners aims to redevelop one of the crucial nodes of the center. The goal : " Turn into place a now non-place '

M.Alessia of Manti

A new square Grimana in the proposal presented Wednesday, October 2 at the palace Gallenga , home of the University for Foreigners of Perugia. In the wake of the mobilization that dealt with the issue of liveability and the reappropriation of the old town from the people - think the public meeting last September 2 - , a project that aims to redevelop one of the most important squares of the city is an opportunity for comparison. And even some of confrontation.

The square and the university to promote the initiative with a meeting hosted by the University for Foreigners and moderated by the rector John Paciullo , the association for Perugia and beyond, from the town of Perugia and from the same university . Because right at the palace Gallenga ? Why the negative processes that invest Piazza Grimana also affect the university, weigh in on this . And if it is true that an environment is judged in terms of safety , what emerges from the proposal is that the cameras are not enough, we must do something more . "This agony asks us the answers - he said Paciullo - , we believe that the project now shown to give an appropriate response. We want to be on the field , not in words but mute bringing a choice. In this square the university for foreigners live his destiny . "

The project is a proposal for a possible square Grimana designed and conceived by a team of architects , assisted by young graduates. " On 3 July, we presented the project to the mayor - said Saverio Ripa di Meana , president of Per Perugia and Beyond - a gift of service to the city because they do not commissioned nor paid. Today is subjected to citizenship for receiving proposals and criticisms . " That of creating a new face of the square is a challenging and stimulating challenge that we face , according to what was stated during the meeting, trying to give an effective intervention effectiveness. "We do not assume the pedestrian but with this project we have tried to see if , starting from the persistence of the traffic, you can still reach a settlement - said Peter Zanetti - with a link road from the exit of Via Pinturicchio in via Ulisse Rocchi . A new scheme with an acceptable transit lane made ​​it possible to limited traffic of residents . " A solution that provides for the replacement of buses with smaller vehicles that would alleviate the problem even more so in fact. Assuming Zanetti illustrated by the new square Grimana would have a side dedicated to a public garden and the other to the monumental , the Etruscan Arch and building Gallenga . The materials remain the travertine and bricks .

Since the transit stop As noted by Professor Alberto Grohoman "Over the years the square has become a shady and dark . As soon as the light falls , the oaks that surround it can transform into a non- place also the basketball court . " On the pitch , the project illustrated that there would be , in many compact are : do not be eliminated completely . "It ' a place for socializing among people of different countries. It should be preserved. " But the main point of discussion is the size of the square, in its primary function. " We must give back to this space the size for sociability . Where there is no transits but you can stop and experience collectively . A place that makes life enjoyable . "

Make projects feasible in optimism to be able to stimulate a demand for change , touches a nerve Mayor Wladimiro Mugs : " The traffic you can not do anything, it is almost impossible to eliminate the road in the square Grimanana " - he said - today we return to discuss a topic that many look carefully. The relocation of this square , the nerve center of the center, it is discussed for decades, before the general awakening we were already working . In the application of Perugia the European capital of culture for 2019 there is also square Grimana between ' places to manufacture ' . Ours is a deep conviction to do and you go to the refinement in the light of an active participation of citizens , which is essential for the government , and a close synergy between institutions and universities . " And the project is clear: " We can not think that any intervention is feasible but we are working for the European Structural Funds 2014-20 and for the contribution of private entities for projects to become reality and not remain the protagonists of a book of dreams ." Mugs OSI is linked to what was said by the president of the region Catiuscia Marini, during the public presentation of the candidature dossier ' Perugia2019 , with the places of Francis of Assisi and Umbria ' : 'The projects written and sent to the European Commission must be included within the Structural Funds programming . "

The project in the Capital of Culture The project illustrated also like the foundation Perugiassisi2019 . E ' was included as an idea but not in the budget of infrastructure, because you do not know how much it might cost . " The proposed project is nicely expressed in the concept and the slogan of the application which, remember is based on a process of engagement ," said the president of the foundation Bruno Bracalente . The center of the application is the regeneration of the historic center , unlike other cities already capitals such as Liverpool and Genoa that pointed on the redevelopment of brownfield sites , Liverpool Genoa. "We need to take the opportunity to rebuild our manufacturing center places. Remaking a square is the most emblematic for that. " the dossier after the first selection , if exceeded , Perugia will have nine months to deepen the project and then prepare a budget and think about the new life of the square in the concrete sense . "That's where we would like to organize events and place them in the cultural program of the next file ."

The voices of the community 's meeting to present the project of renovation of Piazza Grimana was very involved , associations , from ordinary citizens and also by some of the political parties. The goal was just that, to collect criticisms and suggestions. There was the square Grimana Committee , there were representatives of Italian Nostra, Vivi the village , the 5 Star Movement . Some say that " the project is good but need to do more ," who that " we should raise the bar , seriously intervene and that you can not take one hundred of the need to reduce the traffic to give the square its entity ". " Traffic is the denial of a public space , here buses have been empty seeds . Let's do something for the square Grimana does not become a new square Partisans and a third square of the Kiss , another failure . " But there are those who think that the traffic is not the main problem, since the loss dellle its features that has made it to become attractive to degradation. " Grimana Square is one of the metastasis of the deterioration of the center, started 15 years ago. Something must be done now , not in 2019 . Starting with the small things, like the cutting of trees , interventions on the pavement and signage . " There are those who claim more moments of participation and a public competition that has as its object the square Grimana . "I hope it is a starting point. In the project there are things to improve because the transformation of the square can not be made ​​to date - says an architect spoke at the meeting - is a public space and as such should be worked and from here , with participation . Maybe with a public call for its restructuring '



UMBRIA 24

_________________
"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: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Way I see it, case may be, any donation deposited, my well be used to fight justice, yes by applying for citizenship in the Dominican Replublic and paying for it under the table.

That's justice for ya.

Could it be another Swiss Swizzle cheesy move, that'll backfire when DR citizens and institutions ask, but how did he get this, when he was one of the two main individuals in an ongoing murder trial.

He will find some country I am afraid. Maybe it would have been better if Switzerland had given him the permit. They would surely have handed him over. Not sure if DR will just hand him over. He says he will show up but later...and later...final verdict...not feeling so well...not coming. There is no reason why he is in the DR and not at his own appeal. Knox extradited back to prison in Italy, and Sollecito stays in the DR. It is possible.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:20 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

That sounds positive Michael

a not place, they mean, or Google Translate does: When night falls it becomes a no-go area.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Stan wrote:
sherrel wrote:
dgfred wrote:
It actually seems like they are proving the prosecutions case instead of their supposed duties.

No nails- can't undo bra
No nails- must use fingers or knife to cut/tear

It is not (no nails) = can't undo bra so didn't do it or wasn't there. Jeez.


piktor wrote:
B. Nadeau reports from the Grasping At Straws Dept.:

The new appellate judge also accepted a request to enter into evidence photos of Sollecito's bitten fingernails taken the day after the murder. A lawyer for Sollecito, Luca Maori, told CNN that the photos proved that Sollecito did not have enough nail to successfully pry off the clasp of Kercher's bra.

"He bit his nails," Maori said. "There is no way he could have unclasped the bra."




Maybe Maori has never had the opportunity to undo a bra strap himself. bricks-)

He obviously thinks that bra straps are held together by a clasp of some sort. The kind that needs to be closed, and therefore needs fingernails to reopen. I think that may be a rare type of construction. Maori may be less experienced than RS.


I cant help thinking that as the SC has asked for a direct route for any contamination to be shown, the photos of Raff's fingers will be used to make some statement like "because of his chewed fingers it is a fact that he would leave DNA traces on anything he touched strongly. When he tried to open Merediths door and his attempt to break it down, he would have left copious amounts of his DNA on the door handle. The scientific police then inadvertantly transferred this to the bra clasp as multiple people, seen in the video, handled the clasp. In doing so they effectively wiped any traces from the door handle along with any blood traces that were also there"

Other than that, I cant see any valid reason why they would want the court to view photo's.


The problem with that scenario (nail biters leave more skin cells) is that there is no evidence that anyone ever touched the inside door handle in Meredith's bedroom. Why wasn't there any evidence of anyone ever having touched that door handle? If the argument is that nail biters leave more evidence and the proof is in the fact that first responders erased that evidence - which explains no evidence on the outside of the door handle - why isn't there any evidence of anyone on the inside of the door handle? Was that because the door handle was wiped clean?

They can claim that Sollecito/Knox prints were accidentally wiped from the outside of the door handle to Meredith's bedroom, but at the very learst, Meredith routinely touched her bedroom door handle ... still nothing from the door handle on the insdie of the bedroom. It's hard to believe that a murderer would leave DNA in the toilet and bloody footprints running down the hall, but would take the time to wipe evidence of Meredith from the door handle on the inside of the bedroom.

Then, we have the wearing shoes, going barefoot and then running out the front door... that just doesn't add up.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
zorba wrote:
Way I see it, case may be, any donation deposited, my well be used to fight justice, yes by applying for citizenship in the Dominican Replublic and paying for it under the table.

That's justice for ya.

Could it be another Swiss Swizzle cheesy move, that'll backfire when DR citizens and institutions ask, but how did he get this, when he was one of the two main individuals in an ongoing murder trial.

He will find some country I am afraid. Maybe it would have been better if Switzerland had given him the permit. They would surely have handed him over. Not sure if DR will just hand him over. He says he will show up but later...and later...final verdict...not feeling so well...not coming. There is no reason why he is in the DR and not at his own appeal. Knox extradited back to prison in Italy, and Sollecito stays in the DR. It is possible.


Hi Max,

I was looking at the DR to see if there's anything about the fact that a man wanted for murder is basically on the run and using their country as a refuge, I mean looked in newspapers and news.

I';m getting the idea that where the one poor country makes a living of having people come to make their driving licence, like drive twice around a coconut tree and guaranteed pass by paying, others do not take part in any usual ways of business like paying tax so people go there or use it too for that and one way or another the country profits from that position, but DR might be the type of place that unofficially decided to be very accommodating to those involved, in crime, rich criminals setting up shop there, bringing money, if not through some business interests (crooked) then at least to those supplying visas, permits, bases for criminal business activities, pay-offs under the table galore, it's a fact of life that countries who have such high levels of poverty become very vulnerable to all that is bad, often not even the bad as designed by their own people but those who are not poor who see it as an easy touch, it is noty without reason that women from the Dominican Republic are (forced probably in many cases) into prostitution all around Europe and I dare say in America. They are so poor at home that they have little choice, they have nothing to do with shiny hotels where foreigners come to and live a life of luxury making it appear like all is nice and well there, when doewn the road they haven't even got a pot to piss in.

Funnily enough though about Switzerland, they don't all into the category of poor by any stretch but they are rich because of their non-collaboration or non-alignment with most other countries, as regards banking, etc, so then many a criminal has his/her dodgy money stashed away there and everyone has always known it. Somehow, Switzerland managed to keep out of trouble everyone else experienced, including even the Second World War, by declaring itself neutral.
Oddity though is the huge amont of heroin addicts they had there, maybe still do have, I don't know.

I mean their amount of what are or were, like middle class addicts, but not only, was something of the scale never seen elsewhere, whole parks with hundreds of people all shooting up. I haven't heard if they managed to change all that but it was astounding to see that, in this country with the incredibly high standard of living.

Anyhow, they ignored some things and do but that excluded Sollecito, wonder why.

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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

'I wish I'd never met Amanda Knox': Raffaele Sollecito tells how his life has become 'hell' as he prepares to face trial again for murder of Meredith Kercher
* Sollecito says he doesn't blame Knox for his involvement in the Meredith Kercher case
* Sollecito and Knox were acquitted in 2011 after two years in prison
* Italian court ruled that both must stand trial again
By Michael Zennie
PUBLISHED: 03:47 GMT, 3 October 2013 | UPDATED: 10:17 GMT, 3 October 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml


Amanda Knox's days are likely numbered
Seattle : WA : USA | Oct 03, 2013 at 3:17 AM PDT
By Chelsea Hoffman
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... y-numbered
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 03, 2013 11:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Re: Perugia redevelopment. All those lovely oak trees to be torn down? Pity. The drug dealers will just move up or down the side streets.
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 03, 2013 11:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito has some form of brain damage. May be on medication now, gaining weight. I doubt he'll return for the appeal, his excuses sounded hollow.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
The problem with that scenario (nail biters leave more skin cells) is that there is no evidence that anyone ever touched the inside door handle in Meredith's bedroom. Why wasn't there any evidence of anyone ever having touched that door handle? If the argument is that nail biters leave more evidence and the proof is in the fact that first responders erased that evidence - which explains no evidence on the outside of the door handle - why isn't there any evidence of anyone on the inside of the door handle? Was that because the door handle was wiped clean?


There was blood on the door handle. Just it contained nobody elses DNA.

That by the way, is evidence that whoever opened the door to leave the room and left the blood on the handle, wasn't Rudy. This is because we know that the blood Rudy had on his hands was also mixed with his DNA, since when he picked up Meredith's handbag and left his bloody fingerprints on the bag, those prints also contained his DNA. My considered guess, is that was Sollecito.


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Fixed quote to assign it to the correct poster!

_________________
"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 guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Transcript of yesterday's segment of Piers Morgan Live (Sollecito, Kelly, Heavey):

Coming next, Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito he joins me exclusively to talk about the shocking murder case and his relationship with Amanda Knox.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANDA KNOX: What's important for me to say is just thank you everyone, who's believed in me, who's defended me, who supported my family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MORGAN: Amanda Knox who's murder conviction was turned out by the Italian court with strict prosecutors in Italy in backing court trying to prove Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito killed Meredith Kercher. One of the most sensational crime stories in recent memory.

Joining me now is Raffaele Sollecito, the author of Honor Bound, also his attorney and U.S. spokesman John Q. Kelly and Judge Mike Heavey is a retired King County Superior Court Judge and co-founder of Judges for Justice.

Hey Raffaele you are prepared as I understand it, to go back...

RAFFAELE SOLLECITO, AMANDA KNOX EX-BOYFRIEND: It's a pleasure to be here.

MORGAN: Well thank you for coming in the show. You're prepared to go back and face yet further questioning in this court case, if they ask you, is that your position?

SOLLECITO: I will be back when the trial gets into the court. During the first hearing, they just decided what are do's and don'ts, what's the schedule about this court of this trial.

So basically, at the moment, my -- I consulted my lawyers and they told me that there's no need in this moment to me to be there.

MORGAN: You're an Italian and this is an Italian justice system, it's your country's justice system. How do you feel about the way they keep coming after you and why do you think it is? They simply don't want to believe the version of events that you and Amanda have put forward?

SOLLECITO: No -- well, it's not the justice in my -- a version of defense or Amanda, the version of defense. So, it's the real facts that tells that me and Amanda are innocent. What's the -- I don't know well -- what is going on in the mind of the judges and I just think that in my -- in the Italian system, there's something really wrong in the way -- in the rules that they sometimes, they are not respected or they are turned to harsh people and they cannot actually innocent people.

MORGAN: You don't even know Amanda Knox about a week when this happened. I mean, do you with hindsight that you'd never laid eyes on her that you had never become embroiled in such a lurid crime scandal as this become?

SOLLECITO: Yes. Well, basically, nobody will ever -- whatever -- will stay in a situation like mine. My life now is hard but it's not Amanda's fault in this situation. It's -- this situation is a fault inside the investigation at first sight and inside in a prosecution that didn't want to admit their faults.

MORGAN: When the retrial began, the court orders a new test on a knife that's found in your kitchen, which had DNA on it. What do you know about that knife?

SOLLECITO: Well basically, in my opinion just logically, it's ridiculous that's anybody will bring such a big knife from my house to another house. But upon on that, in the investigation, the forensic science found that there's amines on the blades and there's no trace of blood are nothing about Meredith Kercher DNA even if they -- the prosecution say something different, but it was contaminated because they didn't respect the protocols when they picked and dump that knife.

MORGAN: A follow up question for you Raffaele, I know, Meredith Kercher's father. I used to work with him a bit in England and they'd suffered enormously from what has happened obviously to their daughter. Although you described your life as hellish and Amanda has used similar terminology for her life now. Obviously, you both are alive and you have your lives.

What is your message to Meredith Kercher's family?

SOLLECITO: Basically, I feel a lot of compassion for their situation and it's horrible because the -- her, their daughter is no more in this world. But I'm not responsible of that.

I -- me and Amanda would -- we have nothing to do with this crime. And I don't -- what I really want is that we don't need in this tragedy more victims. Meredith had been horribly murdered. And if it came to my sister, I will get crazy as well. But I'm just begging to look at the real facts and the truth about this case.

MORGAN: OK, let me bring in John Q. Kelly, quickly, John. What do you think will be the outcome of this later stage of this? Now, how do you feel about the legal process?

JOHN Q. KELLY, SOLLECITO'S ATTORNEY & U.S. SPOKESMAN: Well, it's a little different than ours first of all. This is the third time we're on where the courts could be hearing evidence and making a decision of innocence and guilt that quite likely, it will go up on appeal again regardless of the results. So this is going to be a legal ping-pong bill probably for the next five years with the -- you know, the fate of Amanda and Raffaele hanging on the balance all this time.

It's a difficult situation, a human tragedy for the Kercher's and a fairly (inaudible) justice for Amanda and Raffaele.

MORGAN: Judge Heavey, you've always been a strong supporter of Amanda Knox -- it's a very divisive case. Many people have strong opinions on both sides of this. Why do you feel so strongly with your exemplary legal background that she is 100 percent innocent?

MIKE HEAVEY, CO-FOUNDER, JUDGES FOR JUSTICE: Mr. Morgan, five years ago, October of 2008, less than a year after the murder of Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede, overwhelming evidence. Meredith's blood, his thumb print. DNA all over her body and on her clothes admits to being there was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison, later reduced on appeal.

He is the sole killer. This two young people have been victims themselves. My heart goes out to the Kercher family. I cried for the Kercher family. I pray for the Kercher family. But the fact is these two young people are victims themselves. They have been terrorized by this process that got way out of control and it's just a crying shame.

There is absolutely the second trial. The judge said, "There is no evidence."

MORGAN: Judge Heavey, thank you for those words. John Q. Kelly, good to see you again. And Raffaele Sollecito, thank you for joining me as well.


CNN TRANSCRIPTS
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Exemplary legal background????

Erhum, if he hadn't been leaving he may well have been kicked out.


He knew full well what it meant to create a false impression by sending letters to the judiciaryy in Italy on official government letterheaded paper, he did that to try to make it seem like he was speaking for America.

No, I do not like Peirs Morgan, exemplary legal background, what, and he calls himself a friend of John Kercher.

Well, thanks for nothing.

The judge is a crook.

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Exemplary legal background????

Erhum, if he hadn't been leaving he may well have been kicked out.


He knew full well what it meant to create a false impression by sending letters to the judiciaryy in Italy on official government letterheaded paper, he did that to try to make it seem like he was speaking for America.

No, I do not like Peirs Morgan, exemplary legal background, what, and he calls himself a friend of John Kercher.

Well, thanks for nothing.

The judge is a crook.


Have you listened yet? What do you think of his English?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I listened but all as I saw and heard was Sollepsycho and Piles Morgan

To me, if you mean about Sollecito, his voice is just like Knox's in that having his tale to tell and the way he tells it, the tones, the expressions which are never spontaneous, if I had not hurt anyone and had been falsly accused, you know like Knox did with Patrick Lumumba, my expressions would be nothing like their carefully concerted ones, their planned reactions, their guarded reactions, their scared to let anything out of the bag reactions, while someone innocent would not give a hoot because there is then nothing to hide or to let out of the bag, so Knox for instance can attempt it but she has failed (and always will) every single time to come across in any way as sympathetic let alone as innocent.

I didn't find Sollecito looking any different and did'nt think he looked tanned.

If you really had nothing to do with a thing there's no way you'd ever start saying stuff like I wish I had not met her because en this simply would not have happened, saying that shows he is lying because what he really means is that they were both involved but that it was because of her that it happened and he WANTS to express that, really does, but knows he cannot, is not allowed to, but he is pissed off, because he sees it as her fault, as he did say right from the start. When he said that, I believed it, when he said it all the way back after the murder, when he was pulled up on having told lies, he did not deny he had, he said he had done it for her, so for her means toi hel her, and help her obviously because he was with her, but he at that moment had in fact fully abandoned her, for the moment, because he did not know how to play it, only after he realised and soon found out it was not a get out of jail card fast to say that about her did he start making up other kinds of nonsense to take back his first statements where he said he'd lied because he had not realised the inconsistency of her story, her storry being TO HIM.

That in turn would imply told to him before they were discovered standing outside the murder scene, which means before that time, Knox may have got in touch with him, in fact whilst having first gone off out and left him at home, it is not safe to say exactly when he did get involved. For the same money he was right there, but still there via the words (egging on) and things that were going (her conflict which she still wears within her facial features because the experience is embedded in her mind) on with Knox, and so even if he took part from the beginning, he indeed may have been led on by her.

So again he is a real coward, because whatever way he was there, sooner or later and no matter if it was her twisted brain that landed them in the trouble, he is EQUALlTY responsible, in the end, however the main point of all that is that he chooses to see himself as a victim of her, even when he has been a wicked liar all of hia own doing.

I think they were high on powders and XTC.
He definitely looked that way, more grey skinned than her, but she was falling asleep stood upright outside the murder scene, when she closed her eyes after kissing him or in between it or during it, where was she then, well I know she where she was, she was in the land of exasperation and fatigue like you get if you get wasted on powders and mind-ALTERING DRUGS and have been up all night, they were smashed.

That is also why it doesn't matter if a person never took part in an orgy, because if a person takes XTC, they may do a whole lot of things they never thought they would.

I see her in this as someone like an evil spirit, like the part that went beyodd mischief.

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


Last edited by zorba on Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I took a moment to let the thought roll around a bit, to see what it is that I noticed that shocked me a bit.
I think, from watching all of the interviews of the both of them, there was a 'pleading' 'wanting to convince, to please' tone to both of them. An anxiousness to convince, to be believed. (Not that I think either of them are telling the truth), I think that both of them had the belief that they would be able to convince, with their words.

That tone, that demeanor, is gone from him in this interview. I believe that the reality of his situation has finally hit him, and hit him hard. Her, not yet. she is still IMO surrounded with such a family and FOA fanbase that she is still finding comfort in the belief that she will talk herself out of it. Her Groupies are encouraging this.

Him? Time to take the goose out of the oven. It's cooked.
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 03, 2013 2:32 pm   Post subject: MORE BAD BEHAVIOUR FROM THE BRUCES   

No matter how many times they get caught out, they keep stalking people for no other reason than that they believe in the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. From the Bruce Fischer website Injustice-Anywhere Stalker Supernaut about a TJMK Main Poster:

Quote:
Today over at TJMK
Post by Supernaut » Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:47 am
IMO, this "SeekingUnderstanding" character needs to be outed, and quickly.


Yet not a word spoken against him. Bruce Fischer needs to monitor his own site.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I took a moment to let the thought roll around a bit, to see what it is that I noticed that shocked me a bit.
I think, from watching all of the interviews of the both of them, there was a 'pleading' 'wanting to convince, to please' tone to both of them. An anxiousness to convince, to be believed. (Not that I think either of them are telling the truth), I think that both of them had the belief that they would be able to convince, with their words.

That tone, that demeanor, is gone from him in this interview. I believe that the reality of his situation has finally hit him, and hit him hard. Her, not yet. she is still IMO surrounded with such a family and FOA fanbase that she is still finding comfort in the belief that she will talk herself out of it. Her Groupies are encouraging this.

Him? Time to take the goose out of the oven. It's cooked.


Think you have described that very well.
Indeed, he has nobody around him, not the way she has, what are they called again, something like enablers but can't remember, in the psychiatry, yeah maybe it is enablers, in relationships, it is something like co-dependants, as in need each other to support one another in the dysfunctional behaviour, she has all of that, because those around her need the lies to support their OWN deficiencies, which I cannot help assume formed the basis of her own> So, yes, there he is at his hideout but being alone he is confronted with the reality in a way that is pretty much impossible for her.

It could be that he wishes he'd played his cards differently, but he too was always into getting away with the lot.

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

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I think they are both a mess. I watched that Oggi interview for only 10 seconds and I still wake up screaming at night. Scary :?
Oh yah, when Pierce asked if RS wished he never met Knox, he answered 'yes' very strongly. I thought that was his only honest answer.
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
The problem with that scenario (nail biters leave more skin cells) is that there is no evidence that anyone ever touched the inside door handle in Meredith's bedroom. Why wasn't there any evidence of anyone ever having touched that door handle? If the argument is that nail biters leave more evidence and the proof is in the fact that first responders erased that evidence - which explains no evidence on the outside of the door handle - why isn't there any evidence of anyone on the inside of the door handle? Was that because the door handle was wiped clean?


There was blood on the door handle. Just it contained nobody elses DNA.

That by the way, is evidence that whoever opened the door to leave the room and left the blood on the handle, wasn't Rudy. This is because we know that the blood Rudy had on his hands was also mixed with his DNA, since when he picked up Meredith's handbag and left his bloody fingerprints on the bag, those prints also contained his DNA. My considered guess, is that was Sollecito.


picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Fixed quote to assign it to the correct poster!


I think they left the blood on the inside of the door because they knew it wasn't theirs.
I also they knew the blood on the lightswitch in the bathroom was not theirs.
The breaking down the door story was to cover any of his prints on that side of the door.
Other people also likely touched the doorknob/door when they first arrived to find it locked and during busting the door.
I believe they would have swiped the inside door handle during their cleaning stage while walking in bare feet if they saw it/knew it was theirs... or a chance of it being theirs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
I think they are both a mess. I watched that Oggi interview for only 10 seconds and I still wake up screaming at night. Scary :?
Oh yah, when Pierce asked if RS wished he never met Knox, he answered 'yes' very strongly. I thought that was his only honest answer.


Yes... neither presents themselves as an innocent person.

Maybe he is thinking that his dad has been right all along. Wasn't that recorded or given in a statement by pops?

stup-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Exemplary legal background????

Erhum, if he hadn't been leaving he may well have been kicked out.


He knew full well what it meant to create a false impression by sending letters to the judiciaryy in Italy on official government letterheaded paper, he did that to try to make it seem like he was speaking for America.

No, I do not like Peirs Morgan, exemplary legal background, what, and he calls himself a friend of John Kercher.

Well, thanks for nothing.

The judge is a crook.


we can call him the "nonsense"-judge is)


Maybe he can give them legal advice that neither AK nor Raff are forced to attend their appeal
Moreover this appeal mustn't even happen at all, just accept the conviction from the original Massei court - and case closed.
Prosecution would surely agree.

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Pelerine wrote:
zorba wrote:
Exemplary legal background????

Erhum, if he hadn't been leaving he may well have been kicked out.


He knew full well what it meant to create a false impression by sending letters to the judiciaryy in Italy on official government letterheaded paper, he did that to try to make it seem like he was speaking for America.

No, I do not like Peirs Morgan, exemplary legal background, what, and he calls himself a friend of John Kercher.

Well, thanks for nothing.

The judge is a crook.


we can call him the "nonsense"-judge is)


Maybe he can give them legal advice that neither AK nor Raff are forced to attend their appeal
Moreover this appeal mustn't even happen at all, just accept the conviction from the original Massei court - and case closed.
Prosecution would surely agree.



Indeed, and if Piero, had done his homework, he could have said, now Mr Heavey, with your exemplary background, you lived two doors down from the accused Ms Knox, is there any reason you felt so strongly bla bla bla, Knox probably used to mow the man's lawn.

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Yes to this, zorba. It's an excellent point. The personal relationship should have been acknowledged. If you weren't aware of the personal connection, you might think that it is some anonymous judge who just dropped in from the sky with a legal opinion. He is also identified as a Co-founder of Judges for Justice, which makes it sound to me as if he is a member of an organization who attach themselves to cases such as this. How many judges are there again?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Yes to this, zorba. It's an excellent point. The personal relationship should have been acknowledged. If you weren't aware of the personal connection, you might think that it is some anonymous judge who just dropped in from the sky with a legal opinion. He is also identified as a Co-founder of Judges for Justice, which makes it sound to me as if he is a member of an organization who attach themselves to cases such as this. How many judges are there again?



Thanks Nap,

Think it's the best thing that flopped out in, oh, let's say about 25 thousand typos.

After it came, I couldn't help thinking it was exactly like, you know, when some beautiful young thing marries some not beautiful very old thing, but, who does have about 100 million in the account, and.. was there anything in particular that made you fall in love with this 90 year old man

She loved him for his personaility.



If it wasn't so sad it'd be hilarious and though it isn't I cannot help but laugh when I read your: How many judges are there again..


yes, ah, basically him

It's all terribly misleading isn't it, the only thing I can think of is that these presenters and journalists are not allowed to speak their minds and because the money is more important to them, they don't.

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Go ahead and laugh, Zorba. Take a good look at that beautiful face that you are using as an avatar. Tell me that she wouldn't appreciate a good chuckle every now and then. It's a horrible thing, a tragic thing that's happened. Sometimes you just need a little levity. Fortunately for us, their List of Clowns is quite lengthy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Go ahead and laugh, Zorba. Take a good look at that beautiful face that you are using as an avatar. Tell me that she wouldn't appreciate a good chuckle every now and then. It's a horrible thing, a tragic thing that's happened. Sometimes you just need a little levity. Fortunately for us, their List of Clowns is quite lengthy.



Hi Nap

Yes I do often think of poor Meredith and her family, and the way she was, with them, their humour and kindness and it is kind of a duty not to be miserable sons of bastards like those who have lied all the time in relation to this.

Above all, as far as I am concerned, I thought I'd seen it all, more or less, but this down-dumbing course, where you see those who are supposed to be providing news but doing it by opening peoples' eyes with incisive writing, instead most seem more like criminals themselves, in that it is a crime to be so bloody stupid and to actually help people like these up in court.

That with P Morgan too, if he is a friend then of course I believe it, and can only surmise that the reason he conducted what at best can be called a vacant interview is because he is paid to not tell the news as it should be told; they are all scared of losing their jobs if they disobey, even if, in his case, his show IS shutting down, so I heard. People like that get paid so much leaving money there's no way they will slag it all off just before hitting the ejector button.
But I hope he has a trick up his sleeve and is planning on doing more.

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


Last edited by zorba on Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Emerald


User avatar


Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am

Posts: 1706

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda is all cozy, cradled in the warm comfort of family and friends.

Raffaele is traipsing the globe among strangers looking for a safe place to lite.

I wonder when he will understand what he is giving up for someone who couldn't care less that he can never go home again without at the very least constantly being eyed with suspicion.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Emerald wrote:
Amanda is all cozy, cradled in the warm comfort of family and friends.

Raffaele is traipsing the globe among strangers looking for a safe place to lite.

I wonder when he will understand what he is giving up for someone who couldn't care less that he can never go home again without at the very least constantly being eyed with suspicion.


You might just have that right, her there, feeling like she is infallible, but he is alone, I'm one of those who always said he will crack first.

But he knows owning up is never going to get him a 5 year stretch, he knows full well that there are written sentences for each crime and it is law, a judge cannot dish out less.

And after wasting 6 years of the countries time, and those it affects worst, Meredith's family, they cannot any longer give him mitigation. The acts during the past 6 years are far too bad.

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Go ahead and laugh, Zorba. Take a good look at that beautiful face that you are using as an avatar. Tell me that she wouldn't appreciate a good chuckle every now and then. It's a horrible thing, a tragic thing that's happened. Sometimes you just need a little levity. Fortunately for us, their List of Clowns is quite lengthy.



Hi Nap

Yes I do often think of poor Meredith and her family, abnd the way she was, with them, their human and kindness and it is kind of a duty not to be miserable sons of barstards like those who have lied all the time in relation to this.

Above all, as far as I am concerned, I thought I'd seen it all, more or less, but this down-dumbing course, where you see those who are supposed to be providing news but doing it by opening peoples' eyes with incisive writing, instead most seem more like criminals themselves, in that it is a crime to be so bloody stupid and to actually help people like these up in court.

That with P Morgan too, if he is a friend then of course I believe it, and can only surmise that the reason he conducted what at best can be called a vacant interview is because he is paid to not tell the news as it should be told; they are all scared of losing their jobs if they disobey, even if, in his case, his show IS shutting down, so I heard. People like that get paid so much leaving money there's no way they will slag it all off just before hitting the ejector button.
But I hope he has a trick up his sleeve and is planning on doing more.


I don't know, Zorba. I don't pretend to know how reporters actually work these days, but it seems to me that immediacy is the buzz-word they all live by. I saw this the other night when I was following Twitter.
The reporter was tweeting all manner of people, right in a row, looking for i guess you would call it a sound byte for the upcoming show. I mean, seriously, is it possible that a reporter can be handed a story that is going to take all of 2 or 3 minutes, and expect him to know all of the background from the last 6 years?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing poor or inaccurate reporting. I think the ''cut-and-paste' manner that is so present is horrible. You would think that Morgan has enough people working for him that SOMEONE would have at least googled "Judges for Justice" to see what the group is about.

Oh, yeah, my google skills aren't that great. I'm still looking for "Judges for Justice". Must be a certain way to enter it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
zorba wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
Go ahead and laugh, Zorba. Take a good look at that beautiful face that you are using as an avatar. Tell me that she wouldn't appreciate a good chuckle every now and then. It's a horrible thing, a tragic thing that's happened. Sometimes you just need a little levity. Fortunately for us, their List of Clowns is quite lengthy.



Hi Nap

Yes I do often think of poor Meredith and her family, abnd the way she was, with them, their human and kindness and it is kind of a duty not to be miserable sons of barstards like those who have lied all the time in relation to this.

Above all, as far as I am concerned, I thought I'd seen it all, more or less, but this down-dumbing course, where you see those who are supposed to be providing news but doing it by opening peoples' eyes with incisive writing, instead most seem more like criminals themselves, in that it is a crime to be so bloody stupid and to actually help people like these up in court.

That with P Morgan too, if he is a friend then of course I believe it, and can only surmise that the reason he conducted what at best can be called a vacant interview is because he is paid to not tell the news as it should be told; they are all scared of losing their jobs if they disobey, even if, in his case, his show IS shutting down, so I heard. People like that get paid so much leaving money there's no way they will slag it all off just before hitting the ejector button.
But I hope he has a trick up his sleeve and is planning on doing more.


I don't know, Zorba. I don't pretend to know how reporters actually work these days, but it seems to me that immediacy is the buzz-word they all live by. I saw this the other night when I was following Twitter.
The reporter was tweeting all manner of people, right in a row, looking for i guess you would call it a sound byte for the upcoming show. I mean, seriously, is it possible that a reporter can be handed a story that is going to take all of 2 or 3 minutes, and expect him to know all of the background from the last 6 years?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing poor or inaccurate reporting. I think the ''cut-and-paste' manner that is so present is horrible. You would think that Morgan has enough people working for him that SOMEONE would have at least googled "Judges for Justice" to see what the group is about.

Oh, yeah, my google skills aren't that great. I'm still looking for "Judges for Justice". Must be a certain way to enter it.



Yeah but in his none of them have bust been handed a thing for a few minutes and Morgan calls himself a Mr Kercher friend.

Way I see it they just like the sound of I'm a journalst but are totally shit at the job, I am hardly ever inspired by the usual run of the mill types there are those that demand my respect, but they haven't ever been seen in this case

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

This particular interview doesn't seem to have had much pre-notification attached to it. It was only released yesterday that the interview would be on Piers' show last night. And I'm not really sure how much Morgan would know about Judge Heavey and his personal connection. should have been checked out, IMO.

I'm curious about what happened to the other half of the tag team. Moore and Douglas. The four of them were supposed to make some presentation in the bowels of the Capitol or somesuch, but it was cancelled due to ______, whatever. Where is it that former feebs go with free time on their hands in D.C.? Maybe they felt a short jaunt to Atlantic City would be in order. Hard to say.
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: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
Oh, yeah, my google skills aren't that great. I'm still looking for "Judges for Justice". Must be a certain way to enter it.


Do it with quotes around Judges for Justice. I found http://www.judgesforjustice.org by doing it that way.

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

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Holy crap on a cracker, sherrel! Get the Zorba and smacker warning up quick! They're in for a shock on that home page!

Edit: removed quote
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 04, 2013 3:16 am   Post subject: TWEETS TO FOLLOW   

Our very own Yummi (Machiavelli) will be tweeting from the courtroom starting tomorrow https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki
Kathleen Gadalof was there from Sept 30 https://twitter.com/kathleengadalof
And of course there's Andrea Vogt https://twitter.com/andreavogt
Barbie Latza Nadeau https://twitter.com/BLNadeau
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:50 am   Post subject: Re: TWEETS TO FOLLOW   

Ergon wrote:
Our very own Yummi (Machiavelli) will be tweeting from the courtroom starting tomorrow https://twitter.com/Machiavelli_Aki
Kathleen Gadalof was there from Sept 30 https://twitter.com/kathleengadalof
And of course there's Andrea Vogt https://twitter.com/andreavogt
Barbie Latza Nadeau https://twitter.com/BLNadeau

Thanks. Besides Aviello and assigning the test team, is there anything else on the program? Seems like this could be a short session?
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
--- snip ---

Yeah but in his none of them have bust been handed a thing for a few minutes and Morgan calls himself a Mr Kercher friend.

--- snap ---


I don't recall Piers Morgan or John Kercher saying they were friends. Piers Morgan only said he knew John Kercher because they had worked together.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Reminding myself of the trial dates :)
Quote:
The trial will work for real from the start: September 30 judges decide on the request of the defense, already deposited with the court, to re-hear some of the witnesses and experts and to order new scientific investigations.

Even the Supreme Court, in their motivations, suggests new analysis, particularly on the third trace of DNA found on the knife seized in Sollecito's house - that the prosecution believed to be the murder weapon - and not examined by experts. If the Court welcomes this 'demand for new investigations', the task could be entrusted in the second hearing, on October 4.

Then about twenty days to know the results, which will be presented in the courtroom on 23 and 24 October. The other dates are scheduled as 6, 7, 25 and 26 November.

viewtopic.php?p=111949#p111949
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I took a moment to let the thought roll around a bit, to see what it is that I noticed that shocked me a bit.
I think, from watching all of the interviews of the both of them, there was a 'pleading' 'wanting to convince, to please' tone to both of them. An anxiousness to convince, to be believed. (Not that I think either of them are telling the truth), I think that both of them had the belief that they would be able to convince, with their words.

That tone, that demeanor, is gone from him in this interview. I believe that the reality of his situation has finally hit him, and hit him hard. Her, not yet. she is still IMO surrounded with such a family and FOA fanbase that she is still finding comfort in the belief that she will talk herself out of it. Her Groupies are encouraging this.

Him? Time to take the goose out of the oven. It's cooked.


I have a slightly different take on this situation. While I don't disagree with your observations, I cannot forget about papa Sollecito who still desperately tries to fix things for his son in Perugia.

When Raffaele Sollecito imprudently declared he would first follow the proceedings from a safe distance before deciding to attend later on, his father immediately came to the rescue declaring his son would return to Perugia. The explanation he gave was odd though. Francesco Sollecito stated his son had commitments in Italy, scheduled tv appearances to be exact, and I fail to see how a tv appearance is a more important event than your own appeal.

Then the holiday photos surfaced and Raffaele Sollecito declared boldly he deserved having a holiday, which is odd coming from someone who is 29 years old and never had an employment. Further he explains his holiday is financed by a supporter and to me he starts sounding more and more like Frank Sfarzo the mooch. Raffaele Sollecito subsequently declares he does not know when he will be back to Italy, which is a direct contradiction to the statement made by his father to the press.

My impression is that the ones who suffer most with the current situation are the parents and direct family members of Sollecito and Knox. RS and AK themselves appear to be unconcerned and they never seem to run out of people they can blame for their current situation.

I remember the photos taken from AK and RS in NYC with Edda Mellas following them. She did not look comfortable. I had the same thought seeing the photos taken from Raffaele Sollecito's father at the first hearing.

They have a huge burden to live with and neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito care a bit.

It is only a question of time until Sollecito will be forced to beg his father for help. He does not have any income and his supporters are not going to host him forever. He acted short-sightedly when he contradicted his own father before the proceedings began.

I do agree with what zorba wrote in an earlier post that Raffaelg Sollecito blames Knox and I am sure she does the same with him. He incriminated her immediately when he was confronted by police with his phone records.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:23 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I just checked Raffaele Sollecito's GoFundMe page and noticed that Judge Michael Heavey has paid his monthly allowance.


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

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

Yeah but in his none of them have bust been handed a thing for a few minutes and Morgan calls himself a Mr Kercher friend.

--- snap ---


I don't recall Piers Morgan or John Kercher saying they were friends. Piers Morgan only said he knew John Kercher because they had worked together.



Do you suppose that Piers Morgan having worked with John Kercher is his enemy?

Usually, in British English, if we say we know a person because we worked with them, it implies friendship, even if it was a working relationship, he knows him, he did not say he knew him, and so it is finished.

_________________
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 04, 2013 7:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I took a moment to let the thought roll around a bit, to see what it is that I noticed that shocked me a bit.
I think, from watching all of the interviews of the both of them, there was a 'pleading' 'wanting to convince, to please' tone to both of them. An anxiousness to convince, to be believed. (Not that I think either of them are telling the truth), I think that both of them had the belief that they would be able to convince, with their words.

That tone, that demeanor, is gone from him in this interview. I believe that the reality of his situation has finally hit him, and hit him hard. Her, not yet. she is still IMO surrounded with such a family and FOA fanbase that she is still finding comfort in the belief that she will talk herself out of it. Her Groupies are encouraging this.

Him? Time to take the goose out of the oven. It's cooked.


I have a slightly different take on this situation. While I don't disagree with your observations, I cannot forget about papa Sollecito who still desperately tries to fix things for his son in Perugia.

When Raffaele Sollecito imprudently declared he would first follow the proceedings from a safe distance before deciding to attend later on, his father immediately came to the rescue declaring his son would return to Perugia. The explanation he gave was odd though. Francesco Sollecito stated his son had commitments in Italy, scheduled tv appearances to be exact, and I fail to see how a tv appearance is a more important event than your own appeal.

Then the holiday photos surfaced and Raffaele Sollecito declared boldly he deserved having a holiday, which is odd coming from someone who is 29 years old and never had an employment. Further he explains his holiday is financed by a supporter and to me he starts sounding more and more like Frank Sfarzo the mooch. Raffaele Sollecito subsequently declares he does not know when he will be back to Italy, which is a direct contradiction to the statement made by his father to the press.

My impression is that the ones who suffer most with the current situation are the parents and direct family members of Sollecito and Knox. RS and AK themselves appear to be unconcerned and they never seem to run out of people they can blame for their current situation.

I remember the photos taken from AK and RS in NYC with Edda Mellas following them. She did not look comfortable. I had the same thought seeing the photos taken from Raffaele Sollecito's father at the first hearing.

They have a huge burden to live with and neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito care a bit.

It is only a question of time until Sollecito will be forced to beg his father for help. He does not have any income and his supporters are not going to host him forever. He acted short-sightedly when he contradicted his own father before the proceedings began.

I do agree with what zorba wrote in an earlier post that Raffaelg Sollecito blames Knox and I am sure she does the same with him. He incriminated her immediately when he was confronted by police with his phone records.



Think Napia meant more that Sollecito has no dad or sister in his immediate vicinity, so even if dad is still supporting him, he is not on his home soil, and hasn't been because as soon as the Swiss affair ended he ran off to America, and did not return to Italy in between.
Therefore, one could assume it's been a while now since he has been around his familiar things, and Iit looks like whilst in Switzerland he did not rteturn to Italy,.

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I took a moment to let the thought roll around a bit, to see what it is that I noticed that shocked me a bit.
I think, from watching all of the interviews of the both of them, there was a 'pleading' 'wanting to convince, to please' tone to both of them. An anxiousness to convince, to be believed. (Not that I think either of them are telling the truth), I think that both of them had the belief that they would be able to convince, with their words.

That tone, that demeanor, is gone from him in this interview. I believe that the reality of his situation has finally hit him, and hit him hard. Her, not yet. she is still IMO surrounded with such a family and FOA fanbase that she is still finding comfort in the belief that she will talk herself out of it. Her Groupies are encouraging this.

Him? Time to take the goose out of the oven. It's cooked.


I have a slightly different take on this situation. While I don't disagree with your observations, I cannot forget about papa Sollecito who still desperately tries to fix things for his son in Perugia.

When Raffaele Sollecito imprudently declared he would first follow the proceedings from a safe distance before deciding to attend later on, his father immediately came to the rescue declaring his son would return to Perugia. The explanation he gave was odd though. Francesco Sollecito stated his son had commitments in Italy, scheduled tv appearances to be exact, and I fail to see how a tv appearance is a more important event than your own appeal.

Then the holiday photos surfaced and Raffaele Sollecito declared boldly he deserved having a holiday, which is odd coming from someone who is 29 years old and never had an employment. Further he explains his holiday is financed by a supporter and to me he starts sounding more and more like Frank Sfarzo the mooch. Raffaele Sollecito subsequently declares he does not know when he will be back to Italy, which is a direct contradiction to the statement made by his father to the press.

My impression is that the ones who suffer most with the current situation are the parents and direct family members of Sollecito and Knox. RS and AK themselves appear to be unconcerned and they never seem to run out of people they can blame for their current situation.

I remember the photos taken from AK and RS in NYC with Edda Mellas following them. She did not look comfortable. I had the same thought seeing the photos taken from Raffaele Sollecito's father at the first hearing.

They have a huge burden to live with and neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito care a bit.

It is only a question of time until Sollecito will be forced to beg his father for help. He does not have any income and his supporters are not going to host him forever. He acted short-sightedly when he contradicted his own father before the proceedings began.

I do agree with what zorba wrote in an earlier post that Raffaelg Sollecito blames Knox and I am sure she does the same with him. He incriminated her immediately when he was confronted by police with his phone records.


I have to disagree on Sollecito not caring a bit, I think he does care about his situation, but he doesn't care about what he did with regard to murder if he took part in that, which my guess is he did.
Knox has her family around her to support her own nonsense, but as he does not he is more directly confronted with the situation he really is in should things not turn out well for him, if he is going to run, okay, but I'm sure the thought of never being able to go back to Italy must be cracking him up.
Since Knox is in her very own hometown she is in a totally different frame of mind.

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Day 2 of the 2nd appeal trial:

kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 2m

Quote:
9.40 Amanda Knox process resumes in florence
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 4s

The new DNA test results from the knife in the #amandaknox case will be discussed in Florence court on Nov 6. A crucial hearing
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Meredith process, the expertise of Ris on the knife will begin Thursday, October 10 at Ris Roma
https://twitter.com/qn_lanazione
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aviello's arrival (image courtesy of Jools at .org)

Attachment:
Aviellosarrival.jpg


Thanks max. Here's another tweet from La Nazione:

Quote:
Meredith process, we discuss whether the witness Aviello (calunnia defendant) is charged with an offense connected or not # meredithnazione


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: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 28m
Meredith process, we start with the appointment of the Ris of Rome on the traces of DNA on the knife # meredithnazione
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 12s
Meredith process, begins the hearing of the witness Luciano Aviello

Hilarious: :)

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 22s
Meredith process, Luciano Aviello occurs in women's clothes and confirms to be on a path to change sex

He can't be serious:

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 23s
Luciano Aviello repeats: "the perpetrator of the murder of Meredith Kercher is my brother,"
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 12s
Meredith process, begins the hearing of the witness Luciano Aviello

Hilarious: :)

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 22s
Meredith process, Luciano Aviello occurs in women's clothes and confirms to be on a path to change sex

He can't be serious:

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 23s
Luciano Aviello repeats: "the perpetrator of the murder of Meredith Kercher is my brother,"



Sounds like his brother called him a lot of names or something.

_________________
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: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:36 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, Luciano Aviello, when questioned by prosecutor Crini "reiterates the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito"

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, witness Aviello talks about a fake seance.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

So it is: Alviello appears in women's clothing and states that he is undergoing sex change treatment.

_________________
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: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 4m
Meredith process, Luciano Aviello says: "I didn't get any money from Sollecito"

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 2m
Witness Aviello confirms the allegations against his brother, but it is a rather surreal deposition
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:46 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 4m
Meredith process, Luciano Aviello says: "I didn't get any money from Sollecito"

But he got a hanky. Friends for life :roll:
Oh, it is over. Enough of this. Good judge (I think).


Last edited by max on Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, the deposition of Aviello ends. The trial will resume on 6 Nov

https://twitter.com/qn_lanazione
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m

Meredith process, Luciano Aviello, when questioned by prosecutor Crini "reiterates the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito"

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m

Meredith process, witness Aviello talks about a fake seance.



He reconsidered the things he said about Bongiorno and decided it'd be better to revert to his original line.
He will now deny that anyone ever told him to say those things.
He will say he made that up about Bongiorno, she didn't tell him to do it, it's simply the truth, etc


________________________________________

POSTED ON TJMK 06/27/11

Barbie Nadeau tweets from the courtroom(2011) that another prisoner testified that Aviello was promised a reduction in sentence in exchange for his testimony.

@BLNadeau BLNadeau

Inmate claims lawyer for Sollecito promised a reduction in sentence for Aviello’s testimony last week.

Posted by Nell on 06/27/11 at 07:51 AM | #


_____________________________________________________________
TJMK

Note to media in response to emails: you are welcome to use this translation unasked in its entirety if you please credit TJMK

The complete text of the letter written by the Ivory Coast man.

Guede’s letter to News Mediaset translated by TJMK poster Tiziano.

Viterbo 07/03/2010

As usual in this beloved beautiful country of ours, there are many dishonest people given over to lying. And there are likewise those who give these people a voice without the slightest questioning of their consciences, whether it’s worth the trouble of giving space to certain conjectures.

In recent days the only things I have heard have been blasphemous insinuations about me; baseless gossip which has done nothing other than harrying, hither and thither, TV news channels, even though for reasonable people it is the pure invention of a wicked mind.

It must be said that all I have heard in recent days in the media, about what has been falsely stated by this foul being by the name of Mario Alessi, whose conscience is nothing but stinking garbage, are purely and simply the ravings of a sick and twisted mind, his ravings are the dreamed-up, untrue declarations of a monster who sullied himself with a frightful murder in which he took the life of an angelic little human being, as is known throughout Italy. This fellow, now, is telling lies about things that I never said to him and (other things) that I never said, things that don’t exist either in this world or the next.

To his – or rather their- rotten declarations, it’s my intention to put in black and white that I never confided in this disgusting creature, since moreover that I’ve got nothing to confess or anything else (to say), and everything that I had to say I have already said to the judges and I will go on shouting and fighting while I am still alive, until the truth itself and justice itself prevail over such lies, and even less did I speak one to one or together with other people or with other inmates about my trial affairs, and if I had ever had something to say, don’t you believe that I would have talked about it with my lawyers? Giving rise to and giving credit to what is a blasphemous statement made by a sick mind, to a monster who had no pity for a child.

With this latest scenario, which my lawyers, my family and I are now used to, from this latest person, the monster Alessi, I hope that Italians and the rest of the world realise that they are dealing with pigs, pigs which stink of the slime of falsehood, but which, not withstanding everything, go around showing their faces and suffocating people with their fetid lying.

Like their umpteenth scenario which does nothing more than give me the strength and the awareness to struggle more than ever, so that the truth that they want to hide is revealed for everyone to see.

As far as I’m concerned, (I have) the serenity and the calm of complete peace of mind, as a person who does not parade this unfair suffering, but who trusts in justice and in the good sense of Italians.

And finally I wish that sooner or later the judges will recognise my complete non-involvement in what was the horrible murder of the splendid, magnificent girl who was Meredith Kercher, by Raffaelle Sollecito and Amanda Knox.

Guede Rudy

_________________
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: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione Report of today's hearing:

Process Meredith, November 6 the verdict of Ris on the knife. Witness Aviello: "The murderer is my brother"
By Roberto Davide Papini

Google trans
In fact, November 6th we should know if that track is due and to whom, because it is said that the findings can give meaningful answers. The court, presided over by Alessandro Nencini, has entrusted to two officers of the Carabinieri Ris (Major Andrea Berti, of Cascina, and Captain Philip Barni, Prato) to verify in particular whether the track is attributable to the victim or Rudy Guede, the Ivorian already sentenced to 16 years in prison for complicity in the murder.

The hearing also saw the testimony of Luciano Aviello, the witness inmate who first accused his brother of the crime, then recanted and for this reason is accused of slander. Not relied on its reliability nor defenses, neither the plaintiffs nor the prosecutor. In practice, he was summoned to a duty urged by the Court of Cassation .

The examination of Aviello (who introduced himself in women's clothes, insisting he is doing a run of "rectification of sex") was short, but complicated to follow due to the vagaries of the witness. In essence Aviello reiterated that the murderer of Meredith Kercher is his brother (of Aviello) and that the statements of retraction are not true. A deposition a little 'surreal', with Aviello who first asks not to be resumed, then asks a camera all for himself, then talks about a seance and a theft of a painting on commission. In the general confusion, the court, prosecution, defense and civil parties, adjourns (closes) the hearing after listening to really surreal deposition.


LA NAZIONE

Firenze, seconda udienza del processo Meredith (video)

QUOTIDIANO
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:09 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, the deposition of Aviello ends. The trial will resume on 6 Nov

https://twitter.com/qn_lanazione

Hola everyone...can't believe Aviello recanted his recantation.
Weren't there trial dates at the end of October, too? Must have been cancelled.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, the deposition of Aviello ends. The trial will resume on 6 Nov

https://twitter.com/qn_lanazione

Hola everyone...can't believe Aviello recanted his recantation.
Weren't there trial dates at the end of October, too? Must have been cancelled.



Yes he obviously retracted his statement, because he was afraid of getting into more trouble after threats from Bongiorno but the trouble he is in with the government is worse than being sued by her.

_________________
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: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Murder Meredith /Expertise on Sollecito's knife entrusted to Ris

Starts on 10 October, the expertise on the knife found in Raffaele Sollecito's house, at the offices of the Ris of Rome. The assignment was given this morning by Judge Alessandro Nencini, who chairs the repetition of the appeal, at Florence, for the murder of Meredith Kercher. "We are going to analyze something we do not know whether it exists, the file is not anything, said Nencini in the courtroom. But you must consider the possibility that there are no traces "of the DNA of Meredith or the convicted Guede." "To the Kercher family - said the lawyer Francesco Maresca, on the sidelines of the hearing - we explained that this is simply a necessary act, because the expert opinion on appeal was incomplete." " I think I can say something positive just in case. In the case of absence, the elements are already so many. This process is already packed with elements," added Maresca. "And if tracks are traced on the knife? It will be a step forward." The courtroom discussion of the outcome of the expertise is expected on October 31.[sic] [???]


NEWSIT24
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
La Nazione Report of today's hearing:

Process Meredith, November 6 the verdict of Ris on the knife. Witness Aviello: "The murderer is my brother"
By Roberto Davide Papini

Google trans
In fact, November 6th we should know if that track is due and to whom, because it is said that the findings can give meaningful answers. The court, presided over by Alessandro Nencini, has entrusted to two officers of the Carabinieri Ris (Major Andrea Berti, of Cascina, and Captain Philip Barni, Prato) to verify in particular whether the track is attributable to the victim or Rudy Guede, the Ivorian already sentenced to 16 years in prison for complicity in the murder.

The hearing also saw the testimony of Luciano Aviello, the witness inmate who first accused his brother of the crime, then recanted and for this reason is accused of slander. Not relied on its reliability nor defenses, neither the plaintiffs nor the prosecutor. In practice, he was summoned to a duty urged by the Court of Cassation .

The examination of Aviello (who introduced himself in women's clothes, insisting he is doing a run of "rectification of sex") was short, but complicated to follow due to the vagaries of the witness. In essence Aviello reiterated that the murderer of Meredith Kercher is his brother (of Aviello) and that the statements of retraction are not true. A deposition a little 'surreal', with Aviello who first asks not to be resumed, then asks a camera all for himself, then talks about a seance and a theft of a painting on commission. In the general confusion, the court, prosecution, defense and civil parties, adjourns (closes) the hearing after listening to really surreal deposition.


LA NAZIONE

Firenze, seconda udienza del processo Meredith (video)

QUOTIDIANO


I find it very interesting that for the first time Rudy Guede is named as a possible source for the sample on the knife.

Not hat I believe the trace is from him, but if it were, Knox's and Sollecito's troubles would worsen. Rudy Guede has been connected to the crime scene without any doubt, so if his DNA would be found on the knife it could be even worse than finding Meredith's.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:50 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Processo Meredith, al via la seconda udienza: assenti Amanda e Sollecito
di Susanna Picone, 4 ottobre 2013, 11:33
http://www.fanpage.it/processo-meredith ... sollecito/

Papa Doc was in the 'classroom', and his son was/is all calm: “Sollecito attende tranquillo.”
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, the deposition of Aviello ends. The trial will resume on 6 Nov

https://twitter.com/qn_lanazione

Hola everyone...can't believe Aviello recanted his recantation.
Weren't there trial dates at the end of October, too? Must have been cancelled.



Yes he obviously retracted his statement, because he was afraid of getting into more trouble after threats from Bongiorno but the trouble he is in with the government is worse than being sued by her.


I hope you are right. She always seems to find a way...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

My unofficial translation of the Italian NEWSIT24 article


Florence, October 4
The examination of the knife found in Raffaele Sollecito's apartment will start on the 10th of October 2013 at the Department of Scientific Investigations [abbreviated as "RIS" from Reparto Investigazioni Scientifiche] in Rome.

"We are going to analyse something, we don't know what there is, the [chosen] course of action did not provide results," said Nencini in the courtroom.

But one must consider the possibility that there are no [other/additional/new] traces "of the DNA belonging to Meredith, or any from the convicted Guede."

The Kercher family lawyer Francesco Maresca said - as a note in the margin to the hearing - "We explained that this is simply a necessary act, because the expert opinion in the [original/first and nullified] appeal was incomplete."


"I think I can say something positive just in case. In the case of absence, the elements are already so abundant. This process is already packed with elements," said Maresca. And if traces are found on the knife?

"It will be a step forward."

The court discussion regarding the outcome of the examination is expected on the 31st of October 2013.

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:43 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
I haven't seen this Morgan thing.

Yesterday thought I'd leave commenting out, because Mc said Morgan was a friend of Meredith's father, I never heard that before, Morgan is a former editor of the Daily Mail, for which John Kercher worked.

Morgan was the editor of the Daily Mirror. He was fired for the complete fabrication of a story ('British troops urinate on insurgents').

zorba wrote:
Personally, I could never stand Piers Morgan, he always seemed such an arrogant person, you do not really watch programmes like The Apprentice as you know they are awful, you detest Trumpo to start with, you watch as in observing, thinking what the hell, it's not watching with, I like this.


He's not as down to earth on US media as he is on British. He plays with cold arrogance there. Not as much humor. Playing up his upper class english persona. Sells well in the US.

Morgan admitted phone hacking on US media - was on camera 'everyone did it .. heck even I did it' (Morgan). Which he now completely denies. 'Phone hacking' as such, was accessing a celebrities voicemail with the default factory pin code on a new mobile phone, or guessing the pin code (which was only 4 digits).

Looks like Sollecito is beginning to panic. Nightmare returns.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
zorba wrote:
Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, the deposition of Aviello ends. The trial will resume on 6 Nov

https://twitter.com/qn_lanazione

Hola everyone...can't believe Aviello recanted his recantation.
Weren't there trial dates at the end of October, too? Must have been cancelled.



Yes he obviously retracted his statement, because he was afraid of getting into more trouble after threats from Bongiorno but the trouble he is in with the government is worse than being sued by her.


I hope you are right. She always seems to find a way...


Hi Ava,

If I'm understanding/following it correctly, then first he said, Yeah, my brother did it.

But then he made accusations that he only said such things because Bongiorno told him to.

If he is now reiterating what he first said, that means he is stating that in fact it WAS true what he said about his brother and has thus nothing to do with Bongiorno, i.e., he said that stuff all by himself, nobody told him to say it.

Leading me to think, based on his words and acts, one would have to deduce that
a) he either was offered even more rewards or
b) is so stupid he imagined having the State prosecute him for calumnia wouldn't be as bad as having her sue him.

However, I think the man is potty. To me, b) is the answer. But what he said about her was a lie all along anyhow.

Nothing, not a word he says has ever been true, not about his brother, not about Bongiorno either.

A lawyer like her isn't about to start making deals with criminals that could end her career, I've never ever believed that.

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
zorba wrote:
I haven't seen this Morgan thing.

Yesterday thought I'd leave commenting out, because Mc said Morgan was a friend of Meredith's father, I never heard that before, Morgan is a former editor of the Daily Mail, for which John Kercher worked.

Morgan was the editor of the Daily Mirror. He was fired for the complete fabrication of a story ('British troops urinate on insurgents').

zorba wrote:
Personally, I could never stand Piers Morgan, he always seemed such an arrogant person, you do not really watch programmes like The Apprentice as you know they are awful, you detest Trumpo to start with, you watch as in observing, thinking what the hell, it's not watching with, I like this.


He's not as down to earth on US media as he is on British. He plays with cold arrogance there. Not as much humor. Playing up his upper class english persona. Sells well in the US.

Morgan admitted phone hacking on US media - was on camera 'everyone did it .. heck even I did it' (Morgan). Which he now completely denies. 'Phone hacking' as such, was accessing a celebrities voicemail with the default factory pin code on a new mobile phone.

Looks like Sollecito is beginning to panic. Nightmare returns.



Yes he takes on the role of the English butler type roles seen in those American sitcoms, with Americans doing their British English accents, only he doesn't need to make one up, so it's like that man in The Nanny with Fran Dresner, the black guy in that Will Smith thing, and that one in Fraser, etc.

I heard about that, him being dishonest and my dislike of him goes way back because I always hated those British tabloids and seeing stuff written in the Daily Mirror I held him as editor responsible for it. I'm not the only one that disliked him all that time ago.

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


Last edited by zorba on Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 32m
Very few media and reporters in Court today. Dr Sollecito was there and Mario Spezi who has criminal record for false testimony (calunnia)

#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 33m
Other announced Court dates cancelled for 23 24 oct and 7 nov leaving 6 nov and 25 & 26 nov.

#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 34m
The sample on the knife I 36 will be collected from lab of Conte Vecchiotti and tested by 31st october. Next Court date 6th Nov

#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 36m
Court heard from Lucia Aviello who confirmed previous testimony of the 1st annulled Appeal.

#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 38m
The Court session Florence this morning short & sweet Avv Bongiorno introduced letter from Aviello inviting her to a meeting at jail in 2010


Last edited by Ava on Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 20m
It was not easy to elicit straightforward answers from Aviello however. He indulged in further stories

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 39m
Declared that his 'second' version (when he says he lied in exchange of money promise by Bongiorno) was false

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 44m
Aviello confirmed his(her) version... Brother is the killer, keys and knife hidden behind a stone

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 49m
We had connection problems while in cortroom, sorry for the late


Last edited by Ava on Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

"Breaking News" (not really)

"Sollecito will speak in the classroom"
http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/20 ... -67876251/
Top Profile 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Mafioso tells Amanda Knox retrial: My brother killed Meredith Kercher
11:56AM BST 04 Oct 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rcher.html

"Aviello wrote to court authorities in Perugia three times during the course of the murder investigation and the first trial, but his evidence was deemed unreliable.
Alessandro Nencini, the judge presiding over the Florence retrial, which is technically a second appeal, said the claim was “one of the mysteries” surrounding Miss Kercher’s murder.
Francesco Maresca, a lawyer for the Kercher family, cast doubt on the testimony and said Aviello was a “fantasist with many problems.” "
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:58 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Amanda Knox retrial: mafia gangster claims brother was killer
Tom Kington in Rome
theguardian.com, Friday 4 October 2013 12.28 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... th-kercher

On Aviello:
"In June 2011 a fellow inmate of Aviello's called by the prosecution said Aviello had told him had been offered €70,000 (£59,000) by Giulia Bongiorno, one of Sollecito's lawyers, to invent the story.
Cosimo Zaccari, who was then in jail for fraud, libel, criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen goods, told the court Aviello had confided in him that, "I was contacted to create confusion in the trial".
Alexander Ilicet, who shared a cell with Aviello, also testified, stating that Aviello had boasted of being offered €158,000 by Bongiorno, which Aviello planned to use for a sex change. In court on Friday, Aviello denied she had been paid to make her claims.
Officially, Aviello was asked by the prosecutor to take the stand on Friday because she had not been allowed to repeat his 2011 retraction in court, a point made by Italy's supreme court in its ruling to overturn Knox and Sollecito's appeal.
As such, her evidence on Friday was considered a formality, rather than a real part of the new trial, judge Alessandro Nencini said at the trial's first hearing on Monday. Bongiorno called the appearance irrelevant."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
"Breaking News" (not really)

"Sollecito will speak in the classroom"
http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/20 ... -67876251/


Huh..."sponanteous declaration" again.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ha ha this Kington is a real numpty

Ava wrote:

Amanda Knox retrial: mafia gangster claims brother was killer
Tom Kington in Rome
theguardian.com, Friday 4 October 2013 12.28 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... th-kercher


Kington: Aviello was asked by the prosecutor to take the stand on Friday because she had not been allowed to repeat his 2011 retraction in court




because she

to repeat his

Poor Tom cannot make up his mind if it is a he or a she ahahaha.


So he thinks he is being politically correct to write it that way as at the time Aviello was a man and now he is apparently a woman [hoping that money comes along to pay for the chop by hook or by crook, probably the latter, however those cats that do the tattooing probably will do it at a reduced rate, certainly less than 158,000]


Thing is, all of these people in jail for fraud and embezzlement, et cetera, I mean the FACT they ARE in jail sort of makes their testimony real shit.



_________________


Numpty


Scottish usage:
a) Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others.

b) A good humoured admonition, a term of endearment

c) A reckless, absent minded or unwise person

a) "No. That wisnae wit she meant, ya big numpty!"

b) i.e. "Silly billy", "You big dafty"

c) "That numpty's driving with no lights on!"

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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Ava wrote:
zorba wrote:
Ava wrote:
guermantes wrote:
La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, the deposition of Aviello ends. The trial will resume on 6 Nov

https://twitter.com/qn_lanazione

Hola everyone...can't believe Aviello recanted his recantation.
Weren't there trial dates at the end of October, too? Must have been cancelled.



Yes he obviously retracted his statement, because he was afraid of getting into more trouble after threats from Bongiorno but the trouble he is in with the government is worse than being sued by her.


I hope you are right. She always seems to find a way...


Hi Ava,

If I'm understanding/following it correctly, then first he said, Yeah, my brother did it.

But then he made accusations that he only said such things because Bongiorno told him to.

If he is now reiterating what he first said, that means he is stating that in fact it WAS true what he said about his brother and has thus nothing to do with Bongiorno, i.e., he said that stuff all by himself, nobody told him to say it.

Leading me to think, based on his words and acts, one would have to deduce that
a) he either was offered even more rewards or
b) is so stupid he imagined having the State prosecute him for calumnia wouldn't be as bad as having her sue him.

However, I think the man is potty. To me, b) is the answer. But what he said about her was a lie all along anyhow.

Nothing, not a word he says has ever been true, not about his brother, not about Bongiorno either.

A lawyer like her isn't about to start making deals with criminals that could end her career, I've never ever believed that.


Sounds right, zorba. I think I might have gotten him mixed up with Alessi or something. :oops: (slightly hectic morning here)


Last edited by Ava on Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I'm getting the impression from the term 'surreal' that there are psychological issues here. Those issues don't sound as if they are connected to his gender change. Sad all the way around.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 17m
On Oct. 1. from Bongiorno's speech it was palpable that she was worried about oncoming possible Aviello's testimony

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 20m
@Jhansigir1 He did not detail the versions. He went on yalking about else until Nencini politely sent him back to the police van

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 26m
Aviello said he(she) ordered the other intrusion into the cottage and a bogus magic ritual, just to prove he(she) had the key

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 30m
Nencini noted: ms.Aviello your testimony to Comodi about the Bongiorno-affair is 73 pages long; contains half page of facts information

#
Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 39m
Aviello was a laughing stock. judge mentioned his '3 versions'; Dalla Vedova objected it's just 2. Nencini smiles: 'don't forget the next'
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Sounds right, zorba. I think I might have gotten him mixed up with Alessi or something. :oops: (slightly hectic morning here)


I didn't doubt you for a movement Ava, I was wondering if I was following it as well as some others

_________________
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 04, 2013 1:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Poor old Dalla Vedova: it's 2

oh well done, weeeeeeeeeeeeeell done

but it is 3

_________________
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: Fri Oct 04, 2013 1:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Some humour today.

Reminder to self:

- Don't refer to "Democrat party hacks that run Seattle" even if that includes Judge Heavey, or you will offend 40% of Americans who have Democrat tattooed on their ass :)

- Call witness "Signora" Aviello and remember to use female pronouns, not masculine, and 10% of the population will still be offended :)

- If you protest you are not transgender phobic, and have great respect for Pvt. Chelsea Manning, you will offend 40 % of Americans who have Republican tattooed on their ass :)

- Who gives a shit?
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 04, 2013 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I'm getting the impression from the term 'surreal' that there are psychological issues here. Those issues don't sound as if they are connected to his gender change. Sad all the way around.


His presence brought a surreal atmosphere to the court, Napia5, but I think the reference is to a "seance" which told him to blame his brother, and where the keys were buried. I think there's a supernatural element to everything about this case, but those are my personal views.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Ava and G.

Did the money for this 'change' appear out of thin air... like his lies have.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Some humour today.

Reminder to self:

- Don't refer to "Democrat party hacks that run Seattle" even if that includes Judge Heavey, or you will offend 40% of Americans who have Democrat tattooed on their ass :)

- Call witness "Signora" Aviello and remember to use female pronouns, not masculine, and 10% of the population will still be offended :)

- If you protest you are not transgender phobic, and have great respect for Pvt. Chelsea Manning, you will offend 40 % of Americans who have Republican tattooed on their ass :)

-Who gives a shit?


Not me!

I'm just trying to figure out if the man is a credible witness. If the answer is "No, he's not credible, he was carrying a white purse and it's after Labor Day", this is not the answer I am looking for. If he's not credible because he is mentally unbalanced, then, that's the answer. Personally, I'm not into fashion. I didn't give a damn what Curatolo was wearing, and I don't care this time, either.

Not being there, I need to depend on what is testified to.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon, every time you speak, you manage to offend somebody! It's a gift. At least you know you are not being ignored. hbc)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 34m
The sample on the knife I 36 will be collected from lab of Conte Vecchiotti and tested by 31st october. Next Court date 6th Nov


That should remove all doubt where the sample has been the past two years.

Carla Vecchiotti has a very bad track record when it comes to handling and preserving items of evidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

"Luciano Aviello [...] told the court she wanted to be referred to as "Luciano Lucia".

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/w ... 6733273531
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
Thanks Ava and G.

Did the money for this 'change' appear out of thin air... like his lies have.


Interesting, unresolved question...but who would invest in such an unreliable witness?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It had to be someone that would do anything for money... and they were desperate for ANYBODY to back any of their 'some other guy(s) did it' theories.
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 04, 2013 3:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 4h
Other announced Court dates cancelled for 23 24 oct and 7 nov leaving 6 nov and 25 & 26 nov.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 4h
Other announced Court dates cancelled for 23 24 oct and 7 nov leaving 6 nov and 25 & 26 nov.

Now that sounds more like an appeal. Short and to the point. Testing report on the 6th. Closing arguments on the 25th, and rebuttals and verdict on 26th? Something like that :)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Best comment, max. It is an appeal. Clear up the unresolved issues from Hellmann, look at the evidence as determined by Massei.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline SqueakEMouse


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:25 pm

Posts: 184

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Some humour today.

Reminder to self:

- Don't refer to "Democrat party hacks that run Seattle" even if that includes Judge Heavey, or you will offend 40% of Americans who have Democrat tattooed on their ass :)

- Call witness "Signora" Aviello and remember to use female pronouns, not masculine, and 10% of the population will still be offended :)

- If you protest you are not transgender phobic, and have great respect for Pvt. Chelsea Manning, you will offend 40 % of Americans who have Republican tattooed on their ass :)

- Who gives a shit?



Watch out for floating voters who have 'Democrat' tattooed on one cheek, 'GOP' on the other and then just fall down the middle.

The 'Super Witness' is a clown today as he was before. Much noise that signifies nothing (except perhaps the desperation of a defence that touted this nefarious loon as a credible witness) He has caused more problems for them than any amount of distraction value could compensate for. Where his claims are open to verification they have been proven false (the keys etc) and he has brazenly acknowledged that he will come out with any amount of lies for money (in version two) and that the defence was paying. No serious defence should have to be producing a letter to demonstrate that their own witness is a brazen liar but that is just what Bonwhatsername has been reduced to. As for his state of mind.... it reminds me of the Morgan Grenfell fiasco when the fund manager who had been starting bogus companies on the Toronto exchange in order to 'invest' in and falsify his returns to the tune of a couple of hundred million, turned up to court as a woman and blamed stress. Not a single serious answer was forthcoming but it begged the biggest question: Who let this loon oversee hundreds of millions of client money without proper supervision and paperwork? Aviello was put out as a distraction to cast as much doubt as they could milk it for and I think it blew up on them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Ava wrote:
#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 34m
The sample on the knife I 36 will be collected from lab of Conte Vecchiotti and tested by 31st october. Next Court date 6th Nov


That should remove all doubt where the sample has been the past two years.

Carla Vecchiotti has a very bad track record when it comes to handling and preserving items of evidence.


""We are going to examine something we do not even know if it exists" Judge Alessandro Nencini said according to the Italian news agency ANSA. "If it is not found or it has been kept in a way that this test cannot be carried out, the experts must tell us immediately."
If the DNA trace can be tested, a report on the findings must be filed by Oct. 31. The next court hearing is set for Nov. 6.
Knox, who spent four years in an Italian prison, has said she will not return to Italy for the trial. One of her lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, said he exchanges text messages with Knox. He also said he was not worried by the new DNA tests. "We are certain that they are not organic traces, but just starch cells," Ghirga said."


Amanda Knox Judge Orders New DNA Tests on Knife
Oct. 4, 2013
By PHOEBE NATANSON and MARK MOONEY
http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=20470298
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
It had to be someone that would do anything for money... and they were desperate for ANYBODY to back any of their 'some other guy(s) did it' theories.


Hm...I can't really see the benefit (except that it reminds me of the good old "Dog Day Afternoon"). Didn't Aviello have a known history of doing just that, lying in court to get the feeling of being important?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Aviello is implausible. Is he there to tactically distract?

Wasting trial time. Diverting attention from the list of hugely problematic issues for the defence. As there is limited time in the trial it makes sense.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:46 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Doug Longhini is off again, denigrating the legal system of one of Europe's finest nations:

Amanda Knox Update: Would $139,000 have helped stack the odds in favor of Knox in new trial?

Would $139,000 have been too high a price for Amanda Knox to have paid to stack the courtroom odds in her favor? That may be the question that Knox's defense team should have considered, as they prepared for trial, this summer.

The second trial session for the American student, what one Italian website is calling an "international reality show", was again underway today in Italy. Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, are defending themselves against charges they murdered Meredith Kercher in Perugia in November 2007. The trial is scheduled to run into December. But Knox-Sollecito trials can be like popular corn mazes: once your in, there's no real good way of predicting when you'll be out.

Throughout the six years of legal proceedings in the Kercher case, one man has haunted Amanda Knox at every turn. He said in 2007 that he'd been "stained" forever by the case and he seems to have meant it.

His name is Diya "Patrick" Lamumba [sic].
...
It is a courtroom twist that defies an American's appreciation. But it is how things are done in Italy and it means that every time Patrick Lamumba [sic] is in court, so is the Knox confession, despite the fact that it was thrown out.
...
Did Knox's legal team ever consider paying Lamumba [sic] what he says he is owed? Wouldn't that have kept both Lamumba [sic] and the false confession out of the current trial? Wouldn't that have "derailed" the Supreme Court's derailment interest in the confession?

Certainly, Alicia Florrick on "The Good Wife" would have made that deal in an hour (less commercial breaks). She might have even negotiated a lower settlement price and removed the confession sword hanging over Amanda Knox's head.

But that is scripted, television drama, not the "international reality show" that the current trial of Knox and Sollecito will soon become.


CBS NEWS
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
Yes. The main point being that regardless of what HK did on the stand, it was he that put all 3 at the crime scene before the murder had been reported. His information likely led to the tow truck driver and broken down car being found/questioned too. I think he was scared out of his skull (and maybe medicated by booze) when he was put on the stand. The prosecution basically only needed to show he was real... not what he was going to say/not say.

Thanks for the lead beans.


Before?? I did not know. Thx pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

beans wrote:
The best information I've read about Kokomani is from a series of posts by Brian S. in June of 2009

The information is from a series of posts in a long-locked thread and I can't quote them. Therefore, I will be back later after I have typed them out in Word. sor-)


Be easy on yourself Beans...now, get to work!!! pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Aviello is implausible. Is he there to tactically distract?

Wasting trial time. Diverting attention from the list of hugely problematic issues for the defence. As there is limited time in the trial it makes sense.



This is how it seemed to me at the time, still does, because; did Bongiorno need to have this all happen to find this out?

No, she knew it was a futile exercise, her aim was to cause confusion, and particularly, to make more work for the lay judges to figure out,
when there wasn't much to figure out in the first place with him,
the only thing to figure out,
was that he is a total time waster,
Bongiorno would have been stupid not to realise that an out and out cruiminal was not going to be coming up with anything credible.
Just like how Knox used Patrick to get the police off her back, Bongiorno used Aviello to divert attention away from the very important things going on and in need of a lot of thought.

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

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

tamale wrote:
dgfred wrote:
Yes. The main point being that regardless of what HK did on the stand, it was he that put all 3 at the crime scene before the murder had been reported. His information likely led to the tow truck driver and broken down car being found/questioned too. I think he was scared out of his skull (and maybe medicated by booze) when he was put on the stand. The prosecution basically only needed to show he was real... not what he was going to say/not say.

Thanks for the lead beans.


Before?? I did not know. Thx pp-(


Yes... returned immediately to bar/hang-out, showed blurry pic and told story to friends.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Doug Longhini is off again


Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, are defending themselves against charges they murdered Meredith Kercher in Perugia in November 2007.


He says defending themselves

Sure, Sollecito from under a parasol in the sun, sipping his cocktails

Knox visiting the next door neighbour Heavey

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

Offline jaybee51


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 pm

Posts: 112

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:

Yes... returned immediately to bar/hang-out, showed blurry pic and told story to friends.


Did these friends or his lawyer testify in court?

This information is the clincher for me. It's not what he specifically says, but
-he saw the broken down car
-his phone pinged
-he went to see his lawyer when he didn't have to
-he puts all three at the scene.

Why is this information not better known?
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La seconda udienza del processo d'appello-bis, parlano i protagonisti

The second hearing of the appeals process-bis, the protagonists speak (VIDEO)

QUOTIDIANO
Top Profile 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jaybee51 wrote:
dgfred wrote:

Yes... returned immediately to bar/hang-out, showed blurry pic and told story to friends.


Did these friends or his lawyer testify in court?

This information is the clincher for me. It's not what he specifically says, but
-he saw the broken down car
-his phone pinged
-he went to see his lawyer when he didn't have to
-he puts all three at the scene.

Why is this information not better known?


Don't think they did.

Because he was soooo foolish on the stand and didn't make sense. He was offered an interpreter but he would not use.

The prosecutors believed he was there... that is another reason why they believe they had the right killers and a solid case.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 4h
Other announced Court dates cancelled for 23 24 oct and 7 nov leaving 6 nov and 25 & 26 nov.


Thanks Kathleen. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4854

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito via Skype:

I'll be back in the courtroom and will release a voluntary statement (VIDEO)

MEDIASET ITALY

---------------
I'm unable to watch this video: loading spinner spins forever but never buffers or loads video. Video continues to try to load - anyone else having this problem? Ironically, the following message is displayed at the top of page: "Mediaset ITALY, THE CHANNEL FOR ITALIANS ABROAD, is viewable in Canada." No, it is NOT, not on the Internet, anyway. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Her story how she reacted to finding the front door open and blood in the bathroom is not believable and full of contradictions, which begs the question why she would lie about it. There is only one answer.


The truth is pure and simple...and does not change.
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

At the price of redundancy, if anyone wants to know more about "What Kokomani Saw..."

beans wrote:
I'm not good with computers--therefore no links. The posts by Brian S. are:

Perugia Murder File . View Topic- IX MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - June 19, 2009

1) Gut Instinct 1 posted Sun June 14, 2009 2:39 am

2) Gut Instinct 1 posted Sun June 14, 2009 3:42 am

3) posted Sun June 14, 5:41 am "Micheli said he wouldn't use the testimony of Kokomani..." "but you totally miss the point of what I'm saying..."

4) posted Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:43 am
"JFK, I think you still don't understand the power of Kokomani's evidence..."


The posts are in IX MAIN DISCUSSION May 22 - June 19, 2009 on page 9. They start about 2/3 of the way down the page.


Last edited by beans on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Kokomani gave rambling, incoherent testimony.

Brian S. wrote:

"Micheli said he wouldn't use the testimony of Kokomani in reaching his verdict on Guede.

He absolutely did Not disallow it. He just said it was confusing.

Kokomani's testimony was allowed to go forward into this (Massei) trial where he gave his evidence again.

And nor did Massei disallow it."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Okay, so my current search on Kokomani and Brian S. show these posts as happening late on June 13th--but still about 2/3 down page 9.

Brian S. also says: (June 13, 10:35)

"And just so's I head something off which I can see happening after my posts tonight on Kokomani.

The friends that Kokomani met in the cafe and told his story to on the 1st Nov may not be called as witnesses at the trial, but you can bet there are statements from them confirming Kokomani's story as told to them in the 10,000 page file which Mignini presented to the court.

That's what constitutes rescontri evidence."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Sollecito via Skype:

I'll be back in the courtroom and will release a voluntary statement (VIDEO)

MEDIASET ITALY

---------------
I'm unable to watch this video: loading spinner spins forever but never buffers or loads video. Video continues to try to load - anyone else having this problem? Ironically, the following message is displayed at the top of page: "Mediaset ITALY, THE CHANNEL FOR ITALIANS ABROAD, is viewable in Canada." No, it is NOT, not on the Internet, anyway. ;)


The audio works, but the video does not, at least not for me.
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 05, 2013 12:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ava wrote:
#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 34m
The sample on the knife I 36 will be collected from lab of Conte Vecchiotti and tested by 31st october. Next Court date 6th Nov


That should remove all doubt where the sample has been the past two years.

Carla Vecchiotti has a very bad track record when it comes to handling and preserving items of evidence.


""We are going to examine something we do not even know if it exists" Judge Alessandro Nencini said according to the Italian news agency ANSA. "If it is not found or it has been kept in a way that this test cannot be carried out, the experts must tell us immediately."
If the DNA trace can be tested, a report on the findings must be filed by Oct. 31. The next court hearing is set for Nov. 6.
Knox, who spent four years in an Italian prison, has said she will not return to Italy for the trial. One of her lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, said he exchanges text messages with Knox. He also said he was not worried by the new DNA tests. "We are certain that they are not organic traces, but just starch cells," Ghirga said."


Amanda Knox Judge Orders New DNA Tests on Knife
Oct. 4, 2013
By PHOEBE NATANSON and MARK MOONEY
http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=20470298


How do Carla Vecchiotti and the defence teams know the sample is "starch" if they did not test it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Ava wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ava wrote:
#
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 34m
The sample on the knife I 36 will be collected from lab of Conte Vecchiotti and tested by 31st october. Next Court date 6th Nov


That should remove all doubt where the sample has been the past two years.

Carla Vecchiotti has a very bad track record when it comes to handling and preserving items of evidence.


""We are going to examine something we do not even know if it exists" Judge Alessandro Nencini said according to the Italian news agency ANSA. "If it is not found or it has been kept in a way that this test cannot be carried out, the experts must tell us immediately."
If the DNA trace can be tested, a report on the findings must be filed by Oct. 31. The next court hearing is set for Nov. 6.
Knox, who spent four years in an Italian prison, has said she will not return to Italy for the trial. One of her lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, said he exchanges text messages with Knox. He also said he was not worried by the new DNA tests. "We are certain that they are not organic traces, but just starch cells," Ghirga said."


Amanda Knox Judge Orders New DNA Tests on Knife
Oct. 4, 2013
By PHOEBE NATANSON and MARK MOONEY
http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=20470298


How do Carla Vecchiotti and the defence teams know the sample is "starch" if they did not test it?

Judge Nencini doesn't seem to have much confidence in the findings of the 'independent experts' :mrgreen:

(The video works for me by the way.)
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
How do Carla Vecchiotti and the defence teams know the sample is "starch" if they did not test it?


Hi, Nell, they looked at the samples H and I under a microscope and said they found the grains there had characteristics of starch, a very imprecise account of course. But, they also found low quantities of DNA in I "too small to measure" and the judge has tasked the new experts to see whether that is true or not, and of course if they can match it to anyone. We shall see.
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 05, 2013 12:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

TJMK sees today's appearance by Aviello to be good for the prosecution. I agree. The Long Game
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 05, 2013 3:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

1) Since when did starch ever have DNA?

2) Since when or how, can starch be a perfect match for (a human being) Meredith Kercher?

3) If these bloody idiots are right we can all pack up and go home, since was no murder, as a charge of murder can only be applied for the destruction of a human being and they will just have put the case that Meredith herself was in fact, not human, but starch. That is the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from their claims if her DNA profile is a perfect match for starch!!!

4) Since "3)" is not only utterly ridiculous and insulting, it's also impossible. The conclusion therefore, is that those tossers that are insulting the whole of society with their drivel that indicates they think all us mere mortals out here in the real world are that mindbogglingly stupid, really need to stop hammering on the SELF DESTRUCT button!

_________________
"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 05, 2013 11:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
La seconda udienza del processo d'appello-bis, parlano i protagonisti

The second hearing of the appeals process-bis, the protagonists speak (VIDEO)

QUOTIDIANO


Couldn't stomach more than a few glimpses on this one, as have been quite brave lately listening to Sollecito for at least a minute. Nonetheless, striking is the shopping bags under Sollecito's father's eyes, it’s more like he's the one in the trouble, he's been there, when his son hasn't.

Way I see it, if Sollecito Junior had not done whatever it is he did to be in this trouble, then his father obviously knew, in the past, a son in the ordinary ways, as a father knows a son, and, all as Sollecito Junior has been doing, is pander to dad's old idea of his son, by carrying on acting the way he used to. Since the parents need to believe them, they are keen to believe them (Brand K&S).

Yes, if Raffaele Sollecito had never had any need to hide anything, I cannot see how it is his sister and dad took on such an antagonistic, aggressive and unfriendly stance towards the police, the judiciary and everything else, after all those police were trying to work out who had murdered Meredith, so if like Knox, Sollecito really felt any friendship and you cannot say you do or did if you murdered that person, then why the immediate meddling with evidence, the doing of truly unsavoury things like dishing out the video to the TV station, then surely if they were all so good then they'd have been able to fight the case on reasonable grounds, not the way they have, with trying to discred everyone else.

I mean, as a total they are like a single Long Playing Record, turning and turning, and stuck in many grooves, the same old tired lines, because you see Bongiorno and all her of mannerisms, her looks; her movements; her expressions, are aligned with the same stuff Knox and Sollecito do when they put that, “everyone else is crazy” look on their faces.

I don't need to listen to Bongiorno, you get to know it all off by heart and a few words was always enough as she (like the others doing the same) don’t SAY anything, they may speak 10,000 words but it all means about 3 to 6 words and it's all about denial and blame someone else but provide no substantiation for the things you are using as defence..
Bongiorno has nothing so she also tries to undermine. What else has she been up to if not that by accusing everyone of contamination. Arguments, real ones, to dissipate facts regarding reasons why Sollecito had said he'd lied, she never ever had, she never ever touched upon, she has never had actual logical argumentation relevant to fact, and Knox’s lawyers the same; they couldn’t come up with anything real.

All as their lines involved was the concerted effort to discred the things that WERE real, such as the evidence.

Their counter-evidence was non-existent, as in: We can prove he was there; we can prove she was there; we can prove that she was a friend!!! Nope, they just say it, anf anyone who actually knows, knows too tha nothing they put forward ever rings true.

Nope, nothing, because Knox was not one of Meredith’s real friends and it is very easy to show this by and through the testimony of Meredith’s true friends, those there in Perugia at the time with no reason to simply make things up, unlike Knox & Sollecito.

Friendship through acquaintance, is not real friendship it is situational.

You can say you are your landlord’s friend but you are not, you are a business acquaintance.

Of course, unless there is any conflict you are not going to make enemies of one another but friends in this light is not what friendship is meant at the personal level, it is convenient, because you cannot be making enemies of ordinary everyday acquaintances.

So you know who they are, they know who you are, you do what you must, and just because you happen to reside in a house with others does not at any time mean there is a rule which obliges you to be friends, have a personal relationship, invest in the other housemates.

Often people may interact, but it is absolutely not the case that everyone has to become everyone else’s long lost friend.

People interact, may occasionally eat together, may have a coffee, but still, that is all situational, and only sometimes do people find out they really do get on and become true friends.

How could Knox ever credibly claim she was some big long lost type of friend to Meredith, there had been no time, they could have started to become real friends, but all pointers lead to that not being what actually happened.

Meredith WAS backing away, and they were not to develop this real friendship through choice, whereas, Meredith had faster connections to the girls from the United Kingdom, because they could more easily communicate sharing similar backgrounds but also because they were NOT IN ONE ANOTHER’S FACES all the time, as in forcing things, trying to get all the attention, and doing stuff with connections to men, that were felt to be unsafe to one/some of the party, but where this cause for concern was ignored (I imagine by Knox), but this WAS what happened, by ALL accounts deemed reliable, thus those who knew what was going on with Meredith up until the last moments.

They have stated that Meredith did have cause for concern and had expressed the reasons why, to them.

Meredith knew some of the women from the UK before the Italian study, and friendships created in Perugia were developing in a non-competitive way, in a first you make acquaintance, then you undertake having a coffee, talking, and from that, if the feeling is good you proceed, possibly making real friends, with some, but maybe not even all in that group, this was obviously progressing in an entirely different way to the way things were progressing or rather not progressing successfully between Meredith and Amanda Knox.

That is the same with everyone in such a situation.
Initial politeness, making acquaintance, implies nothing at the start, it is simply the done thing, after all you cannot ignore people you will need to deal with, and how could you if you are going to share the limited confines of a house?

It is not friendship, it is just being politely friendly, which Meredith was, obviously, until things started to disturb her.

Seems Meredit'hs dislikes and objection triggered something in Knox.

Knox obviously picked up on the dislike and each time she did, she was unable to stop herself challenging, by trying more and more to make Meredith like her, the more Meredith disliked her, the more Knox would have reacted by pushing to be accepted, the rejection she felt had nothing, proportionately, to do with how Meredith felt, that was all backlog from growing up in Seattle, only she and her family know why her mental make-up works the way it does.

Then as life does go ordinarily, there was that animosity brewing, but I expect Meredith was just trying to survive, and her behaviour was also a reaction to the things she was noticing that made her uncomfortable. Nothing was final though.

The ordinariness comes in when a person is off to someone’s home for a bite to eat and to chill out like friends do but because in Knox's head everything was turning against her, through her own behaviour mind you, she saw everything as acts against her.

So by the time Meredith got to the house that night, Knox was off her nut, was recalcitrant, mischievous as in poltergeist style, running around like a drunk adolescent, drunk for the first time, turning the place upside down as regards atmosphere, because she was, at that moment, the boss there, knowing the others were away, she could do the hell whatever she pleased, all except for Meredith, and Meredith had pissed her off and so by the time Meredith got home, Knox was in that state and cooking over at Meredith, testing her to the full and totally disrespecting her while laughing and beckoning her to also have oh so very much fun.

Meredith must have thought Knox was really out of order, aggressive and a troublemaker, I think Meredith would have tried to get away from the terrible atmosphere she walked right into upon arrival home, she would have tried to get away from it by retiring to her room, but doing that would have triggered more of Knox's temper, in her head it must have been like you don't do that to me (in that they called me a liaaaar voice of hers) because she was as an out of control troublesome child, out for confrontation,; she could not take Meredith rejecting her.

And all of what ensued not because Knox hated Meredith, but as a result of her own personal problems, her low self-esteem, her using sexuality as tool of power, even little girls soon learn the power they can have, yet healthy women don’t cheapen themselves by becoming a sex object, many do, yet not to this extent it is all driven anmd generated by all of the muddled up mental problems, because not every women needs to build a sense of self-worth by demanding attention from males and competing with other women.

The effect an attention grabber has on others in a group (here: effect on other women) can make those others uncomfortable, because then those others are not in control of what happens around them if one person does things that most think unsafe, such as bringing too many types of people right into the house then parading around in your underwear or naked when other women are present.

If this stuff happened as was reported it had, then it is easy to see that this was unacceptable, not because anyone has a too chaste attitude but there is a time and place for everything and if one female parades around a house in the nude while other women and men are there, it can lead some men to get wrong ideas, not about the woman coming out of the shower in the nude or dressed in sexy underwear, but about the women who have to sit there and not know how to react given the oddness of the situation, when in truth they wouldn’t act that way themselves, yet men there may think they think it’s all fine and it gets into the realm of let’s all act potty, as in, let’s all act like anything goes and there are no rules here.

I think let’s all act potty was the atmosphere Knox created that night, that’s my opinion, it may not be it, but I saw it in a nightmare I had, after reading and talking about this stuff so much.

I saw it like one would when you wind up in a very bad place, I saw Meredith being stuck in the middle, where those who are out to overpower you so that you are below them, pushed her like people would encircling someone and each time the person tries to get out of that circle, one of them blocks the way, no matter which way you turn. The more frustrated and upset Meredith, the more the horrible Knox grin broadened, she was unapproachable, beyond reason. This is how I saw it in that nightmare I had but have never been able to convey exactly how it was, but it was so real and made so much sense. I saw Knox taking great pleasure in Meredith being totally upset.

The nightmare showed me that Knox had taken over the house and she was the director of the others, yes how else could it be, as it was her place not Sollecito’s or Guede’s, but then Meredith came home, and this power was extended, and forced onto Meredith. Something like a girl at a party doing a striptease, where the other girls have nothing to do with it, the act does sexualise the entire vicinity. The party being played out as an anything goes event, but then Knox and Sollecito were together and Guede was the grapefruit, and this boisterous, let's get crazy we have the place to ourselves, was easy to lead into the wickedly, mischievous pushing of Guede into thinking it funny too to do things that were really not okay, enabling Guede, like trying to make Meredith take part in their madhouse party time. It was, though, Knox's party, if this is how it was, and how else could it have all gone, if there had beennothing going on Guede wouldn't have just stopped in for a coffee and immediately just agreed to rape Meredith. That's insane, but people do mad stuff, because that is what human beings can do, so they do, it happens.
Meredith walked into a deadly web, she couldn't get out, she couldn't as she could never have realised how bad it would get, if she had she would have found a way to get out of the house and run. By the time she tried it was too late, they were not letting her go.

I think they were on XTC.

I've known of people who woke up in bed with several people, women who stripped off at house parties, let themselves be whipped, hung on ropes in spontaneous SM acts, XTC can be a strange stimulant, but used in combination with other drugs people sometimes go nuts, nuts like this case, take part in an orgy but they never would have entertained the idea before getting high on XTC and this sometimes mixed with coke and speed.
I would like to add if adults wish to take part in an orgy then that is their right, and as regards morals, that's a personal take, one I do not wish to acquaint with dogma and indoctrination from any religious source.
Being forced to take part is another thing.
Really I'm certain they'd used a combination of powders, because Sollecito made such a point of blaming it on joints, now come off it will ya I doubt very much that even his own dad would be fooled by that nonsense.

Sollecito basically said I will never use the joint again papa

Sollecito basically said, if I am in all of this trouble papa it is her fault.

Why in the world would he say such a thing if she were entirely innocent?

Acquaintances don’t just murder one another because one stepped on the other's toes, no, that just hurts physically a moment, but the mental stepping on toes, like a person who has no real self-worth, taking any sign of criticism like a full on attack.

I see Knox that way.
Her problems were like a toe that got stepped on, because the problems stuck out everywhere as regards behaviour patterns and that was uncomfortable for others, Knox picking up on it, launched gradually into combat.

I think Knox's mentality was like a 13 year old's near the bike shed, fighting, what did you say, etc.

When nobody in fact said anything about the other, the other is simply paranoid and bullying others due to the own personal ill-feelings, such people become boisterous, I think Knox that night was greatly boisterous, cantankerous, the word mischief isn’t strong enough, nor is the word boisterous, combined with aggression though these are not the only ingredients, not the only thing, it is a mixture, boisterous meets mischievous, meets you upset me, I am bigger, I am not that which I think you think I am, I am good, can't you see, you must see, you will see, when the behaviour has not been good, but the person who is all screwed up doesn't really want to be all messed up and bad, despite that the person IS so messed up, so much so that he/she cannot separate what he/she actually does want, or see why, so forces, in the face of disapproval and inability to deal with that, others to say that they ARE indeed good, but if you are done with someone, or at least done with them for the moment because you do not even know them, are disturbed by them, then you will not be into seeing that someone is good, not in that forced way.

Knox knows full well that it was stupid, as in, triviality that led to Meredith’s death. She said so. Yet everything about the way she moves, talks, shows clearly that she still thinks she was the better person. The problem she has that led to the conflict is still ever-present in her mental make-up. Meredith would have known instantly when being conffronted by a bully and bullying ways, she came from South London and unlike the idyllic, romantic picture of London, tht Peter Quennel likes to paint, as he does too of Italy; South London can be one of the roughest London areas, Meredith would have know who was who and what was what and why.

That is why she cannot feel sorry about it. If she has a shred of I am sorry about it in her, even if she was not the killer, it has yet to be seen.

If she were innocent she’d speak differently than making up weird sentences in which she plants, MY FRIEND THIS, MY FRIEND: I hope the court clerks help the judges to file/put important points up front, like the relevance of Knox forever repeating that Meredith was a friend when Meredith's friends deny this was the case.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 497

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

She was no friend to Meredith or Patrik. Clander on org has translated a part of an interview with Patrik on Quarto Grado.Knox, Sollecito and Patrik arrived in separate cars at the prison. Patrik saw -manda in the other car smiling at him. He thought at the time there was another Patrik and they had picked him up by mistake. THe smile is chilling , so no sheepish shaking of her head or mouthing I'm sorry. She was sticking with her plan , smiling after all because he was her "friend".
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
She was no friend to Meredith or Patrick. Clander on org has translated a part of an interview with Patrik on Quarto Grado.Knox, Sollecito and Patrik arrived in separate cars at the prison. Patrik saw -manda in the other car smiling at him. He thought at the time there was another Patrick and they had picked him up by mistake. The smile is chilling , so no sheepish shaking of her head or mouthing I'm sorry. She was sticking with her plan , smiling after all because he was her "friend".



Hi Malvern, I took the liberty of changing Patrik to Patrick, as I do not think you meant it sarcastically, you know, because that is the way Knox spelled his name.

Anyway, she was neither a friend to Patrik or Patrick, certainly not to Meredith.

I think after an initial bust up Knox went right in Meredith's face, with a knife threatening, and as she spoke, each word or certain ones, combined with her ever-increasing bad temper stabbing at Meredith, it could have been that they had an initial bust up, up to and including physically, but Meredith quite easily overpowered Knox because she knew how, maybe she held Knox by the throat in order to immediately halt Knox's bullying/attacking her, then after that Knox came at her, after fetching the knife, and so went for Meredith's throat, it could also be that Meredith and Knox only started fighting when Knox came at her with the knife after a word fight, a disturbance, a conflict between them, and at THAT point Meredith overpowered Knox by taking the knive off her or causing it to be released from Knox's hand, whereupon Knox, I imagine, would have gone ape shit ordering Sollecito to help and to hold her, and Sollecito may have restrained Meredith, while he need not have, but then Knox suddenly stabbed Meredith, at that point drawing Sollecito right into this, because who in the world was ever going to believe him, believe that he was only holding Meredith when Knox suddently stabbed Meredith without him ever thinking she'd go that far, in a violent fit of rage with a huge bad temper and in her typical strained, emotional way, as seen in court as seen on TV, but, he decided in spite of that, to help Knox by lying for her. And if this IS the case, I bet he really regrets it now, and this idea would at least tie into his positioning, where he repeats it was all her fault, repeats it in different ways but does repeat the point.
If it had not all ended up in murder I do not know how Knox was going to defend herself in relation to having made those smaller stabs at Meredith, and I do not think in the moment that Knox even considered it, it was so mad that it was the way it was, and as it continued she, in the end, didn't need to, as Meredith ended up suffering far worse than a few shallow stab wounds.

Yes I think Sollecito was holding Meredith when Knox stabbed her to death in a violent raging bad temper which was the culmination of growing conflict related directly to her behaviour, Knox is temperamental and it is this which is a main murdering factor when combined with a sense of rejection and a lack of self-esteem. Blaming others becomes the survival kit and the way of refusing/continuing to fail to take responsibility for one's own actions and failing in turn to deal with a thing.

Somehow Guede was entangled in all of this. In the tormenting Meredith, but laughing all the while, Guede must have been too weak to avoid (sexual gratification reward) temptation, when egged on by Knox.

That stressed out bit about her, that emotional strained voice pleading way, has nothing to do with the events that she ascribes them too when she pleads innocence, that element of hers, that uncontrolled emotional part was already existent and ties in to other things in her life.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
She was no friend to Meredith or Patrik. Clander on org has translated a part of an interview with Patrik on Quarto Grado.Knox, Sollecito and Patrik arrived in separate cars at the prison. Patrik saw -manda in the other car smiling at him. He thought at the time there was another Patrik and they had picked him up by mistake. THe smile is chilling , so no sheepish shaking of her head or mouthing I'm sorry. She was sticking with her plan , smiling after all because he was her "friend".



So easy to picture her doing that Mal

_________________
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: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi Zorba, agree with every thing you said, will add one more. Sollecito stabbed her too, with his knife. (Not the killing blow, that was Knox) We have a picture of the many bruises on poor Meredith's arms. They clearly are restraining marks by more than one person. Massei is very strong about that, and so is the final sentencing on Rudy Guede, that he did not act alone. For that reason, I do not think Florence will acquit.

Knox and Sollecito can justify their claims of innocence through whatever stuck in childhood psychosis their mentality allows them to function in, but the very nature of their illness will lead to a worsening of their condition. Their families and 'friends' can enable them all they like, but the only place they can get better, is in an Italian prison. Funny that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I think the problem with the 'friends' story comes under the "I don't know how to advance the Narrative Properly" heading.

We see the use of, "I was a kid", with the slight upturn of the lip, as in, "I should be excused for my harmless immaturity".

We see the use of, "I have PTSD", with the slight upturn of the lip. as in, "I should be forgiven for my screaming in my motel room and please pity me."

These examples attempt to advance the narrative, while garnering sympathy.

We don't see. "I was a kid. I 'friended' 500 people on Facebook, and what did I know at the time? I liked her."
She doesn't seem to be able to recognize that she needs to move ALL of the narrative forward, even those that make her seem shallow, because she seems to believe that she has to hold onto this, perhaps to make herself look better. And she continues this with her "wanting to visit Meredith's grave with the Kerchers." The "kid" should have grown up enough to realize the awfulness of this statement.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline John


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:27 am

Posts: 54

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

sherrel wrote:
Perhaps I'm being a little pickyunish (is that a word) here, but while reading through McCall's wiki, I came across this quote from AK's e-mail:

AK wrote:
i ran outside and down to our neighbors door. the lights were out but i banged ont he door anyway. i wanted to ask them if they had heard anything the night before but no one was home. i ran back into the house. in the living room raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and cracked the door, but we couldnt open it. it was then that we decided to call the cops


I curious. If AK was innocent, then why would she want to ask about ". . .the night before. . .". For all an innocent person would know, the incident could have happened that very morning, just hours or maybe only minutes before she allegedly arrived to take her shower.

huh-)


That is a very good find, I must have read that email 20 times looking for stuff like that, way the go.

Another thing related as well, Amanda also stated that she got scared because after she found the shit in the toilet, she thought it was possible that the burglar was in the cottage while she was taking a shower. She stated that after her and Raff returned and found the broken window.

From the same e-mail:

[quote] I then went into the bathroom where I had dried my hair and looked really quickly into the toilet. In my panic I thought I hadn't seen anything there, which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when I had been there. [quote]


That 'shit in the toilet' is another thing as well, where Amada was to blow dry her hair, you wouldn't be able to see inside the toilet, the hair dryer is on the shelf in the laundry room, there is a mirror just to the left of the washing machine, she had no reason to even go into the bathroom part.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

In case anyone has been wondering how someone would be able to transport a knife in a cloth purse, I'd suggest opening a book, such as a journal or diary. Insert blade, close book.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
kathleen gadalof ‏@kathleengadalof 4h
Other announced Court dates cancelled for 23 24 oct and 7 nov leaving 6 nov and 25 & 26 nov.

Frank and Amanda and Raff will be no shows together on the 6th of Nov...teehee. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:55 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
In case anyone has been wondering how someone would be able to transport a knife in a cloth purse, I'd suggest opening a book, such as a journal or diary. Insert blade, close book.



somebody (Ghirga) is splitting hairs??

there should be no problem at all with a purse, you might as well put the knife in a plastik-bag,
als long as you just hold the bag or purse and walk.


(not doing cartwheels while carrying the purse or the bag would be helpful)

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

John wrote:
sherrel wrote:
Perhaps I'm being a little pickyunish (is that a word) here, but while reading through McCall's wiki, I came across this quote from AK's e-mail:

AK wrote:
i ran outside and down to our neighbors door. the lights were out but i banged ont he door anyway. i wanted to ask them if they had heard anything the night before but no one was home. i ran back into the house. in the living room raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and cracked the door, but we couldnt open it. it was then that we decided to call the cops


I curious. If AK was innocent, then why would she want to ask about ". . .the night before. . .". For all an innocent person would know, the incident could have happened that very morning, just hours or maybe only minutes before she allegedly arrived to take her shower.

huh-)


That is a very good find, I must have read that email 20 times looking for stuff like that, way the go.

Another thing related as well, Amanda also stated that she got scared because after she found the shit in the toilet, she thought it was possible that the burglar was in the cottage while she was taking a shower. She stated that after her and Raff returned and found the broken window.

From the same e-mail:

Quote:
I then went into the bathroom where I had dried my hair and looked really quickly into the toilet. In my panic I thought I hadn't seen anything there, which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when I had been there.
Quote:


That 'shit in the toilet' is another thing as well, where Amada was to blow dry her hair, you wouldn't be able to see inside the toilet, the hair dryer is on the shelf in the laundry room, there is a mirror just to the left of the washing machine, she had no reason to even go into the bathroom part.

Sherrel...thx for that. I keep finding new stuff in the evolving versions. I want to know why amanda/Raff did not mention the missing duvet of Merediths bed. The one that could not be seen thru the key hole.
Top Profile 

Offline Iodine


User avatar


Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 9:56 pm

Posts: 141

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The knife is no big deal in a big tote. It might pick and scratch the lining a bit, but that's it, not much worse than a set of keys. From the lingerie photos it almost looks like it was made from canvas couch upholstery; whatever it was, it was made to be worn and worn and worn.

I think Knox was pissy that Meredith didn't like her and didn't enjoy her company. After Meredith left for the evening Knox stole her rent money (because f--k her) and took off with Sollecito, and that's why they turned their phones off later --she probably realized that if/when Meredith noticed the missing money she'd know it was Amanda, so she made herself scarce.

The knife proves anticipation or premeditation of something -- maybe not murder, maybe a prank or just an assault or who-knows-what. With Guede unexpectedly in the picture the plan probably wasn't very serious when it was hatched (thinking only of Amanda here; Raffaele seems like a proper nutcase). I think they brought Guede to the house so that when Meredith noticed later her money was missing they could blame him. It didn't work, Meredith noticed early and knew it was Amanda, her tether snapped and a fight really did break out. They probably jumped on Meredith then, and Raffaele is the one who escalated the attack.

With Amanda as the instigator and Raffaele as the escalator, both can rationalize to themselves that it's the other one's fault, since without that other one nothing major would have happened.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I always experience a level of distress when discussing the actual murder. I mean no offense to the Kerchers or to the memory of Meredith.

The knife was transported into Meredith's bedroom. Her murder was NOT instantaneous, nor was it an accident.
That's premeditation. She wasn't accidentally pricked in the neck during a prank. Whether Knox carried the knife in her purse that night (which would have been simple), or Raffaele carried it with him in the afternoon to cook with, this was no accident. It was premeditated murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi Zorba, agree with every thing you said, will add one more. Sollecito stabbed her too, with his knife. (Not the killing blow, that was Knox) We have a picture of the many bruises on poor Meredith's arms. They clearly are restraining marks by more than one person. Massei is very strong about that, and so is the final sentencing on Rudy Guede, that he did not act alone. For that reason, I do not think Florence will acquit.

Knox and Sollecito can justify their claims of innocence through whatever stuck in childhood psychosis their mentality allows them to function in, but the very nature of their illness will lead to a worsening of their condition. Their families and 'friends' can enable them all they like, but the only place they can get better, is in an Italian prison. Funny that.


Napia wrote:
I think the problem with the 'friends' story comes under the "I don't know how to advance the Narrative Properly" heading.

We see the use of, "I was a kid", with the slight upturn of the lip, as in, "I should be excused for my harmless immaturity".

We see the use of, "I have PTSD", with the slight upturn of the lip. as in, "I should be forgiven for my screaming in my motel room and please pity me."

These examples attempt to advance the narrative, while garnering sympathy.

We don't see. "I was a kid. I 'friended' 500 people on Facebook, and what did I know at the time? I liked her."
She doesn't seem to be able to recognize that she needs to move ALL of the narrative forward, even those that make her seem shallow, because she seems to believe that she has to hold onto this, perhaps to make herself look better. And she continues this with her "wanting to visit Meredith's grave with the Kerchers." The "kid" should have grown up enough to realize the awfulness of this statement.



Yes exactly how it went nobody can say for sure but it has to be around these (yours included) ideas.

Sollecito may have stabbed at Meredith, he may not, I think not.

I think he as a male would have had no reason to feel the way Knox obviously was (in that type of intensity).

It's clear Knox was not in harmony and Meredith was just coping with the disharmonious situation.
Way I see it is Knox picked up on Meredith's distancing, but envisaged it as something far worse than it was, at least if she had been willing to modify her own disruptive behaviour.

Meredith not being able to go with Knox when invited by Knox, coupled, coincidentally, with what was happening between Knox and Patrick.THart led to/enabled Knox to go nuts in her head thinking Meredith was doing all of that against her.

The problem Knox herself created and/or was responsible for as regards between her and Patrick, Knox wouldn't accept. Would not accept responsibility; she could not cope with criticism in an acceptable, usual to expect way. At home she was it seems, placed on a pedastal, and though she did have behavioural problems, everyone said, it seems likely: it's just her and denied it. They wouldn't see it or at the very least saw her need to compete as something normal, when in fact I reckon it had to to do with the need to gain approval all the time, in an abnormal way. This to fill up/compensate for the bad inner feeling she had about being rejected, and I reckon the main source of rejection, though it was NOT rejection, she perceived --as in felt it without being able to help feeling that way because she loved her father and didn't see him as having done anything wrong (though never blamed it on him)-- as coming from her father.

It is, after all, a common occurence; the child though being loved, still cannot feel it (the love), because a parent is absent.
The child so wished that the absent parent was there. The child then thinks it was his/her fault, even though everyone would soon say to that child, no it's not your fault, but in real terms, that does not always work.
The child is too small and all as it knows is it feels sad and hurt that the parent that is hers/his too, is someone elses, the others are enjoying the things every single day of the week, month, year, the things the child missing the parent wants to have too, so even though the child also loves the half brothers and sisters, there is still resentment somewhere, and as the child loves both absent parent and new half siblings, the only one then to blame it on, is the self.

The self blame goes on through infancy, through the junior into the senior school years, through the puberty in between and al the time, nothing is dealt with. When ordinary upsets then happen in adulthood, a lifetime of hurt is unleashed on some unsuspecting person, and the bad energy filled with confused hurt, misunderstanding, the rotten feeling inside, is released, temporarily. The self-loathing in turn leads to low self-esteem and abnormal behaviour., abnormal reactions to trivialities.

Meredith had nothing at all to do with Knox's inner turmoil.

The absent parent after sorting out own affairs, in many cases finds a way to continue, and to at least deal with the ex, and this means mostly it is the father that goes and the kids left with the mother but not always, mostly the father has left, and it is not the case that the father immediately and always has a great life, that's not fair to say it is, he may have nothing, not even a place to stay, may crash around or have to go to parents.

He may have a woman already and may move straight in there, with Knox's dad I don't know. I have never doubted for a second that he loved his daughter just as much as the mother loverd her. Nonetheless, no matter how much a man like that tells the child when the child is over on a visit at dad's new place that he loves her/him (and that this house belongs to the visiting child too) and no matter what he does for the child, buys it, still the child hurts and doesn't care about the getting stuff, the words, somehow the child needs to feel it, but just cannot work out why it all has to be the way it is. Does not feel at home, feels like the second fiddle when visiting no matter how kind erveryone is.

The child, very small, does not equate the actions of grown-ups as being attached to sexual things, and cannot understand why people do not get on, cannot get on, because if they were just people, like little children, who just want everyone to be happy, then they would not fight, and be so nasty to one another, not to the extent that adults can and do, but obviously adults have all kinds of things going on, far removed from the childlike nature.

It does not matter how many divorces there are these days, if the parents had ever been hamonious together and the child experienced it, the child will always dream of its parents getting back together.

I know all three restrained Meredith and abused her, I'm not sure about Sollecito doing any stabbing.

Knox not trained with a knife, bullying Meredith, means Meredith's karate training would have kicked in, in a flash as a reaction. One would need to assess the severity of the situation; if someone has already pricked you in your throat with a knife, the type of movements used in self-defence are not pretend, they are direct moves aimed at the solar plexus, the nose (to break it), the Hanaman (the Hindu ape god also known in Indonesia) move which is opened palms clapped simultaneously on both earholes (pressure bursts drums) aimed at bursting the ear drums, poking the eye balls in, kicking to the genitals, open-handed blows to the nose, under the chin, and again directly to the solar plexus and also to the genitals, the latter more to attack males, to the testicles, all aimed at stopping an attacker immediately.
You can parry an incoming blow, where the person thrusts a knife or punches at you, by stepping to one side, if the outstretched arm is the right arm, you step to the side of it, to your right, you grab the wrist and whack the outer elbow, breaking the arm there, forcing it in the direction it is not designed to go.

I really think Meredith would have used some move that would have reversed the attack, because an attacker's power is reversed, the dynamics of the movements, like a judo expert just uses that energy, doesn't exert him or herself, the person attacking is using the energy, you just step in and throw them straight over your head. At this point I reckon Knox would have gone berserk with anger that she could not get her way, and demanded help from the two attendees at her party.

The actions before all of this would have all involved abuse of Meredith, and as Guede definitely sexually molested Meredith, then somehow all three were involved.

Well, as I said, exactly the way it went, I don't know, but, I really see XTC as one of the things that played a role, XTC is a drug that ordinarily can allow people to open up to one another but there are many pills that are poor quality containing some proper MDMA and then other chemicals, like speed/amphetamine, and if people mix such pills with other stuff like cocaine and speed by sniffing the stuff, then anything nice about XTC can very quickly disappear. It's the way I see Guede having become involved, they were just all off their heads.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:26 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: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
In case anyone has been wondering how someone would be able to transport a knife in a cloth purse, I'd suggest opening a book, such as a journal or diary. Insert blade, close book.



I often transported knives, if I did not have my knife case (imitation leather or canvas, sometimes leather, plastic none transparent), with slots for different sized knives, these knife roll-up cases click shut or tie up, I wrapped it in material or even plastic bags, enough bags so that it in no way could cause any harm to me or anyone else, nor my bag, it is law actually to transport knives that way and they must not be transported in a way as to be instantly reachable, so you polace them under other things, at least. That means if you are not intending to carry stuff you had better put something under and on top of the wrapped up knife, if this was not the case then any old one could be carrying knives around, obviously if you are going to a bar, you cannot be taking knives, wrapped up or not, if you are going to a concert or anything like hat, you cannot be taking knives, but if you are going from a to b it is not illegal, how else could anyone purchase a knife. It would have been ridiculously simple to pack a knife and take it those 5 minutes from a to b, Sollecito's apartment to the murder scene.

_________________
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: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

"I have PTSD" in her case is like a patricide/matricide throwing theselves on the mercy of the court because they're an orphan, LOL.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

also Billy Ray over at IIP posted a photo of gunfire going from a car to a house. He implied that he wanted to get all Italian officials in one room and kill them obviously. Bad bad...angry...underdeveloped. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Napia5 wrote:
I always experience a level of distress when discussing the actual murder. I mean no offense to the Kerchers or to the memory of Meredith.

The knife was transported into Meredith's bedroom. Her murder was NOT instantaneous, nor was it an accident.
That's premeditation. She wasn't accidentally pricked in the neck during a prank. Whether Knox carried the knife in her purse that night (which would have been simple), or Raffaele carried it with him in the afternoon to cook with, this was no accident. It was premeditated murder.

I agree that the attack was premeditated and the knife was brought for that reason, but I am not sure about the murder itself. The thing about the murder is that if you want to make sure somebody is dead then you don't cause an 8cm wound and leave IMO. You would stab over and over again. Also the prison diary of Guede might give a clue where he shows shock when the murder happened. "What the f... have you done?" he writes. It doesn't seem that they came together and discussed how to murder Meredith. On the other hand, an 8cm wound is not super small either and I am not sure how much force it would require. Only Knox could tell us what she was thinking when she stabbed, and maybe she doesn't even know (remember) herself .
Top Profile 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

As you know, max, the debate over motive and premeditation has been endless. We are all curious to know the 'why' of this senseless murder. I've thought about it lately from the standpoint of the position I would take, with the evidence presented, if I were a member of a jury faced with deciding.

I don't know exactly how the law works in Italy, determining crimes and their seriousness, and the penalties attached. So I looked at it from a standpoint of a similar crime occurring in the United States.

Meredith was sexually assaulted. That, I believe, constitutes a felony.
Meredith was robbed. In some circumstances, this also constitutes a felony.

In the United States, the person who murders someone during the commission of a felony such as those above meets the requirements to be charged with first degree murder. From what I have read, it's pretty clear-cut.

Being drugged out of their minds, a prank gone wrong, they didn't mean it, etc., are all arguments that the DEFENSE would have to make, in order to get the charges reduced.

If I were on a jury, looking at the evidence presented in this case, I would vote "guilty' on the charge of first degree murder. No evidence was ever presented that they 'were out of their minds' on drugs, and no evidence was presented that 'this was accidental, they didn't mean it'.

The evidence proves to me that they did this awful thing. They viciously took Meredith's life. We can discuss their motives in order to try to come to an understanding of why, but the fact is, we will probably never know.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks Nap. One thing we do know for sure is that they left her to die. That is a clear premeditated decision to murder Meredith. There is no excuse for that. They saw the blood. They knew what was happening, and they left her. I always get upset when I think of that moment so I better go get some coffee :(
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

This is where I prefer Micheli, the element of premeditation as opposed to Massei's drug/erotic game went wrong, but the SC couldn't introduce a new element into the mix, but only go back to Massei. So I will just be OK with a finding of guilty, and wonder what the sentence will be.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Napia5 wrote:
I always experience a level of distress when discussing the actual murder. I mean no offense to the Kerchers or to the memory of Meredith.

The knife was transported into Meredith's bedroom. Her murder was NOT instantaneous, nor was it an accident.
That's premeditation. She wasn't accidentally pricked in the neck during a prank. Whether Knox carried the knife in her purse that night (which would have been simple), or Raffaele carried it with him in the afternoon to cook with, this was no accident. It was premeditated murder.

I agree that the attack was premeditated and the knife was brought for that reason, but I am not sure about the murder itself. The thing about the murder is that if you want to make sure somebody is dead then you don't cause an 8cm wound and leave IMO. You would stab over and over again. Also the prison diary of Guede might give a clue where he shows shock when the murder happened. "What the f... have you done?" he writes. It doesn't seem that they came together and discussed how to murder Meredith. On the other hand, an 8cm wound is not super small either and I am not sure how much force it would require. Only Knox could tell us what she was thinking when she stabbed, and maybe she doesn't even know (remember) herself .



Hi Max and Napska, Ergon, and everyone else

When they ran away, it does not mean that they had not, before running, stood around taking in what they had done and what was happening, but having absorbed ehat was there, Meredith on the floor pouring with blood, they must have been certain she would die, meantime they took her phones and locked her door just in case, and then returned later (after watching out at an escapable distance, making sure nobody had showed up and alarmed the police, once they knew that their actions had not resulted in anyone calling the police) to check it out, ascertaining that she had bled to death. When they left they relocked the door, obviously, this time not because somehow Meredith might have escaped but because they always wanted this crime to have to be discovered only after the door was smashed in.

In a way, the premediation idea, however hard it is to accept, is a great possibility, and contrary to what the K&S supporters have been saying as regards lack of traces in the room, rthe very reason for that may be that the crime was indeed premeduiated and so they thought up ways to do it where their own traces would not be left behind.

I find that idea hard to imagine though.

Still, the lengths they are prepared to go post murder, seems to say that they are very devious.
Why would some guy who had known a girl for a week, and ended up in a murder trial, feel it necessary to portray their bedroom activities to he wider public?


Nobody has realistically, in court, touched on how such things happened, as to being on XTC, speed, coke, etc, whatever it was, but then, I'm not in court but I do know about these things and how they affect different people and why. They did not just decide to murder Meredith and then on putting it to Guede he decided to come along and rape Meredith. Real things go on in ordinary ways, and those things get real out of hand, most murders are for trial reasons, not down some alley, etc.

I in no way can imagine Sollecito having decided/agreed, when Knox put it to him, oh yeah let's murder Meredith, let's do it in your house.
Unless Knox had utterly and totally convinced Sollecito that Meredith was terrible for having hurt her, made her lose her job, was stealing her job, was ignoring her, I do not think it is believable that Knox could have talked Sollecito in wanting to hurt Meredith so bad tha it even lead to murder, I think it was a run of events, that once they started rolled that way as they so with people, for if they (people) could ever have taken a step back and conceived of the consequences and at that moment been freed of their anger, their rage, then they wouldn't commit such crimes in the first place, not unless they meticulously planned them and were very, very sure they could get away with it, but very few crimes like this are meticulously planned, looking at them they are insane, because you'd say who in their right mind would do that, there's every chance of getting caught and to plan a murder to take place in your own home would be that way, only, the fact of covering their tracks may be that they used Guede and really did premeditate the murder, making sure someone else's traces were left but, if this were to turn out to be the scenario, I think they never realised he could be caught, as they were not clever enough to deduce that just maybe Guede is on record and will be traced.

Still, I think it was all a matter of a roll of events, done as people do, just like an argument on a Friday night in a club where someone kills someone else but there is every chance a geat chance they are going to get caught but they still do it, it may be someone who never did anything wrong before, but suddenly something happens and a murder takes place.

All precedents mean nothing because perfectly ordinary people do such things, a person never caught stealing a choc bar in their life suddenly becoming a murderer, yet it happens not only in clubs, it happens in pubs, streets, buses, trains, people lose control, sometimes without any drugs having been ingested, just anger directed at someone, unsuspecting most often, for nothing basically, and the attacked ends up dead, falls hits head on concrete. The person who did it works, has a home, etc, because it is just people that do these things, it was jkust people, who may have been what appeared t be ordibnary before they did what they did but thereagter were never to be ordinary again until the day they rthemselves die.

I need neither Massei or Micheli, with all respect to both, to help me find out how I think things happened, I have my take based on real life experience with all kinds of people from every walk of life and that at the international level, seeing as how I have lived in various countries including Italy, am familiar with British ways since I am British and know Italian life first-hand too.

If the truth is, that they indeed were smashed off their faces and this muddled up with Knox's misconceptions about other people leading to her anger, their opportunity to use this as a defence has been lost, was lost already 6 years ago when they chose the path they did, so it will never be used as mitigating circumstance now. Still, the way I see it, they are classic cases (K & S) of people off their nuts on a mixture of drugs, the murder generated by Knox's bad thoughts and actions about others aas a result of long-term personality problems, her disposition in life, that in turn causing her to be unable to accept any criticism as she already felt and feels unwoertthy, anyt criticism is then experienced as an all out attack, thus comfirming her own fears, that's why the disproportionate reactions to ordinary everyday facts and matters of life in interacting with others.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, zorba. I understand your take on this. And I'd like to ask a serious question, based on my utter lack of knowledge about drugs. Is it possible to have 3 people go this far 'off their nut' to commit this horrific murder, and then get straight enough, quickly enough to clean up and stage the way they did? This may have been discussed before, but it's one of the things that I question. I believe I may have said before that drugs may have been involved, but, to what level, do you think?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7170

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, Napia5, just to add my take on the drug issue and not interfering with your conversation with zorba: I think that habitual drug users have a higher resistance and adaptability to drugs, so doubt they were that wasted at first. Now if they'd taken cocaine, they would be in a hyper state, an adrenaline rush enhanced awareness that would allow them to undertake much of the (selective) cleaning up. They left behind everything that had been touched by Rudy Guede, they saw the poop would implicate someone else, they staged the break in.. But when they crashed? That's how they missed the great big bathmat footprints and her lamp in Meredith's room.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Napia5


User avatar


Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:23 pm

Posts: 1893

PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks, Ergon. I was just sitting here earlier, imagining myself on a jury. Considering the evidence and deciding whether or not I thought drugs were involved. And I really had to chuckle at myself, because even though I have heard countless times, about someone I know who 'does drugs', I really don't know much about what that exactly means.

The son of my neighbor was arrested for burglarizing homes in our area, to support a 'drug habit'. The son of another neighbor was ticketed for having 'drug paraphernalia' in his glove box. He 'does drugs'. A woman I know has a husband who is addicted to painkillers after a severe accident a few years ago. He's a 'drug user'. I can't think of anyone I know who uses cocaine, at least not that I have seen firsthand. So, I think it's safe to say that I'd have to refrain from the 'drug' argument on either side until I know a bit more.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 30  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot], Garlik [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,896,298 Views