Judge Massei Sentencing Report: English Translation     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher 

Last visit was: Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:53 am It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:53 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 2441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Brian S. wrote:
Poo in the Loo and crime scene staging:

That Rudy left the poo there is no doubt. His DNA was also found on the toilet paper.

BUT There was no trace of Meredith's blood in that bathroom. Not in footprints, not on the toilet paper and not in the washbasin. Nada! Zilch! Not one speck anywhere.

Conclusion: Rudy pooed before Meredith was killed.


Amanda said she discovered that poo when she went to get the girls' hairdryer after washing her hair in that cold, cold house without the heating on.

We know that Amanda's fingerprints were notoriously absent from that house.

Are they absent from the hairdryer too?



We can build on from this:

If Rudy came through the window, he must have done so before Meredith came home.

There is no way he could have thrown a rock through the window and made the climb without Meredith hearing and investigating the noise. I don't say she would have gone out but she'd sure have gone to Filomena's window etc. etc.

She'd have been on the phone before Rudy got down to the lower level and clung to the bars on the ground floor window. The scene would have been clearly lit by the street lights and the car park for Meredith to see exactly what was going on.

Raffaele's defense well understand this and that's why their doctor from Bari placed the time of death at 9:30.

In Bongiorno's scenario, Rudy must have thrown the rock through the window, climbed up to Filomena's room and done his poo before Meredith came home just after 9:00pm not forgetting to close the shutters behind him so that Meredith didn't see Filomena's broken window as she came down the road.

Of course, we also have to believe that all those arriving at the car park 8:30-9:00 before walking off for their night in town didn't see Rudy's break and entry in their car headlights.

In Bongiorno's scenario Meredith arrives home at 9:05/9:10 and Rudy is disturbed doing his poo on the loo. A confrontation takes place during which Rudy stabs Meredith at around 9:15/9:20 before running out of the door leaving Meredith to die over the next 15 minutes.

She must think the judges are stupid!!

More than that. People may have an argument over just how many people it took to restrain Meredith and how many knives were used during her killing but they sure as hell aren't gonna take the time of death from a doctor in Bari over the time of death as given by Lalli and supported by three other experts who were asked to vet his autopsy.

IMHO That early TOD is required solely to to give some ligitimacy to Bongiorno's attempt to explain away the crime scene staging.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
And while I'm laying into Bongiorno's scenario I'm gonna say this:

I absolutely believe that the only reason she doesn't say that Meredith herself let Rudy in through the door at a time which would fit with the evidence from Lalli and the scream heard by Nara Cappezalli etc. etc. is because she "has to explain away the clumsy attempts at a crime scene staging".

Rudy wouldn't need to break a window if Meredith had let him in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1301
I have a hard time to imagine the 3 together. RS and RG hardly had time to introduce themselves and immediately move on the killing and performing sexual acts in front of eachother? That seems unlikely. Their statements that they didn't know eachother have been very consistent. Even the weird Kokomani guy didn't really see them together but RG a bit further away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MEDICAL EXPERTISE FROM THE SOUTH ...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Brian S. wrote:
Raffaele's defense well understand this and that's why their doctor from Bari placed the time of death at 9:30.

And the other reason for a 9:30 TOD is that the earlier the time is, the closer Raffaele is to computer activity and the stuff of a real alibi.

Brian S. wrote:
She must think the judges are stupid!! .... People ... sure as hell aren't gonna take the time of death from a doctor in Bari over the time of death as given by Lalli and supported by three other experts who were asked to vet his autopsy.

I'm sure that Giulia confides to her husband / boyfriend / significant other, that she wished she had more substance in her defence for Raffaele, but ... she has to make a complete, solid meal with a bit of salt, a bit of pepper and a couple of other condiments, but no meat (I use that analogy so The Cook can understand). And that's all she has to work with. Give her credit!!! Not just any lawyer can go to court with this focus on defending their client.

As for the Doctor from Bari (the expert, not Daddy), well, just because of the linking of their home town, I would have thought that even a medical expert from Corleone, Sicily would have been better, just to put some distance between him and the Sollecito Clan ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: THE FRIENDS OF MY FRIENDS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
max wrote:
I have a hard time to imagine the 3 together. RS and RG hardly had time to introduce themselves and immediately move on the killing and performing sexual acts in front of eachother? That seems unlikely. Their statements that they didn't know eachother have been very consistent.

I'm sure that RS and RG barely knew each other (or maybe not at all).

However, the key element here is Amanda. Amanda was Raffaele's girlfriend (with all that that entails). And Rudy was a general partyman in a university party town. He had already spent a couple of nights passed out in the boys flat. He had already met Amanda and partied with her in the boys flat, smoking marijuana (and for as many persons you can squeeze in one of those small floors - which isn't many - , I'm sure that Amanda and Rudy had time to chat and get to know each other).

They also had had passing contacts at Le Chic pub, and probably in other locations, like the Domus.

It's rumoured that Rudy was a small time trafficker. In her disallowed statement, Amanda admits to meeting "Patrick" (substitute for Rudy) at Piazza Grimana before moving on to the cottage. You can buy all sorts of drugs at Piazza Grimana. Rudy wasn't a big seller, and perhaps smoked as much as he sold. He liked partying and socialising. Why not follow Amanda down to the cottage, and have a smoke and a chat and maybe a bit of a party there?

Your boyfriend Raffaele is going to be there? Yeah, I know him, he lives close by me. Great, maybe he'll want to buy a couple of joints too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
Michael wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Poo in the Loo and crime scene staging:

That Rudy left the poo there is no doubt. His DNA was also found on the toilet paper.

BUT There was no trace of Meredith's blood in that bathroom. Not in footprints, not on the toilet paper and not in the washbasin. Nada! Zilch! Not one speck anywhere.

Conclusion: Rudy pooed before Meredith was killed.


Amanda said she discovered that poo when she went to get the girls' hairdryer after washing her hair in that cold, cold house without the heating on.

We know that Amanda's fingerprints were notoriously absent from that house.

Are they absent from the hairdryer too?


Or, 'while' she was being killed. Does this work...

The assault on Meredith begins. Rudy participates for a time, during which Meredith is well restrained...one on each arm and another in front restraining her by the hair combined with menacing her with a knife, keeping her in check. It escelates, perhaps when the sexual assault starts and something reacts inside Rudy psychologicaly which presents physicaly ...it goes to his guts. He has to leave, which probably he's quite relieved about as he has an excuse to run away from that which is causing him such a reaction and heads for the bathroom. Meanwhile, where Meredith had been restrained by 3 people, fully under control and in a hopeless situation, she now finds herself restrained by only 2 people. The situation is no longer hopless...with only 2 people she perceives she suddenly may have a chance, maybe her only chance, so she struggles frantically and throws all her energy into it before the third can return. It's at this time she manages to break a hand free and tries to force the knife away from her that's been thrust closer to counter her struggle and she sustains the knife injuries to her hand. The two attackers at this point move from alarm to panic as they suddenly feel they are losing control and in desperation they prick her under the chin to try and regain control. The final straw is Meredith screams...the frantic blow to the neck is a knee jerk panicked response to deal with a girl they've lost control over, due to the fact their number has been reduced to two instead of three.

This explains both the existence of Meredith's defensive wounds, combined with the paradox that they were only slight. The situation escalated out of control and the resulting consequences simply happened too fast for the defence wounds to be more severe, she wasn't free for long enough and everyone was just running on instinct at this point.

Those restraining her being reduced from 3 to 2 explains how control may have broke down and she was able to break free in the first place and it was that momentary breaking free combined with a scream that forced her two captors to resort to desperate measures, without thinking...just plain reaction.

On hearing the scream, Rudy runs out of the bathroom and the image he's presented with is more or less as he described in his story. Only now events have gone further then he planned or ever imagined they would. The other two stand numb, while his reaction is to grab a towel and attempt to staunch the blood. He leans over towards the bed to grab the pillow, but needs to move her handag on the bed out of the way to reach it. He wants to make her comfortable and to try and undo what has been been done at this point. It quickly comes to a point where he realises it's useless and it suddenly turns from trying to save her...to hastening her death...pressure is put on the neck...

At this point, Rudy runs, the others run after him...they have to speak. The conversation is brief and then they split, Rudy leaving the cottage, not returning to the bathroom to flush. The other two are left to deal with the mess. They leave the cottage and move to the piazza watching the cottage from a distance. They realise no police are going to arrive and start to think about a plan to deal with the situation. It is several hours before they return to the cottage with an idea of what they are going to do. The plan is simple...remove any visible traces of themselves and make the crime scene appear as though someone broke in to rob the cottage, found Meredith and attacked her with sexual intent before fleeing. In an attemt to validate a robbery but also meet the need of practicality and avoid being noticed, only small but valuable items are taken from the scene...as they are easy to transport without attracting attention and to dispose of.

My apologies for being graphic...but the scenario had to be put into words to see if it made logical sense.


How long do you think they spent on the cleanup Michael? ... and what times from/to .. (well "to" will be at the time of arrival of the postal police). Also I believe solleceteo was left behind in the flat while AK went to the shop (for bleach?) there was bleach at Solls. apartment according to the cleaner (1.5 bottles). Was there some bleach in the cottage? Quicker for Amanda to pop out to the shop -- yes?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Staging the scene in Meredith's room:

Following the pre-trial of AK and RS and the trial RG, Micheli said that it wasn't his purpose to use Rudy's sentencing report to make the prosecution case against AK and RS.

He would only involve them in the report to the extent that it was necessary to explain his decision on Rudy.

The staged crime scene was only mentioned to the extent required for his verdict that Rudy carried out the crime with accomplices. Neither Meredith's phones or Filomena's window received more than a mention.

But Micheli used one big argument to explain why he thought someone had changed the scene in Meredith's room AFTER Rudy had fled the scene. He could see no reason why Rudy would do so and the only explanation he could think of was that it was done by someone who had an interest in pointing the finger at him.

This concerns the blood evidence on Meredith's body, the removal of her bra AFTER her death and the moving of her body:

Could Tiziano or Thoughtful make a decent translation of these two passages from Micheli's report? Google translation isn't up to snuff.

Quote:
Page 60:

Lo stesso stato del cadavere rivela segni di modifica dell’aspetto iniziale. Riprendendo la relazione dei Consulenti medico-legali della difesa KNOX, vi si legge che sul corpo di MEREDITH si riscontrano “minute macchioline puntiformi alla faccia anteriore del torace, indubbiamente originatesi direttamente dalla fonte di emorragia al collo (le loro dimensioni suggeriscono che siano state proiettate per attività respiratoria a vie aeree ingombre di sangue). Il loro aspetto (piccole e tondeggianti) ci dice che esse furono proiettate verso l’alto a vittima sostanzialmente supina (a faccia in su) per ricadere, quindi, sul suo petto”; analoghe macchioline non vi sono nella parte alta del torace, coperta evidentemente dalla maglietta arrotolata, per cui “quando quelle macchie si produssero il reggiseno non era più indossato: non vi è schermatura operata da questo indumento, e le goccioline imbrattarono le regioni cutanee che originariamente ne erano coperte”.
Non si può essere d’accordo con l’assunto appena esposto.

Il reggiseno, e la constatazione è obiettiva, fu rivenuto a pochi centimetri di distanza dal piede destro della ragazza, in una zona per nulla attinta da sangue, eppure la spallina destra ne risulta abbondantemente intrisa; inoltre, guarda caso, sulle coppe si vedono con palese evidenza lo stesso tipo di macchioline puntiformi riscontrabili sul busto. Ciò significa che la vittima aveva sì la maglietta arrotolata verso il collo, quando fu colpita (come si vedrà, si tratta di un’osservazione empirica di fondamentale rilievo per dare una connotazione sessuale all’aggressione), altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso. Le foto nn. 268 e 770, ampiamente illustrate dalla difesa del GUEDE, rivelano poi con chiarezza i segni di quel capo di biancheria (una striscia verticale, piuttosto nitida) sia sul corpo della giovane che sul pavimento sottostante: a dimostrazione ulteriore che il reggiseno fu tolto dopo che il sangue aveva avuto modo di interessare per un tempo apprezzabile la spallina, appunto quella rivelatasi intrisa all’atto del ritrovamento.

Prescindendo dalle finalità intime di manovre del genere, non è chi non veda come esse mirassero comunque, e inevitabilmente, ad accreditare l’idea che fosse entrato un estraneo, e un’alterazione dello stato dei luoghi utile a far credere a un ladro, o comunque ad ammettere un ingresso non autorizzato, poteva aver interesse a farla solo chi abitava in quella casa. Esclusa la vittima, così come la MEZZETTI che era a Montefiascone e la ROMANELLI che passava la notte tranquillamente con il suo fidanzato, l’unico soggetto interessato a quella sceneggiata risulta la KNOX. KNOX che, pur escludendo qualunque significato della deduzione in punto di peculiare preparazione del delitto o addirittura di ipotetiche aggravanti (un po’ lumeggiate dal P.M., pur non contestandole, nella a dir poco fantasiosa ricostruzione descrittiva di riti, festini di Halloween, pubblicazioni manga ed occasioni da non lasciarsi sfuggire, magari dopo una pantomima di prova generale davanti al malcapitato KOKOMANI), era pur sempre l’unica persona in grado di sapere che quella sera MEREDITH sarebbe stata sola in casa.
L’ipotesi di voler organizzare alla bell’e meglio e all’ultimo momento una visita alla KERCHER per sondarne, anche a costo di ricorrere alla violenza, la disponibilità a pratiche sessuali di gruppo non è dunque una mera illazione del Pubblico Ministero (se, si ribadisce, svuotata delle implicazioni fumettistiche e decisamente fuori luogo tratteggiate nel corso della requisitoria e opportunamente abbandonate in sede di repliche). E sembra proprio, in effetti, di dover riscontrare nel caso di specie gravi elementi indiziari di colpevolezza a proposito della contestata violenza sessuale, per quanto da ritenere assorbita nell’addebito di omicidio in quanto aggravante speciale.



Quote:
Page 89

E’ altrettanto ragionevole ritenere che, dopo la realizzazione dell’omicidio, trascorse un certo lasso di tempo prima delle attività di alterazione della scena del delitto, e - qui sì - non è possibile dare per provato che a questa seconda fase parteciparono più persone, o che si trattò delle stesse che erano state presenti al momento dell’aggressione alla KERCHER.
Che qualcuno tornò in casa, provvedendo a imbastire la pantomima dell’ingresso clandestino di ladri od altri malintenzionati occasionali, è stato parimenti già affermato, ed è ancora una volta sufficiente il richiamo all’ordinanza cautelare; in quel medesimo contesto, gli autori della mistificazione intervennero anche nella camera della vittima, e forse tolsero di dosso il reggiseno dal corpo di MEREDITH, se già non l’avevano fatto subito dopo che la ragazza era caduta in terra.
Il tema è di indiretto interesse, trattando qui della posizione di un imputato che non è chiamato a rispondere di simulazione di reato, ma va comunque affrontato perché - nella contraria prospettiva fatta propria dalla difesa del GUEDE - quel qualcuno rientrò e si mise d’impegno per far credere che in quella stanza c’era stata una violenza sessuale, mirando ad accusare falsamente proprio l’imputato e non accontentandosi neppure di suggerire l’idea di una rapina sfociata in un non controllato epilogo letale.
Partendo dall’alterazione, e dunque procedendo a ritroso, è pacifico che il reggiseno fosse indossato al momento dei colpi ricevuti, altrimenti non presenterebbe le stesse macchioline di sangue puntiformi rilevate sul seno della ragazza; è altrettanto evidente che venne tolto alla vittima quando era passato del tempo, non si sa in che termini quantificabile, ma comunque sufficiente alla produzione, sulla schiena di MEREDITH, dei segni palesati nelle fotografie nn. 268 e 770, in corrispondenza delle spalline. Comunque, e con pari innegabilità, quelle macchioline puntiformi ebbero modo di prodursi solo perché il reggiseno era l’unico indumento che la ragazza aveva sul busto, altrimenti avrebbero attinto la felpa o una delle maglie, che invece erano arrotolate fin sotto il suo collo. Nel contempo, venne simulato che qualcuno si era introdotto in casa attraverso la finestra della stanza della ROMANELLI (verosimilmente per rubare, ma non si impossessò neppure di un computer portatile sulla scrivania, o di gioielli facilmente accessibili in un cassetto) ed effettuata una più o meno rudimentale attività di pulizia, sufficiente a far sparire da tutta la casa, tranne che su un bicchiere nello scolapiatti, le impronte di una ragazza che ci passava giorni e notti.
Ne deriva che un’alterazione ci fu, avendo certamente qualcuno l’interesse a tornare sul posto (da cui era stato determinato ad allontanarsi di fretta) per imbastire scenari artificiosi e far sparire qualche traccia compromettente, ma non valse a produrre risultati tali da imporre, da soli, la conclusione che vi fosse stata violenza sessuale: quella conclusione era già ricavabile dal contesto, giacché si sarebbe accertato comunque che la ragazza era seminuda nel momento in cui venne aggredita. Inoltre, riprendendo le considerazioni di qualche pagina addietro, non si vede perché gli ignoti simulatori, volendo far convergere i sospetti proprio su quel ragazzo di colore che avevano trovato sulla loro strada come un colpevole da offrire a mo’ di agnello sacrificale, si sarebbero dovuti sforzare di allestire una finzione di violenza sessuale: cosa ne sapevano, loro, che RUDI se n’era andato in bagno in preda alla colite dopo avere avuto un approccio intimo con MEREDITH, e che dunque dal tampone vaginale o da altre indagini sarebbe emersa la prova di un petting o qualcosa del genere tra il malcapitato e la studentessa uccisa, sì da rendere necessario avvalorare la tesi che si fosse trattato di contatti sessuali non consentiti? Perché non avrebbero dovuto accontentarsi di far credere a un furto progredito male, visto che il loro interesse fondamentale era comunque orientare le indagini verso soggetti estranei a quella casa?
L’attività di cosiddetto depistaggio, svoltasi in un secondo momento, non fu orientata a bella posta per incastrare il GUEDE. E’ pur sempre verosimile ritenere che il GUEDE non vi prese parte, conformemente all’assunto accusatorio: del resto, se avesse avuto modo e ragione di tornare in quella casa, si sarebbe preoccupato con un minimo di oculatezza di far sparire le feci dal water, che costituivano una specie di sottoscrizione della sua presenza. E non può sembrare strano che vi sia tornato solo qualcuno, date le circostanze concitate - contestuali al grido percepito dalla signora CAPEZZALI, che tutti i presenti si resero conto essere potenziale fattore di arrivo di curiosi o forze dell’ordine - in cui si determinò l’allontanamento degli aggressori: come più volte ricordato, la teste udì il rumore di passi di corsa sul viottolo, poi lungo le scale di metallo e nell’altra direzione, nel giro di “due secondi, un minuto” dall’urlo che le aveva fatto accapponare la pelle, un tempo assai breve che di sicuro non poté consentire lo svolgimento integrale della messinscena nella stanza della ROMANELLI, o le verosimili attività di pulizia.
Ne consegue che la decisione di rientrare nell’abitazione fu presa quando chi era scappato si era già separato dagli altri fuggitivi, perché si era portato in una di quelle direzioni, mentre altri erano andati nella seconda: e, se nella seconda direzione ci fosse andato proprio RUDI, gli altri non avevano neppure un suo recapito cellulare per avvertirlo dell’idea di tornare, ammesso che chi lo decise avesse interesse a coinvolgerlo.
Ulteriore conseguenza logico-deduttiva, però, è quella dell’impossibilità di collocare in uno piuttosto che in un altro di quei momenti la sottrazione dei telefoni cellulari e del denaro della vittima: l’evenienza che ciò accadde quando scapparono tutti dopo il grido (e RUDI faceva parte del gruppo) ha lo stesso valore di quella che vuole la refurtiva trafugata nello stesso contesto delle pulizie, della rottura della finestra e delle manipolazioni del cadavere. In concreto, anzi, l’ultima tesi si palesa più probabile, giacché il momento della fuga iniziale fu necessariamente connotato da precipitazione, e una condotta così meditata come quella di prendere i telefoni non per fini di lucro ma per farli sparire mal si concilia con la fretta: le risultanze processuali che impongono di giungere a ritenere il GUEDE colpevole di concorso in omicidio aggravato dalla violenza sessuale non possono, pertanto, ritenersi sufficienti per dichiararne la penale responsabilità anche in ordine all’ulteriore delitto contro il patrimonio, a lui contestato.
Né può risultare decisiva a tal fine la circostanza del rinvenimento della mistura di DNA del prevenuto, assieme a quello della vittima, sulla borsa di costei: in base alle testimonianze raccolte, pare che MEREDITH avesse il costume di tenere almeno uno dei telefoni in una tasca dei pantaloni o comunque indosso, e non sta scritto da nessuna parte che i 300,00 euro ipoteticamente sottratti si trovassero a propria volta in quella borsa.


Thanks in anticipation.

This evidence won't differ in any substancial way from that presented at this trail but either presented in camera or not reported in detail by the press.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Surely, Bongiorno has the support of Papadoc who himself does not buy Amanda's - as he says -"for or five" versions:

Raffaele: 'I would exclude .."
Father: "It's not a question of excluding or not excluding ... we have doubts"

A bugged conversation before Rudy entered the news:

Quote:
E’ il 17 novembre. Si sono appena aperte le porte del carcere per Raffaele. Francesco Sollecito e Marisa Papagni (la seconda moglie di Francesco, ndr) chiedono a Raffaele di “resistere”. Marisa e il padre gli parlano della solidarietà degli amici e dei parenti, tutti convinti della sua innocenza.
Raffaele dice che si preoccupa solo quando sente le notizie. Il padre risponde che le notizie sono positive... E’ il sunto dell’intercettazione. Poi si entra nello specifico. Padre: “Se gli inquirenti stanno finalmente capendo qual è la reale dinamica della questione... capiscono automaticamente che tu non c’entri un cazzo... hai capito?... Amanda può essere più o meno coinvolta in questa faccenda... più o meno io non lo so e non me ne frega niente...”
Raffaele: “...saprà qualcosa...”
Padre: “Saprà qualcosa... appunto... soprattutto viste tutte le versioni che ha dato può darsi che non ha dato quella giusta proprio perché era preoccupata anche lei di questo personaggio che è riuscito a fare una cosa del genere...capisci cosa ti voglio dire?... Però tu non c’entri un cazzo...e loro hanno capito...adesso questa mattina o lunedì ci sarà anche la verifica sul computer...hanno già clonato l’hard disk..”
Raffaele: “...la mia preoccupazione sul computer è fondamentalmente che se io sono venuto...”
Marisa: “ehi... c’è un mostro sul computer...c’è un mostro...”
Raffaele: “Lascia stare...il fatto del computer è che se io ho passato la maggior parte del tempo con Amanda...non c’è tutto questo tempo che passo con il computer...”
Padre: “Se Amanda stava a casa...se invece è uscita tu che cazzo stavi a fare?...stavi al computer”. E ancora, più avanti, la famiglia Sollecito “addensa” i dubbi su Amanda. “Non riusciamo a capire - insiste il padre - questa nel giro di tre giorni quando è stato che è andata in questura...ha dato dalle quattro alle cinque versioni diverse...ha tirato dentro il cacchio di negretto...è una personalità strana sta ragazza eh? quindi non...non”.
Raffaele lo interrompe e dice: “Io lo escluderei perché siccome io la prima versione che ho dato...”. Si interrompe e il padre prosegue: “...non è questione di escludere e non escludere...noi siamo dubitativi...però capisci...ci potrebbe essere anche questo...che ne possiamo sapere noi. Infine la discussione si incentra sul coltello, con Raffaele che dice: “...però loro ce ne hanno un sacco di coltelli a casa loro...”.
Alessandro Antonini dal Corriere dell'Umbria





Interesting also on the computer:

Raffaele: “... il fatto del computer è che se io ho passato la maggior parte del tempo con Amanda...non c’è tutto questo tempo che passo con il computer...”
Padre: “Se Amanda stava a casa...se invece è uscita tu che cazzo stavi a fare?...stavi al computer”.


Raffaele: "the thing with the computer is if I spent the larger part of the time with Amanda ... it was not all the time that I passed with the computer"
Father: "If Amanda was at home ... if instead she went out what the fuck were you doing? ... you were with the computer"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1301
Kermit wrote:
In her disallowed statement, Amanda admits to meeting "Patrick" (substitute for Rudy) at Piazza Grimana before moving on to the cottage.

Thanks Kermit. That Amanda statement interested me as well. However, from RS point of view I don't see why he would get into such a sexual attack in the presence of a stranger. After all nobody is really exactly sure how it happened. It depends on who and what you believe. For example, if I believe Rudy heard the doorbell (how does he even know there is one?) from the toilet then that would be most likely RS and could explain for them only meeting briefly (or only 'bumping' into eachother). I can create a lot of those theories but looking at the RG trial it wasn't necessary that the judges knew the whole truth of what happened. Forensics and a bunch of lies was enough evidence for the judge to give him 30 years. So lets hope at some point we will hear a full confession :) Or we will never know exactly what happened :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
jodyodyo wrote:
Hungarian wrote:


The tiny difference with this case -- I was accidentally in Italy for a few days when the arrest happened, and with my residue of Italian I fumbled through the articles -- is that he had a case with a neighbour girl as an adolescent, where he arrived with a knife to rape her, and almost did rape her, but miracuosly the judge deemed he didn't intend to steal or wasn't intellectually responsible, something like that -- so the guy did have a history -- its not only the number plates that pointed towards him -- and the beautiful part of the story is, when the party comrades -- as he was a small functionary in the Pd, Partito Democratico -- are astonished because he frequently accompanied a woman colleague home late at night, saying: "in these times, you never know", and he expressed a wish or hope, that "they will catch the rapist soon".


Hungarian, This sounds just like Ted Bundy to me. He did the same sort of thing - walking his female colleagues to their cars late at night - always expressing hope that the rapist/murderer would be caught. Another Seattle area gem!


[hiddenlink=][/hiddenlink=]

from Tiziano:
Translation of Corriere della Sera report by Frignani Rinaldo, Sacchettoni Ilaria,Pagina 020/021 (11 luglio 2009)
For those interested & also to give credit to a job well done by dedicated police in Rome.

ROME - The serial rapist is the co-ordinator of a branch of the Democratic Party (centre left opposition party) on the outskirts of Rome. The zone is "il Torrino", on the southern edge of the city, and here he took part in meetings and organised forums to discuss neighbourhood problems. During the day he was right in the vanguard of politics, but at night he had a balaclava pulled down over his face to rape helpless women in the garages of apartment blocks.
Luca Bianchini, 32 years old, was arrested at dawn yesterday in his home in Cinnecittà (suburb on Metro line -trl's note) a week after the last rape, that of a 21 year-old student of Via Sommer in Tor Carbone (suburb of Rome). The officers of the Flying Squad, led by Vittorio Rizzi, identified him by collating witness reports and partial number plates of two grey cars, an old Ford Fiesta and a Lancia Musa, sighted in about 15 attacks. He (Bianchini) had sold the former but was still driving the latter.
It was complicated investigation, with 900 suspects followed up and at least 30 DNA tests. The DNA (a saliva sample) taken yesterday morning after the arrest gave the positive result which closed the case: the genetic code was matched immediately to that left by the rapist at Tor Carbone, in April and at the beginning of the month, and at la Bufalotta, where a 34 year-old journalist was raped.
"You are mistaken, you've made a blunder," Bianchini commented before being taken to prison by two women officers. But there are no doubts, however for the investigators or for the Prosecutor: he is the heavily built, almost bald man who has terrorised women in two suburbs for the last 10 months, and perhaps many others in recent years.
Yesterday morning some witnesses who had seen him wandering around the streets of Tor Carbone without his balaclava recognised him in an American-style line-up at the police station. Then one after another the other clues gathered by the Squad fell into place.
Including the last one, which went back to 1996, when Bianchini attempted to rape a neighbour at Centocelle (another suburb), threatening her with a knife. He was arrested but the magistrate, Antonio Trivellini found that he was "incapable of understanding and acting" (in the context of informed consent - trl's note).
Yesterday, in his apartment, investigators found a kitchen knife with the handle wrapped in silver adhesive tape, the same as that used to immobilise his victims, blade cutters, a toy pistol and a balaclava. Porno films on video with titles leaving nothing in doubt, such as "I'm going to rape you", "Real Rapes" were also found.
On his bedside table Bianchini had a copy of "Criminal Profiling" by Massimo Picozzi , and on his PC there were press articles about the maniac of Rome and many red-light and serial criminal files.

The report continues with quotes from onlookers in the Tor Carbone area and ends with the congratulations of the Mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, to Police Chief Caruso for quickly wrapping up a difficult case.

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009 ... 1012.shtml


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
[quote="Brian S."]Staging the scene in Meredith's room:

Following the pre-trial of AK and RS and the trial RG, Micheli said that it wasn't his purpose to use Rudy's sentencing report to make the prosecution case against AK and RS.


Could Tiziano or Thoughtful make a decent translation of these two passages from Micheli's report?

I'll do it Brian. Tonight probably, Australian time.

Tiziano


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Bolint wrote:
Surely, Bongiorno has the support of Papadoc who himself does not buy Amanda's - as he says -"for or five" versions:


Yea, she does.

But who is driving this? Bongiorno or Papadoc? He's a control freak.

In the tapped conversation you quote, he isn't listening to Raffaele, he's telling him.

The decision about whether or not Raffaele was with Amanda has nothing to do with whether he actually was or not. It's all about whether he is better saying he was with Amanda or better of saying he was with the computer.

But at the trial it's necessary to keep Amanda on-side. Because Raffaele has decided he wasn't with Amanda either that evening, and both AK and RS say he wasn't with her the following morning he's not so vulnerable to the poor crime scene staging.

There are numerous reasons why the staging isn't gonna work and I've listed a few BUT that is a different thing to proving who killed Meredith.

Bongiorno can spend hours arguing in court the crime scene wasn't staged, lose that argument but still get Sollecito off the murder charge because of his declared absence both in the evening and the following morning when the staging necessarily took place.

Raffaele's problems are the footprint on the bathmat - his defense say it's Rudy's, and his DNA on the bra clasp - his defense say it was left for 40 days and contaminated but as a last resort in summing up they can point to Raffaele's lover as the contaminating agent. In that situation Amanda will be strung out to dry.

But by playing the crime scene staging so hard, she's played Rudy's defense right back in at appeal. She's demonstrated that Rudy wasn't violent in Milan. She's proven that there is no comparison between the difficulties in entry at the lawyers and the cottage.

If Raffaele is found guilty and Biscotti can prove that AK and RS knew of Rudy's problems over the laptop stolen from the lawyers, rock through window and all, Biscotti can claim that Rudy is the victim of the railroad job from hell.

RS and AK staged the scene to frame him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Tiziano wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Staging the scene in Meredith's room:

Following the pre-trial of AK and RS and the trial RG, Micheli said that it wasn't his purpose to use Rudy's sentencing report to make the prosecution case against AK and RS.


Could Tiziano or Thoughtful make a decent translation of these two passages from Micheli's report?

I'll do it Brian. Tonight probably, Australian time.

Tiziano


You're a star Tiziano.

I know its quite a bit of work. th-)
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
"if I believe Rudy heard the doorbell (how does he even know there is one?)"

He says that earlier he himself rang it and it is compatible also with a lone wolf theory to check if anybody was home.

But Rudy's doorbell story has serious weaknesses.
For example: he says that he was trying to make love but when someone came he was not interested at all who it could be but put on his iPod to listen to his favourite song. :D
Give me a break.


Last edited by bolint on Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
OT

Italian culture
I have to link you this parody of Italian prime minister with English subtitles

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1192952826332&ref=nf

(be aware of trivia content. Pity some of you won't catch all of the language style)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Brian S. wrote:
But at the trial it's necessary to keep Amanda on-side. Because Raffaele has decided he wasn't with Amanda either that evening, and both AK and RS say he wasn't with her the following morning he's not so vulnerable to the poor crime scene staging.

Bongiorno can spend hours arguing in court the crime scene wasn't staged, lose that argument but still get Sollecito off the murder charge because of his declared absence both in the evening and the following morning when the staging necessarily took place.

Raffaele's problems are the footprint on the bathmat - his defense say it's Rudy's, and his DNA on the bra clasp - his defense say it was left for 40 days and contaminated but as a last resort in summing up they can point to Raffaele's lover as the contaminating agent. In that situation Amanda will be strung out to dry.

I think RS has intertwined his alibi with AK too much by his early statements to decouple his fate from hers now.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: MEDICAL EXPERTISE FROM THE SOUTH ...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Kermit wrote:
As for the Doctor from Bari (the expert, not Daddy), well, just because of the linking of their home town, I would have thought that even a medical expert from Corleone, Sicily would have been better, just to put some distance between him and the Sollecito Clan ...

Kermit, are trying to imply something about lu populu sicilianu?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Yummi, what does this exactly mean:

Raffaele: “...saprà qualcosa...”?
(in the context of the conversation in the post 8:47am)


Last edited by bolint on Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Brian wrote:
"But who is driving this? Bongiorno or Papadoc? He's a control freak.
In the tapped conversation you quote, he isn't listening to Raffaele, he's telling him."


Yes. But it seems that at that time (Nov 17) he sincerely thought that Raffaele was not involved.
He was expecting that the computer analysis would clear his son in a couple of days.
His wife says that there is a "computer monster" (i.e. geek) waiting for the hard disk cloning. (I think this "monster" was fired a few months ago).

But it also seems that Raffaele knows full well that they will not find anything on the computer that supports him, that is why he starts to prepare his father for this outcome.
Papadoc, of course, wipes off any preoccupation. Believe me, son, you are innocent. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am
Posts: 155
Tiziano wrote:
jodyodyo wrote:
Hungarian wrote:


The tiny difference with this case -- I was accidentally in Italy for a few days when the arrest happened, and with my residue of Italian I fumbled through the articles -- is that he had a case with a neighbour girl as an adolescent, where he arrived with a knife to rape her, and almost did rape her, but miracuosly the judge deemed he didn't intend to steal or wasn't intellectually responsible, something like that -- so the guy did have a history -- its not only the number plates that pointed towards him -- and the beautiful part of the story is, when the party comrades -- as he was a small functionary in the Pd, Partito Democratico -- are astonished because he frequently accompanied a woman colleague home late at night, saying: "in these times, you never know", and he expressed a wish or hope, that "they will catch the rapist soon".


Hungarian, This sounds just like Ted Bundy to me. He did the same sort of thing - walking his female colleagues to their cars late at night - always expressing hope that the rapist/murderer would be caught. Another Seattle area gem!


[hiddenlink=][/hiddenlink=]

from Tiziano:
Translation of Corriere della Sera report by Frignani Rinaldo, Sacchettoni Ilaria,Pagina 020/021 (11 luglio 2009)
For those interested & also to give credit to a job well done by dedicated police in Rome.

ROME - The serial rapist is the co-ordinator of a branch of the Democratic Party (centre left opposition party) on the outskirts of Rome. The zone is "il Torrino", on the southern edge of the city, and here he took part in meetings and organised forums to discuss neighbourhood problems. During the day he was right in the vanguard of politics, but at night he had a balaclava pulled down over his face to rape helpless women in the garages of apartment blocks.
Luca Bianchini, 32 years old, was arrested at dawn yesterday in his home in Cinnecittà (suburb on Metro line -trl's note) a week after the last rape, that of a 21 year-old student of Via Sommer in Tor Carbone (suburb of Rome). The officers of the Flying Squad, led by Vittorio Rizzi, identified him by collating witness reports and partial number plates of two grey cars, an old Ford Fiesta and a Lancia Musa, sighted in about 15 attacks. He (Bianchini) had sold the former but was still driving the latter.
It was complicated investigation, with 900 suspects followed up and at least 30 DNA tests. The DNA (a saliva sample) taken yesterday morning after the arrest gave the positive result which closed the case: the genetic code was matched immediately to that left by the rapist at Tor Carbone, in April and at the beginning of the month, and at la Bufalotta, where a 34 year-old journalist was raped.
"You are mistaken, you've made a blunder," Bianchini commented before being taken to prison by two women officers. But there are no doubts, however for the investigators or for the Prosecutor: he is the heavily built, almost bald man who has terrorised women in two suburbs for the last 10 months, and perhaps many others in recent years.
Yesterday morning some witnesses who had seen him wandering around the streets of Tor Carbone without his balaclava recognised him in an American-style line-up at the police station. Then one after another the other clues gathered by the Squad fell into place.
Including the last one, which went back to 1996, when Bianchini attempted to rape a neighbour at Centocelle (another suburb), threatening her with a knife. He was arrested but the magistrate, Antonio Trivellini found that he was "incapable of understanding and acting" (in the context of informed consent - trl's note).
Yesterday, in his apartment, investigators found a kitchen knife with the handle wrapped in silver adhesive tape, the same as that used to immobilise his victims, blade cutters, a toy pistol and a balaclava. Porno films on video with titles leaving nothing in doubt, such as "I'm going to rape you", "Real Rapes" were also found.
On his bedside table Bianchini had a copy of "Criminal Profiling" by Massimo Picozzi , and on his PC there were press articles about the maniac of Rome and many red-light and serial criminal files.

The report continues with quotes from onlookers in the Tor Carbone area and ends with the congratulations of the Mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, to Police Chief Caruso for quickly wrapping up a difficult case.

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009 ... 1012.shtml




And also:


„Luca viveva con loro nel 1996 quando aggredì la vicina del piano di sotto e le diede una coltellata dopo aver cercato di stuprarla. Fu arrestato dopo qualche ora, però all' udienza preliminare il giudice stabilì che «al momento del fatto non era in grado di intendere e di volere», dunque lo mandò assolto. A nulla servirono le proteste della signora e del suo avvocato Francesco Caroleo Grimaldi che in aula affermò: «Si è stabilito che un ragazzo assolutamente normale può aggredire una donna oggetto delle sue fantasie erotiche e rimanere impunito in quanto la scienza ufficiale giustifica tutto con la teoria del raptus».”
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009 ... 1027.shtml


„Poi, in ogni caso, i due vanno via insieme: «Sì e in macchina abbiamo continuato a parlare». Dello stupratore. «Mi ricordo bene. Luca mi guardò e disse: "Speriamo che lo prendano presto"». L' altra sera Bianchini era a un dibattito alla Festa dell' Unità: «Quando siamo andati via - racconta un consigliere comunale - si è avvicinato a una ragazza e le ha detto "vieni, ti accompagno io, di questi tempi..."». Alessandro Capponi”

http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009 ... 1026.shtml


Corriere della Sera, 2009 11. July


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
Yummi, what does this exactly mean:

Raffaele: “...saprà qualcosa...”?



"... maybe she knows somwthing.. "

literally is slightly more assertive than "maybe" :

".. she'll know something..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Part 1.

Brian S. wrote:
Page 60:

Lo stesso stato del cadavere rivela segni di modifica dell’aspetto iniziale. Riprendendo la relazione dei Consulenti medico-legali della difesa KNOX, vi si legge che sul corpo di MEREDITH si riscontrano “minute macchioline puntiformi alla faccia anteriore del torace, indubbiamente originatesi direttamente dalla fonte di emorragia al collo (le loro dimensioni suggeriscono che siano state proiettate per attività respiratoria a vie aeree ingombre di sangue). Il loro aspetto (piccole e tondeggianti) ci dice che esse furono proiettate verso l’alto a vittima sostanzialmente supina (a faccia in su) per ricadere, quindi, sul suo petto”; analoghe macchioline non vi sono nella parte alta del torace, coperta evidentemente dalla maglietta arrotolata, per cui “quando quelle macchie si produssero il reggiseno non era più indossato: non vi è schermatura operata da questo indumento, e le goccioline imbrattarono le regioni cutanee che originariamente ne erano coperte”.
Non si può essere d’accordo con l’assunto appena esposto.

Il reggiseno, e la constatazione è obiettiva, fu rivenuto a pochi centimetri di distanza dal piede destro della ragazza, in una zona per nulla attinta da sangue, eppure la spallina destra ne risulta abbondantemente intrisa; inoltre, guarda caso, sulle coppe si vedono con palese evidenza lo stesso tipo di macchioline puntiformi riscontrabili sul busto. Ciò significa che la vittima aveva sì la maglietta arrotolata verso il collo, quando fu colpita (come si vedrà, si tratta di un’osservazione empirica di fondamentale rilievo per dare una connotazione sessuale all’aggressione), altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso. Le foto nn. 268 e 770, ampiamente illustrate dalla difesa del GUEDE, rivelano poi con chiarezza i segni di quel capo di biancheria (una striscia verticale, piuttosto nitida) sia sul corpo della giovane che sul pavimento sottostante: a dimostrazione ulteriore che il reggiseno fu tolto dopo che il sangue aveva avuto modo di interessare per un tempo apprezzabile la spallina, appunto quella rivelatasi intrisa all’atto del ritrovamento.

Translation:

The state of the body itself reveals signs of an alteration in its initial appearance. Returning to the report of the medico-legal advisors for Knox’s defense, we read that on the body of Meredith there are "minute spots on the front of the chest, undoubtedly originating directly from the bleeding from the neck (their dimensions suggest that they were produced by respiration through an airway obstructed by blood). Their appearance (small and round) tells us that they were projected upward, with the victim substantially supine (face up), and thus landed on her chest"; similar spots are not present on the upper chest, which was obviously covered by a rolled up T-shirt, so "when those spots were produced, the bra was no longer being worn: there was no screening done by this garment, and the droplets mark the area of the skin that was originally covered."
We cannot agree with the aforementioned assumption.
The bra, and this is an unbiased observation, was found a few inches away from the girl's right foot in an area not at all stained with blood, yet the right shoulder strap was abundantly soaked; also, it is the case that on the cups can evidently be seen the same type of spots as found on the chest. This signifies that the victim had her T-shirt rolled up to the neck when she was attacked (as we shall see, this is the fundamentally important empirical observation that gives a sexual connotation to the assault), otherwise it would be hard to understand the spots on the skin or the bra, if it had been worn in the regular position. Photos no. 268 and 770, as explained at length by the Guede’s defense, then clearly show signs of that article of clothing (a vertical strip, rather well-defined) both on the body of the young woman and on the floor below: a further demonstration that the bra was removed after the blood had had the opporuntity to cover for an appreciable time the shoulder strap, which was soaked at the time it was found.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
bolint wrote:
Brian wrote:
"But who is driving this? Bongiorno or Papadoc? He's a control freak.
In the tapped conversation you quote, he isn't listening to Raffaele, he's telling him."


Yes. But it seems that at that time (Nov 17) he sincerely thought that Raffaele was not involved.
He was expecting that the computer analysis would clear his son in a couple of days.
His wife says that there is a "computer monster" (i.e. geek) waiting for the hard disk cloning. (I think this "monster" was fired a few months ago).

But it also seems that Raffaele knows full well that they will not find anything on the computer that supports him, that is why he starts to prepare his father for this outcome.
Papadoc, of course, wipes off any preoccupation. Believe me, son, you are innocent. :D



Shhhh...it seems like Frumpy Cat is asleep. It's safe for others to speak! What a noisy person!

OK. Now call me a bit dim, but some of the lines of research and analysis recently have lost me. When you get a limited time to read the boards sometimes you get lost in the finer detail. I am sure (I may be wrong) that I am not the only one. (Please shout if I am not so I don't feel so thick!) Therefore I would like to make a suggestion to Finn, Thoughtful, Brian, Michael etc. that they summarise things clearly and carefully for those of us having trouble keeping up. What springs to mind particularly is the phonecalls. I read Finn's explanation of the 'Edda phonecall' on TJMK and it was brilliant. Really carefully explained, and it made it clear EXACTLY why the 'call to Edda' testimony was so important. Judging from the appreciative comments it garnered, others appreciated it too. I also remember Brian doing some great articles in the early days on TJMK. And Michael and Thoughtful are both masters of written clarity. How about it guys? It just strikes me that maybe some fantastic logic and evidence analysis is getting lost to people who don't have time to read every post, but are nonetheless followers and supporters. Summaries are useful for everyone, including the author I always think. It forces you to be totally clear and precise. I think it's my work teaching Shakespeare to very low ability teenagers - I know the power of the simple basic summary.

Phone calls anyone? (I know, I know)

Also, I can't work out why AK is being so friendly towards RS when he is not supporting her alibi. He has chosen not to testify, but surely his defence are going to put this fact forward. If he says he doesn't know if she was there all night or not, then he's completely undercutting her story. So how come it's all chocolates and flirting? The court room strategy stuff is fascinating, but I don't always understand it, like here.

Hope you don't mind such basic questions. I was going to PM them, but then I wondered if others had the same questions and just didn't want to ask! I have no problem with appearing dim. As I used to tell my school kids 'No-one knows anything until someone teaches them...'.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
"I can't work out why AK is being so friendly towards RS when he is not supporting her alibi."

What else could she do?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm
Posts: 186
Following Michael’s scenario posted earlier, here is RG’s German Diary stripped of the nonsense (meeting MK on Halloween, date with MK, iPOD, etc) It condenses to a couple of paragraphs. Assume AK has picked up RG at Piazza Grimanda, RS has rung the bell and is there too, MK shows up, tries a mushroom and goes to her room where she finds her money missing:

“I don't know what problems she had with Amanda, but I heard her complaining, so I got up and went to her room. I saw she was furious and she said- her exact words- "That (you?) whore of a doper." She said she couldn't find her money and she showed me (us?) the drawer next to the bed where she also kept her lingerie. "Maybe it was a thief," I said. But we saw there was no sign of a break-in, neither inside nor outside the house. So it had to be someone from the house and she was complaining only about Amanda (AK noted this well, it would seem), and not about the other two girls who lived there. . I checked the other rooms but everything was in order…..(insert RG’s participation in the restraining and assault of MK here) ……While I was in the bathroom I heard the sound of the doorbell. (either a lie, or RS’s earlier arrival inserted in a different place?) I am sure because it rang more than once……I heard screaming, . very loud screams.
I went toward Meredith's room. There was the back of this person inside the room and I said "Hey what’s happening?" Then I immediately saw Meredith's body on the floor and I also saw blood, and I said "What the f**k have you done?" I yelled, and the person turned around. He was a male, he was Italian because he insulted me and had no foreign accent. He had the knife in his hand.”

RG’s afterthoughts
“I am asking myself how is it possible that Amanda could have slept in all that mess, and took a shower with all that blood in the bathroom and corridor? . Why have you accused Patrick? In order for the person who told me "Black man found, guilty man found" to think I was Patrick? Did you all already know who to blame?

The final sentence works as a proclamation of innocence or as an inkling that he was to be the fall-guy for his partners in crime.
The main things he leaves out, obviously, being his knowing full-well who his partners in crime were, his role in the restraining and sexual assault of MK, his potential presence in MK’s room as opposed to the bathroom when she was knifed, and the role it seems he played in attempts at strangulation/suffocation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
bolint wrote:
"I can't work out why AK is being so friendly towards RS when he is not supporting her alibi."

What else could she do?


Well, I don't know, but I would not want to be all flirty with a guy who was going to make me look like a liar and possible murderer! I might be slightly less effusive. And she has no reason to give the impression they are still an item in some way. I think people would quite understand, given the circumstances! It just doesn't seem to add up to me. Like they know something we don't. (They are innocent) or they are in total and complete denial (more probable. But still wierd) You'd think also Mellas would not want to write or communicate with him, but he does apparently. No need for that. Maybe RS IS going to change his testimony and support her alibi afterall, and this is what they know. Better chance if they stick together, esp given the explaining RS has to do on the DNA...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Brian S. wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Poo in the Loo and crime scene staging:

That Rudy left the poo there is no doubt. His DNA was also found on the toilet paper.

BUT There was no trace of Meredith's blood in that bathroom. Not in footprints, not on the toilet paper and not in the washbasin. Nada! Zilch! Not one speck anywhere.

Conclusion: Rudy pooed before Meredith was killed.


Amanda said she discovered that poo when she went to get the girls' hairdryer after washing her hair in that cold, cold house without the heating on.

We know that Amanda's fingerprints were notoriously absent from that house.

Are they absent from the hairdryer too?



We can build on from this:

If Rudy came through the window, he must have done so before Meredith came home.

There is no way he could have thrown a rock through the window and made the climb without Meredith hearing and investigating the noise. I don't say she would have gone out but she'd sure have gone to Filomena's window etc. etc.



Rudy could have, thrown the rock thru the window, the first visit he made to the cottage, when no one was found to be home.
(8:30 per the liar himself.)

I haven't read this Bigorni's scenario...but i'm currently in agreement with this scenario.
The murder was around 9:15-9:20, Rudy alone, he did a bloody towel scene/cleanup, left around 9:55pm, and dropped the phones off by the bushes by 10:13pm, and went home and cleaned up some more. Possibly coming back to the cottage, after his night of dancing?

A burglary gone bad, with sexual rape due to Meredith coming home alone at the wrong time and a lot more of a fight than Rudy counted on. His knife threats didn't work and he made the fatal blow with the knife (the knife left a pattern on the bedsheet. that no ones found). Maybe his return he didn't need to use the high window, because his victim arrived with entry access to the cottage, or maybe he held a knife to her throat as she approached her home, causing the 8:56 cut-off call.
They went into the cottage, Rudy with his so called "date". (date as in planned ahead of time).

the poo-loo, probably before the murder, yes, no blood very likely before.
or how about? after 4am... if Rudy came back all cleaned up, I doubt he could sleep after dancing and a murder.

what if Amanda had surprised Rudy in the am? maybe ran him off? Maybe the poo-loo was from the morning of the Nov 2?
I often wondered how long would it sit there without sinking? wouldn't it fall if he had done it the night before at 8:30 to 9pm Nov 1? Does poo sit in the loo for over 12hrs or so?

at this point, he wasn't a burglar, he was a murderer, Rudy knew this, so stealing laptops and things weren't important only money to flee the country. maybe some wipe downs, maybe a shower?

I don't agree with Migninni assumption, on whoever laid the bedcover over the victim was because of remorse, so it HAS TO BE Amanada. a female.
Rudy was the one infatuated with the victim, romantic delusions of Meredith....he possibly felt some twisted remorse. I think he very easily could have done this too. He had the care to try and "save her" with towels, his lovers date delusional thoughts, their close conversation of personal stories he shared with meredith, his heavy petting he delusionally stated.... yes, Rudy was probably even more susceptible to covering her up than anyone.

Micheli I disagree with on a point, in that he assumes Rudy had no interest in a cover up, only someone living there would benefit by the staging.

But I disagree, Rudy would be the ONLY one wanting fingerprints to be wiped away, footprints to be wiped up? Amanda lived there she didn't need to hide fingerprints?....Rudy would be the un-invited guest.
Rudy tried I suspect, during his "towel scene",maybe even the next morning too, to cleaning up. covering his tracks, and maybe looking for cash to flee.

just a thought.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
'The family of Amanda Knox says the prosecution's murder case against the former University of Washington student is crumbling.

"That's their case and it's been soundly disputed," Amanda's mother, Eda Mellas, told KIRO Radio from Italy Tuesday morning. The family has been visiting Knox for her birthday, which is her second "celebration" spent in prison.

Mellas says Knox is spending her time reading classic books in Italian and is learning new languages: German, French, and Hindi.'
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=188672


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Bard wrote:
"but I would not want to be all flirty with a guy who was going to make me look like a liar and possible murderer!"

It was Amanda who admitted being in the cottage at the moment of the murder, Raffaele added little to that.
Now Amanda still needs desperately Raffaele's help which is not coming. So far.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 9
Nice theory Michael. Some questions I have though. Why is Rudy protecting RS and AK? Wouldn't it be better for him to come clean and take the rape charge and point to them as the murderers? Rape vs. Murder sentence, which is less in Italy?

To all the RG climbed the window theorists: Why isn't there any blood at the window? Have you seen the crime scene pics of it? There is jagged and broken glass all over it. Someone trying to hoist their weight up would have cut themselves for sure.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 9
Jools wrote:
Mellas says Knox is spending her time reading classic books in Italian and is learning new languages: German, French, and Hindi.'
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=188672


That's Amanda's mother's attempt to paint her daughter as someone who is interested in educating herself, not murdering someone.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 9
jfk1191 wrote:
But I disagree, Rudy would be the ONLY one wanting fingerprints to be wiped away, footprints to be wiped up? Amanda lived there she didn't need to hide fingerprints?....Rudy would be the un-invited guest.
Rudy tried I suspect, during his "towel scene",maybe even the next morning too, to cleaning up. covering his tracks, and maybe looking for cash to flee.


So Rudy went and got bleach and did a hell of a clean up job with no fear of anyone returning? You actually believe he pulled himself up through the window that had all that glass broken on it but didn't cut himself on the way up? I'm not buying that at all. Did Amanda on the stand look like someone who was so easily manipulated that they would implicate someone else because she was afraid?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: THE FRIENDS OF MY FRIENDS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Kermit wrote:
max wrote:
I have a hard time to imagine the 3 together. RS and RG hardly had time to introduce themselves and immediately move on the killing and performing sexual acts in front of eachother? That seems unlikely. Their statements that they didn't know eachother have been very consistent.

I'm sure that RS and RG barely knew each other (or maybe not at all).

However, the key element here is Amanda. Amanda was Raffaele's girlfriend (with all that that entails). And Rudy was a general partyman in a university party town. He had already spent a couple of nights passed out in the boys flat. He had already met Amanda and partied with her in the boys flat, smoking marijuana (and for as many persons you can squeeze in one of those small floors - which isn't many - , I'm sure that Amanda and Rudy had time to chat and get to know each other).

They also had had passing contacts at Le Chic pub, and probably in other locations, like the Domus.

It's rumoured that Rudy was a small time trafficker. In her disallowed statement, Amanda admits to meeting "Patrick" (substitute for Rudy) at Piazza Grimana before moving on to the cottage. You can buy all sorts of drugs at Piazza Grimana. Rudy wasn't a big seller, and perhaps smoked as much as he sold. He liked partying and socialising. Why not follow Amanda down to the cottage, and have a smoke and a chat and maybe a bit of a party there?

Your boyfriend Raffaele is going to be there? Yeah, I know him, he lives close by me. Great, maybe he'll want to buy a couple of joints too.


I doubt they knew each other well, but they lived only 126 steps apart. It would be interesting to know who RS bought his drugs from. His reaction to RG's arrest is quite bizarre -- he fears this man will invent strange stories. These things, in particular the last item, trouble me.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: OOPS .... YOU FORGOT A FEW ITEMS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
jfk1191 wrote:
Rudy could have, thrown the rock thru the window, the first visit he made to the cottage, when no one was found to be home....
The murder was around 9:15-9:20, Rudy alone, he did a bloody towel scene/cleanup, left around 9:55pm, and dropped the phones off by the bushes by 10:13pm, and went home and cleaned up some more. Possibly coming back to the cottage, after his night of dancing?
......
I don't agree with Migninni assumption, on whoever laid the bedcover over the victim was because of remorse, so it HAS TO BE Amanada. a female.

Jkf1192,
  • Your scenario doesn't explain Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp behind Meredith's locked door.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain Amanda's and Meredith's DNA on the Double DNA Knife.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain a size 42 bloody footprint on the bathmat (no! it's not a 23 cm. Pink Hobbit Foot!!!) with a fat big toe.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain why there are mixed blood / DNA combinations of Amanda and Meredith in the bathroom and Filomena's room. Except for the bidet, the bathroom mixes are at a height which can't be explained by "girls living together".
  • Your scenario doesn't explain the contradiction between the Nov. 2 phone calls, police records, carpark CCTV, and the police and friends' testimony on one hand, and the flurry of phone calls by AK and RS on the other, starting with the forgotten call to her mother.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain how broken glass got on top of the trashed clothes.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain the size 37 or 38 shoeprint in blood on the pillow in Meredith's bedroom.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain Raffaele's verbal hemorrhage of comments like "I remember I pricked her with the Double DNA Knife, then apologised"
  • Your scenario doesn't explain the inexistent computer activity (in spite of Amanda saying she wrote emails) or phone activity (in spite of Raffaele saying he spoke with his father at 11 p.m.)on the evening of the crime.
Do you want me to continue?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:04 pm
Posts: 13
malcolm wrote:
Translation:
The state of the body itself reveals signs of an alteration in its initial appearance. Returning to the report of the medico-legal advisors for Knox’s defense, we read that on the body of Meredith there are "minute spots on the front of the chest, undoubtedly originating directly from the bleeding from the neck (their dimensions suggest that they were produced by respiration through an airway obstructed by blood). Their appearance (small and round) tells us that they were projected upward, with the victim substantially supine (face up), and thus landed on her chest"; similar spots are not present on the upper chest, which was obviously covered by a rolled up T-shirt, so "when those spots were produced, the bra was no longer being worn: there was no screening done by this garment, and the droplets mark the area of the skin that was originally covered."

We cannot agree with the aforementioned assumption.
The bra, and this is an unbiased observation, was found a few inches away from the girl's right foot in an area not at all stained with blood, yet the right shoulder strap was abundantly soaked; also, it is the case that on the cups can evidently be seen the same type of spots as found on the chest. This signifies that the victim had her T-shirt rolled up to the neck when she was attacked (as we shall see, this is the fundamentally important empirical observation that gives a sexual connotation to the assault), otherwise it would be hard to understand the spots on the skin or the bra, if it had been worn in the regular position. Photos no. 268 and 770, as explained at length by the Guede’s defense, then clearly show signs of that article of clothing (a vertical strip, rather well-defined) both on the body of the young woman and on the floor below: a further demonstration that the bra was removed after the blood had had the opporuntity to cover for an appreciable time the shoulder strap, which was soaked at the time it was found.

Has there been testimony from teh pathologist about the pattern of dependent pooling of blood after death (livor mortis or lividity)? Since Meredith apparently died on her right side, the pooling would be concentrated on her right side. After one or more hours, the blood coagulates, and the lividity pattern remains fixed. Since her body was found supine, if the pooling was still present on her right side, it means that the body was moved probably several hours later; if the lividity was concentrated in her back, she was moved fairly soon after death. I have searched but cannot find any testimont about this.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
rexfelis wrote:
Nice theory Michael. Some questions I have though. Why is Rudy protecting RS and AK? Wouldn't it be better for him to come clean and take the rape charge and point to them as the murderers? Rape vs. Murder sentence, which is less in Italy?

To all the RG climbed the window theorists: Why isn't there any blood at the window? Have you seen the crime scene pics of it? There is jagged and broken glass all over it. Someone trying to hoist their weight up would have cut themselves for sure.


One reason may be that RG's role is as central as the others. It would be hard for him to come clean without admitting to much more than he has up to now. And he may not have been ready to do that when it was his turn to testify. Now that RS's defense team has made their awkward and unconvincing attempt to pin it on Lone Wolf Rudy, he may be more willing to talk.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: OOPS .... YOU FORGOT A FEW ITEMS
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Kermit wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Rudy could have, thrown the rock thru the window, the first visit he made to the cottage, when no one was found to be home....
The murder was around 9:15-9:20, Rudy alone, he did a bloody towel scene/cleanup, left around 9:55pm, and dropped the phones off by the bushes by 10:13pm, and went home and cleaned up some more. Possibly coming back to the cottage, after his night of dancing?
......
I don't agree with Migninni assumption, on whoever laid the bedcover over the victim was because of remorse, so it HAS TO BE Amanada. a female.

Jkf1192,
  • Your scenario doesn't explain Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp behind Meredith's locked door.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain Amanda's and Meredith's DNA on the Double DNA Knife.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain a size 42 bloody footprint on the bathmat (no! it's not a 23 cm. Pink Hobbit Foot!!!) with a fat big toe.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain why there are mixed blood / DNA combinations of Amanda and Meredith in the bathroom and Filomena's room. Except for the bidet, the bathroom mixes are at a height which can't be explained by "girls living together".
  • Your scenario doesn't explain the contradiction between the Nov. 2 phone calls, police records, carpark CCTV, and the police and friends' testimony on one hand, and the flurry of phone calls by AK and RS on the other, starting with the forgotten call to her mother.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain how broken glass got on top of the trashed clothes.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain the size 37 or 38 shoeprint in blood on the pillow in Meredith's bedroom.
  • Your scenario doesn't explain Raffaele's verbal hemorrhage of comments like "I remember I pricked her with the Double DNA Knife, then apologised"
  • Your scenario doesn't explain the inexistent computer activity (in spite of Amanda saying she wrote emails) or phone activity (in spite of Raffaele saying he spoke with his father at 11 p.m.)on the evening of the crime.
Do you want me to continue?



Someone should send this list to Bongiorno so she can work on her scenario, which leaves more questions unanswered than answered.

OT)) Word on the street is that indeed the teen who fell in the sewer was none other than Frumpycat.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:36 pm
Posts: 70
Delayed reaction here and some random thoughts:

Going back to the second, smaller footprint on the pillow RS mentions (it's somewhere in the 'In His Own Words' section) that the day after the murder AK washed a pair of blue Nike trainers. Were these found and if so what was the tread pattern?

The defense proposal that some of the wounds were inflicted with a Swiss Army knife is ridiculous. These are not lock knives and fold over under any lateral pressure. They are intended for slicing not stabbing. I've owned several.

The lack of blood on the cellphones is very significant to me. Someone who was covered in blood would have left at least some microscopic residue on them. I don't see any mention of the cellphones in any of the defendent's accounts. Does anyone know of any such references?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
‘Nice theory Michael. Some questions I have though. Why is Rudy protecting RS and AK? Wouldn't it be better for him to come clean and take the rape charge and point to them as the murderers? Rape vs. Murder sentence, which is less in Italy?’


Can’t do, wouldn’t work, Rudy‘s into this too deep anyways. Rudy‘s a loser, and even worse that that is he knows he‘s a loser. He’s probably the one who coined the phrase , black man found , is a black man guilty. With a mentality like that he knows he’s going down anyways. If he’s guilty of rape, he’ll be found guilty of murder. How many years would he get off if he spilled the beans. He probably figures not too many. Maybe he figures that whatever little time they give him off for cooperating , isn’t worth his time making it more likely that the white boy and girl get life. Then it wouldn’t be on his conscious. He’s mad enough at them to implicate them, but not mad enough to testify against them , at least with any clarity. He could change his tune a little after this hearing. If AK/RS are found guilty, then he might start pilling on more. Even if they are found innocent he might start taking some more cheap shots at them. They aren’t concerned about Meredith, this is strictly business.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Thoughtful and Brian,
Be careful to this passage from Micheli:

" ... (come si vedrà, si tratta di un’osservazione empirica di fondamentale rilievo per dare una connotazione sessuale all’aggressione), altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso".


the correct translation (of the whole) is:

" ... signifies that the victim had her T-shirt rolled up to the neck when she was attacked (as we shall see, this is an empirical observation fundamentally important to give a sexual connotation to the assault), otherwise we won't have the spots neither on the skin nor on the bra, but the latter, she was wearing it in the regular position".

The last sencence is quite important in order to understand what Micheli believes to be evidence of a staging. He says: forensic examination indicate that the bra was removed after her death.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
Deanna and Ashley are interviewed on the CBS Early Show on CBS, by Julie Chen. This time they are in front of the prison. I usually watch these family interviews on an empty stomach.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 7648.shtml


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Quote:
RS mentions (it's somewhere in the 'In His Own Words' section) that the day after the murder AK washed a pair of blue Nike trainers. Were these found and if so what was the tread pattern?


It was in the early news, but it seems to be unconnected to this case.
Another couple was seen in a laundry, since it happened in the early afternoon but after the discovery of the murder and at that time AK was at the cottage with the police and others.

RS also heard it in the news.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Quote:
"I don't see any mention of the cellphones in any of the defendent's accounts. Does anyone know of any such references?"


Rudy says in one of his versions that he left the cottage at about 22:30.
So he must have known something about the phone events at 22:13 and earlier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
DLW wrote:
‘Nice theory Michael. Some questions I have though. Why is Rudy protecting RS and AK? Wouldn't it be better for him to come clean and take the rape charge and point to them as the murderers? Rape vs. Murder sentence, which is less in Italy?’


Can’t do, wouldn’t work, Rudy‘s into this too deep anyways. Rudy‘s a loser, and even worse that that is he knows he‘s a loser. He’s probably the one who coined the phrase , black man found , is a black man guilty. With a mentality like that he knows he’s going down anyways. If he’s guilty of rape, he’ll be found guilty of murder. How many years would he get off if he spilled the beans. He probably figures not too many. Maybe he figures that whatever little time they give him off for cooperating , isn’t worth his time making it more likely that the white boy and girl get life. Then it wouldn’t be on his conscious. He’s mad enough at them to implicate them, but not mad enough to testify against them , at least with any clarity. He could change his tune a little after this hearing. If AK/RS are found guilty, then he might start pilling on more. Even if they are found innocent he might start taking some more cheap shots at them. They aren’t concerned about Meredith, this is strictly business.


Rudy & his lawyers are betting that Knox and Sollecito will be found guilty. If Rudy can avoid having to take the stand in the current trial, which would no doubt further implicate himself in tough cross examination, the chance of success his court appeal later this year is greater, even if not great, especially if Knox and Sollecito are found guilty. I'm not sure he really believes he can win his appeal, but he definitely wants to go on record (and serve his time) saying he had nothing to do with the brutal and disgusting murder of Meredith Kercher. It seems he figures if you've got to spend 30 years in jail, then better to do it as a martyr rather than as a sadistic psychopath.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
Thoughtful and Brian,
Be careful to this passage from Micheli:


Sorry, I meant ... i think malcom ,

and thanks also other contributors (as bolint)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 340
Location: UK
DLW wrote:
Deanna and Ashley are interviewed on the CBS Early Show on CBS, by Julie Chen. This time they are in front of the prison. I usually watch these family interviews on an empty stomach.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 7648.shtml


Absolutely DLW.
Pass the sick bucket.
I can hear the wheels of the PR campaign churning here.
Looking at it objectively I find it bizarre, a synthetic portrayal of an accused murderess, sex criminal and thief as a victim.
How well rehearsed they are.
Deanna thinks the whole thing is surreal - with people taking photos of the whole family. Yeah sure...
Can you pull your top down a bit more Deanna?
Can we have more shots of a 14 year old with a plunging neck line?
They can't take Amanda anything but clothes and stuff.
I agree.
Don't give her anything sharp.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
DLW wrote:
Deanna and Ashley are interviewed on the CBS Early Show on CBS, by Julie Chen. This time they are in front of the prison. I usually watch these family interviews on an empty stomach.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 7648.shtml


To be fair I think both girls come across much better here than in the photographs. They seem sooooooo young (as indeed they are). Ashley is rather sweet, and at least they have covered up a little bit, bless them. I got the sense they did not really have a clue what was going on, nor has anyone prepared them for the possibility that their sister could be found guilty. They said, which I can well imagine, that everything seemed 'surreal'. I think the whole trial must have that sense for the family. If Amanda is guilty, and is found guilty...it is going to get a whole lot MORE surreal. I don't know how people would cope with that. Cling to the belief that it is a miscarriage? Disconnect emotionally? To find out someone you thought you knew and loved is actually someone quite, quite different...it doesn't bear thinking about. I just tried imagining my sister being found to be a murderer. It's not an easy on to imagine. But then, if you weren't imagining it, but living it, how would it be?

Just rambling here. I wanted to say how I thought the girls came over very well and respectfully, and how I felt very sad for them in the midst of all this horror.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Bard wrote:
DLW wrote:
Deanna and Ashley are interviewed on the CBS Early Show on CBS, by Julie Chen. This time they are in front of the prison. I usually watch these family interviews on an empty stomach.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 7648.shtml


To be fair I think both girls come across much better here than in the photographs. They seem sooooooo young (as indeed they are). Ashley is rather sweet, and at least they have covered up a little bit, bless them. I got the sense they did not really have a clue what was going on, nor has anyone prepared them for the possibility that their sister could be found guilty. They said, which I can well imagine, that everything seemed 'surreal'. I think the whole trial must have that sense for the family. If Amanda is guilty, and is found guilty...it is going to get a whole lot MORE surreal. I don't know how people would cope with that. Cling to the belief that it is a miscarriage? Disconnect emotionally? To find out someone you thought you knew and loved is actually someone quite, quite different...it doesn't bear thinking about. I just tried imagining my sister being found to be a murderer. It's not an easy on to imagine. But then, if you weren't imagining it, but living it, how would it be?

Just rambling here. I wanted to say how I thought the girls came over very well and respectfully, and how I felt very sad for them in the midst of all this horror.


Nonetheless, this weekend's photo shoot was yet another huge faux pas that should have been prevented by some responsible person. Reading between the lines, I noted that Frank Sfarzo claims he was in charge of watching over the girls (why anyone would put him in charge of this task is beyond me) and that he (a) tried to advise them against it and (b) tried to advise his friend, the photographer for Gente who took the photos, against it. All to no avail, according to Frank. Then he tells us the family does not take advice very well and mentions in passing that he may be closing his blog.

Does this mean he got raked over the coals by someone after the fact - i.e., after the photo shoot went over like a lead balloon? Is he distancing himself from it or trying to avoid getting blamed for it? Is he threatening to close his blog as retaliation, or is he deserting what he feels is a sinking ship? He jokingly (?) mentioned starting a new Amanda is guilty blog in Italian next fall.

That he took the time to post and justify at all indicates trouble to me.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:52 am
Posts: 17
Ttrroonniicc--that is out of line and inappropriate to this forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: MAKE THAT A PROMISE
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
ttrroonniicc wrote:
stay in your own f***ing land americans

There are lots of fine, articulate Americans who post on this site.

And there are other, not-so-articulate posters who shouldn't.

ttrroonniicc wrote:
out will not report back

Make that a promise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MAKE THAT A PROMISE
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Kermit wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
stay in your own f***ing land americans

There are lots of fine, articulate Americans who post on this site.

And there are other, not-so-articulate posters who shouldn't.

ttrroonniicc wrote:
out will not report back

Make that a promise


Thanks, Kermit and two cats. I'll just delete the offensive posts and ask ttrroonniicc to take a long time out.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
i blame this on american society AK is a product of that society


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
ttrroonniicc wrote:
i blame this on american society AK is a product of that society



As co-moderator and co-adminstrator of this forum, I am asking you to step away from the computer for awhile and stop posting. Thanks.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Zopi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
...
As for the deposit in the toilet, I think most people would have simply flushed it down. But as we have been told time and again, AK is not like other people. And yes, a deposit left overnight in a small room would create a noticeable stench.


Sorry for this smelly subject again, but is the picture showed previously (I think by thoughtful) the right one? ISTM that there were statements regarding 'the deposit disappearance"... but that picture clearly shows it did could not disappear. Maybe I am wrong.

Z.

Ps:
lone_wolfe nice to see you back.
fc, wow! un vrai moulin à paroles!


Il mouline comme un attrape-nigaud. Méfiez-vous !



Skep, vous m'avez beaucoup fait rire!! :lol:
btw, did I dream when I remember reading that AK told the police the 'deposit' wasn't there anymore?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
ttrroonniicc, you are being extremely unfair, please edit your post to remove offensive words.
Z.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:28 pm
Posts: 4
The Bard wrote:
bolint wrote:
"I can't work out why AK is being so friendly towards RS when he is not supporting her alibi."

What else could she do?


Well, I don't know, but I would not want to be all flirty with a guy who was going to make me look like a liar and possible murderer! I might be slightly less effusive. And she has no reason to give the impression they are still an item in some way. I think people would quite understand, given the circumstances! It just doesn't seem to add up to me. Like they know something we don't. (They are innocent) or they are in total and complete denial (more probable. But still wierd) You'd think also Mellas would not want to write or communicate with him, but he does apparently. No need for that. Maybe RS IS going to change his testimony and support her alibi afterall, and this is what they know. Better chance if they stick together, esp given the explaining RS has to do on the DNA...



RS's family have money and influence, and she can hardly hold it against him if he doesn't remember something.

EDIT to add: And then there's the 'young lovebirds' scenario to maintain as well, just in case...

I think she'll likely stay as close to that money and influence as she can.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
i blame this on american society AK is a product of that society


ttrroonniicc,

thank you for your positive energy

though you're still a bit moderate;
to be entirely honest, what is to blame is a species on a precise planet where she and the US belong

stupid, skinny animals with two legs, evil and immoral,
i think humans are disgusting. gang-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1301
bolint wrote:
Quote:
"I don't see any mention of the cellphones in any of the defendent's accounts. Does anyone know of any such references?"


Rudy says in one of his versions that he left the cottage at about 22:30.
So he must have known something about the phone events at 22:13 and earlier.

The phone activity of 22:13 in combination with the events at the cottage (broken car, kokomani). How would somebody be a few miles away from the cottage at that time? I had the weird idea that the phones were passed on to Kokomani or that Rudy picked up a ride from him for some money (instead of offering him money for his car, he was offering him money to get a ride). Or was Rudy already on the run and realized that he has the phones in his pocket at some point, hesitates to call and chooses to toss them in somebodies garden? Or just deliberately not call and by accident throws them in a garden. Just thinking out loud :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
jfk1191 wrote:
Rudy could have, thrown the rock thru the window, the first visit he made to the cottage, when no one was found to be home.
(8:30 per the liar himself.)

I haven't read this Bigorni's scenario...but i'm currently in agreement with this scenario.
The murder was around 9:15-9:20, Rudy alone, he did a bloody towel scene/cleanup, left around 9:55pm, and dropped the phones off by the bushes by 10:13pm, and went home and cleaned up some more. Possibly coming back to the cottage, after his night of dancing?

A burglary gone bad, with sexual rape due to Meredith coming home alone at the wrong time and a lot more of a fight than Rudy counted on. His knife threats didn't work and he made the fatal blow with the knife (the knife left a pattern on the bedsheet. that no ones found). Maybe his return he didn't need to use the high window, because his victim arrived with entry access to the cottage, or maybe he held a knife to her throat as she approached her home, causing the 8:56 cut-off call.
They went into the cottage, Rudy with his so called "date". (date as in planned ahead of time).

the poo-loo, probably before the murder, yes, no blood very likely before.
or how about? after 4am... if Rudy came back all cleaned up, I doubt he could sleep after dancing and a murder.

what if Amanda had surprised Rudy in the am? maybe ran him off? Maybe the poo-loo was from the morning of the Nov 2?
I often wondered how long would it sit there without sinking? wouldn't it fall if he had done it the night before at 8:30 to 9pm Nov 1? Does poo sit in the loo for over 12hrs or so?

at this point, he wasn't a burglar, he was a murderer, Rudy knew this, so stealing laptops and things weren't important only money to flee the country. maybe some wipe downs, maybe a shower?

I don't agree with Migninni assumption, on whoever laid the bedcover over the victim was because of remorse, so it HAS TO BE Amanada. a female.
Rudy was the one infatuated with the victim, romantic delusions of Meredith....he possibly felt some twisted remorse. I think he very easily could have done this too. He had the care to try and "save her" with towels, his lovers date delusional thoughts, their close conversation of personal stories he shared with meredith, his heavy petting he delusionally stated.... yes, Rudy was probably even more susceptible to covering her up than anyone.

Micheli I disagree with on a point, in that he assumes Rudy had no interest in a cover up, only someone living there would benefit by the staging.

But I disagree, Rudy would be the ONLY one wanting fingerprints to be wiped away, footprints to be wiped up? Amanda lived there she didn't need to hide fingerprints?....Rudy would be the un-invited guest.
Rudy tried I suspect, during his "towel scene",maybe even the next morning too, to cleaning up. covering his tracks, and maybe looking for cash to flee.

This scenario ignores a lot of evidence, in addition to what Kermit said.

1. You're ignoring the evidence that the breakin was staged.
2. You're ignoring the evidence that more than 1 person was involved in the assault, unless you think that Rudy stabbed her, held down her left arm (so that she couldn't defend herself with it), choked her (crushing her hyoid bone and bruising her face), and sexually assault her (by reaching down into her pants) all at the same time. Do you think Rudy turned into Shiva Rudy with 4 arms?
3. You're ignoring the woman's footprints in the hall. Did MK run around back and forth in the hall barefoot after having bled enough already to cover the soles of her feet? When and how were her shoes removed after they already had blood on the soles? So your scenario involves her getting stabbed in her room, bleeding profusely, stepping in the blood with her shoes on, then removing her shoes (or having them removed by RG), stepping in her pooled blood again with her barefeet, and then running out into the hall, toward AK's room, then back toward the bathroom, before returning to her room where she died.
4. We'll conveniently forget about the smaller print on the pillow, RS's 2 footprints, the knife, the clasp, the witness placing AK and MK in the nearby park, and the witness who reported 2 people fleeing the scene immediately after the killing, which you obviously don't believe.
5. After she has been dead for a while, you have RG removing her clothing, including her bra (was he trying to play up the fact that it was a sexual assault?), and wiping off the blood from her feet (why?).
6. Why the hell would RG return to the cottage hours later? What murderer returns to the scene 6 hours later to clean up? He would be running a frightful risk that AK (or another flatmate) would come home while he was in the middle of cleaning, especially since he didn't know their schedules and AK could go back and forth between her place and RS's at any time. (For all RS knew AK was out at a club and could come home late - there was no school the next day.) And what was his purpose in returning? He certainly did a lousy job of hiding his presence, considering that he left 11 visible bloody prints at the scene.
7. Why did he clean up a woman's footprints the hall that obviously weren't his when so much of his own evidence had yet to be erased?
8. Why did RG go home, clean up, change his clothing, go dancing, and then return to the scene of the crime to get more blood on his clothing? Do really think he would want to do the cleanup twice?
9. Why didn't he flush the toilet when he returned later to clean up? (If you look at the picture, you'll see why it didn't go down even after 12 hours.)
10. Why did he close and lock the door to MK's room when there was still so much evidence to clean up in there?
11. Why did he stop cleaning up when he did? No one came to the cottage in the morning, and even if someone did, there was no way for him to escape without being seen (since he didn't exit via any rear window). In fact, this is another good reason not to return in the first place.
12. Why did he take her phones (after cleaning his hands), only to discard them nearby?

This is off the top of my head. I'm sure I could add a few more if I think about it. And I haven't even mentioned the conflicting and changing tesimony of AK and RS or their odd behavior on the morning of the 2nd.


Last edited by malcolm on Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:49 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Pacific NW wrote:
Has there been testimony from teh pathologist about the pattern of dependent pooling of blood after death (livor mortis or lividity)? Since Meredith apparently died on her right side, the pooling would be concentrated on her right side. After one or more hours, the blood coagulates, and the lividity pattern remains fixed. Since her body was found supine, if the pooling was still present on her right side, it means that the body was moved probably several hours later; if the lividity was concentrated in her back, she was moved fairly soon after death. I have searched but cannot find any testimont about this.

I haven't seen anything about lividity, per se, but based on the pool of blood on the floor near the cabinet with the bra strap imprint in it, the police believe that she had been dead for some time before being moved. Whether "some time" means hours I couldn't say.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Yummi wrote:
Thoughtful and Brian,
Be careful to this passage from Micheli:

" ... (come si vedrà, si tratta di un’osservazione empirica di fondamentale rilievo per dare una connotazione sessuale all’aggressione), altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso".


the correct translation (of the whole) is:

" ... signifies that the victim had her T-shirt rolled up to the neck when she was attacked (as we shall see, this is an empirical observation fundamentally important to give a sexual connotation to the assault), otherwise we won't have the spots neither on the skin nor on the bra, but the latter, she was wearing it in the regular position".

The last sencence is quite important in order to understand what Micheli believes to be evidence of a staging. He says: forensic examination indicate that the bra was removed after her death.

Thanks, Yummi. I was translating a little more freely to try to give the sense of the sentence rather than a literal word-for-word translation which can end up sounding strange. But you're right that the item that he was referring to at the end was the bra (masculine) rather than T-shirt (feminine). The point he was making was that the T-shirt was rolled up to the neck, while there were spots of blood both on her chest and on the cups of the bra, so the bra must've been being worn during the assault.
But bra itself must've been pushed up, too, or else there wouldn't be the spots on the chest. Thus you have a sexual assault.


Last edited by malcolm on Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
ttrroonniicc wrote:
i blame this on american society AK is a product of that society

So maybe they should release her and put every other American on trial instead?
Was RS a product of American society, too?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Zopi wrote:

btw, did I dream when I remember reading that AK told the police the 'deposit' wasn't there anymore?

If you did then I had that same dream too.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
bolint wrote:
Quote:
"I don't see any mention of the cellphones in any of the defendent's accounts. Does anyone know of any such references?"


Rudy says in one of his versions that he left the cottage at about 22:30.
So he must have known something about the phone events at 22:13 and earlier.

As I recall, Micheli speculated that the phone (MK's, not the one lent by FR) had been accidentally activated at 22:13, as the first number in the address book was called, Abbey Natl Bank in England, but it wasn't able to connect.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: MAKE THAT A PROMISE
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
malcolm wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
f*ck -- removed-- them


Just want to clear on the limits here. rul-) huff-))


as the incumbent ttrroonniicc doesn't edit his/her post I also demand the removal of those outrageous lines, they are gratuitously aggressive and addressed to innocent girls and family just defending somebody they love.

Z.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
malcolm wrote:
Zopi wrote:

btw, did I dream when I remember reading that AK told the police the 'deposit' wasn't there anymore?

If you did then I had that same dream too.


I guess the picture is not the correct one... unless of course... I quite not sure... this things I am not sure about... perhaps I saw it. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Zopi wrote:

btw, did I dream when I remember reading that AK told the police the 'deposit' wasn't there anymore?


Here's a quote from RS's 7 Nov prison diary. It can be found in the "In their own words" section.

"We took a turn around the house and Amanda is terrified and jumps on me because she tells me that in the toilet there was no more shit because presumably before, when she was taking a shower, had seen in the bathroom there was a shit and nobody had pulled the water. I face and look within the reflection in the water and not see the shit give for good what Amanda said to me."

From the picture posted earlier I don't see how anyone could see their reflection in that toilet. Then again, he may have looked in the one in the bathroom where she took the shower.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:04 pm
Posts: 13
malcolm wrote:
Pacific NW wrote:
Has there been testimony from teh pathologist about the pattern of dependent pooling of blood after death (livor mortis or lividity)? Since Meredith apparently died on her right side, the pooling would be concentrated on her right side. After one or more hours, the blood coagulates, and the lividity pattern remains fixed. Since her body was found supine, if the pooling was still present on her right side, it means that the body was moved probably several hours later; if the lividity was concentrated in her back, she was moved fairly soon after death. I have searched but cannot find any testimont about this.

I haven't seen anything about lividity, per se, but based on the pool of blood on the floor near the cabinet with the bra strap imprint in it, the police believe that she had been dead for some time before being moved. Whether "some time" means hours I couldn't say.

Thanks, Malcolm. The fact that it hasn't been discussed suggests there was no contradictory lividity pattern; if it were present, the prosecution would've trumpeted it, I suspect. If it's not present, they must've returned to the house as soon as the tow truck was gone to clean and stage Meredith's room (the presence of Amanda's lamp suggests a night-time staging as well; although, if both sets of shutters were closed, they might have needed the extra light in the daytime as well). In their haste, they left the lamp behind, locked the door, and likely disposed of the key while it was still dark (along with the phones and maybe Amanda's Asics shoes). I'm still baffled that they took the knife back to Raffaele's. Were they that confident that they wouldn't be suspected? Or did they think they could clean all traces of MK off of it? "Out, out, damned spot!"
Interesting to think of AK as Lady MacBeth...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
LUFC1972 wrote:
Going back to the second, smaller footprint on the pillow RS mentions (it's somewhere in the 'In His Own Words' section) that the day after the murder AK washed a pair of blue Nike trainers. Were these found and if so what was the tread pattern?


Here is what it says in RS's 11 Nov prison diary, in the "In Their Own Words" section:

"Instead I had information that on the morning of Friday, when I was sleeping and Amanda went to take a shower at her home, she had gone also with an Argentinian guy ... I suppose, in a laundry and that this here wedged in the washing machine the clothes including the blue Nike shoes ..."

I have no idea where this came from or how it relates to anything else. What rumour/evidence/testimony was he trying to rationalise here?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Pacific NW wrote:
In their haste, they left the lamp behind, locked the door, and likely disposed of the key while it was still dark...

Does anyone know if they key was or was not found? Can the door be locked and then shut, or can it only be locked while it is closed? In other words, can it be locked without a key?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
malcolm wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Thoughtful and Brian,
Be careful to this passage from Micheli:

" ... (come si vedrà, si tratta di un’osservazione empirica di fondamentale rilievo per dare una connotazione sessuale all’aggressione), altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso".


the correct translation (of the whole) is:

" ... signifies that the victim had her T-shirt rolled up to the neck when she was attacked (as we shall see, this is an empirical observation fundamentally important to give a sexual connotation to the assault), otherwise we won't have the spots neither on the skin nor on the bra, but the latter, she was wearing it in the regular position".

The last sencence is quite important in order to understand what Micheli believes to be evidence of a staging. He says: forensic examination indicate that the bra was removed after her death.

Thanks, Yummi. I was translating a little more freely to try to give the sense of the sentence rather than a literal word-for-word translation which can end up sounding strange. But you're right that the item that he was referring to at the end was the bra (masculine) rather than T-shirt (feminine). The point he was making was that the T-shirt was rolled up to the neck, while there were spots of blood both on her chest and on the cups of the bra, so the bra must've been being worn during the assault.
But bra itself must've been pushed up, too, or else there wouldn't be the spots on the chest. Thus you have a sexual assault.


Quite a difficult passage to render in acceptable English while conveying the original meaning: Micheli is refuting the claim by expert for Knox ie:
The state of the body itself shows changes from its initial aspect. Going back to the report of the consultant forensic scientists for the Knox defence, it is reported that in evidence on Meredith's body there are
"small round spots on the front of the chest, doubtless originating directly from the source of bleeding on the neck (their dimensions suggest that they were projected through respiratory activity in airways blocked by blood). Their appearance (small & round) tells us that they were projected upwards by a victim who was substantially lying face up; (the spots) then fell back, therefore, onto her chest" there are no similar spots on the top part of the chest, evidently covered by the rolled up teeshirt, for which reason "when the spots were made the bra was no longer being worn: this garment did not act as a screen, and the droplets smear skin regions which were originally covered by it".
This is Micheli's refutation of the above:
The above premise cannot be agreed to.
The bra, and this is an objective statement of fact, was found a few centimetres away from the girl's right foot, in an area not at all stained by blood, yet the right shoulder strap is abundantly soaked (in blood); furthermore, in fact, on the cups the same type of round spots can be very clearly seen, comparable to those on the chest. This means that the victim certainly did have the teeshirt rolled up towards the neck when she was struck (as will be seen, this is an empirical observation of fundamental importance for it points to a sexual connotation in the attack), otherwise the spots would not be seen either on the skin or on the bra, but she was wearing the bra in the normal way. (translates: ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso)
The photos nos 268 & 770, fully described by the Guede defence, clearly reveal the marks of this item of underclothing (a quite clear vertical line) both on the young woman's body as well as on the floor underneath: a further demonstration that the bra was removed after the blood was in contact with the strap for a considerable time, soaking it as it was when (the bra was ) found.
He then goes on to expound on his theory of the staged breakin. Further translation to follow.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1301
malcolm wrote:
Pacific NW wrote:
In their haste, they left the lamp behind, locked the door, and likely disposed of the key while it was still dark...

Does anyone know if they key was or was not found? Can the door be locked and then shut, or can it only be locked while it is closed? In other words, can it be locked without a key?

Here is a pic of the door of one of the rooms (Laura I believe).
http://www.imageposter.com/uploads/get/667518
MK's keys were not found.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Hi Malcolm,
In regard to your post about why ttrroonniicc's second post was allowed to stand, it has been removed. It was only allowed to stand because I was away, celebrating the 14 juillet, otherwise known as Bastille Day in the US. I asked t (etc.) to refrain from posting and this request was ignored. So action will be taken, but probably tomorrow. In the meantime, ttrroonniicc, if you are reading, do not post another line until further notice.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
so the bra must've been being worn during the assault.
But bra itself must've been pushed up, too, or else there wouldn't be the spots on the chest.


No no, Micheli doesn't say this. Thi swas a prosecutor's theory, instead Micheli points to an opposite dinamic. If you go further you read where he maintains that, by his examination of pictures "there are no spots" on the mentioned chest area.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
max wrote:
malcolm wrote:
Pacific NW wrote:
In their haste, they left the lamp behind, locked the door, and likely disposed of the key while it was still dark...

Does anyone know if they key was or was not found? Can the door be locked and then shut, or can it only be locked while it is closed? In other words, can it be locked without a key?

Here is a pic of the door of one of the rooms (Laura I believe).
http://www.imageposter.com/uploads/get/667518
MK's keys were not found.

So it can ONLY be locked from the outside?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
so the bra must've been being worn during the assault.
But bra itself must've been pushed up, too, or else there wouldn't be the spots on the chest.


No no, Micheli doesn't say this. Thi swas a prosecutor's theory, instead Micheli points to an opposite dinamic. If you go further you read where he maintains that, by his examination of pictures "there are no spots" on the mentioned chest area.

Sorry, Yummi, I didn't clearly demark in my previous post where I was no longer summarizing Micheli's report. I started a new paragraph to mention something else I had read about the body but wasn't mentioned in the passage quoted.

First Micheli tells us Knox's defense's theory, namely, that the bra had been removed, and that's why there are spots on her chest. Then Micheli points out that on the cups of the bra can be seen spots of the same type as on the chest, indicating that the T-shirt had been rolled up during the assault. But from the shoulder strap being soaked as well as the imprint of it on the floor and the body he draws the conclusion that the bra was still being worn until after she was dead. But note that he hasn't denied to this point that there are spots on part of her chest that would normally be covered by a bra. Does he later refute that in the report? I'll have to have another look.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Posts: 419
Location: California/U.S.A.
malcolm wrote:
max wrote:
Here is a pic of the door of one of the rooms (Laura I believe).
http://www.imageposter.com/uploads/get/667518
MK's keys were not found.

So it can ONLY be locked from the outside?

I think it can be locked with a key from either side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Actually,
now reading through Micheli's report I didn't find an explicit refutation of the existence of blod spots on the chest.
But, there is absolutely no mention of a "pushing" of moving of the cloth. This action is never considered, probbly it is not even relevant. There is still anyway an explicit denial that anything like this could be happening when the girl was assaulted, he says: "the bra was warn normally", because the traces of an already soaked cloth are visible on the body.
He doesn't know if the victim was still alive or was yet dead after a significant period of time at the moment of the removal of clothes, but for sure the bra was warn in the usual way while she was yet lying on the floor after the stabbing:

"in quel medesimo contesto, gli autori della mistificazione intervennero anche nella camera della vittima, e forse tolsero di dosso il reggiseno dal corpo di M., se già non l’avevano fatto subito dopo che la ragazza era caduta in terra".


"Partendo dall’alterazione, e dunque procedendo a ritroso, è pacifico che il reggiseno fosse indossato al momento dei colpi ricevuti, altrimenti non presenterebbe le stesse macchioline di sangue puntiformi rilevate sul seno della ragazza; è altrettanto evidente che venne tolto alla vittima quando era passato del tempo, non si sa in che termini quantificabile, ma comunque sufficiente alla produzione, sulla schiena di M., dei segni palesati nelle fotografie nn. 268 e 770, in corrispondenza delle spalline. Comunque, e con pari innegabilità, quelle macchioline puntiformi ebbero modo di prodursi solo perché il reggiseno era l’unico indumento che la ragazza aveva sul busto, altrimenti avrebbero attinto la felpa o una delle maglie, che invece erano arrotolate fin sotto il suo collo".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Just to add, on the subject of the removal of Meredith's bra, and this is my speculation, not in Micheli's report.

Meredith died lying on her back in front of the wardrobe wearing her bra.

If she was subsequently rolled onto her stomach towards the bed, a person would have access to cut through the backstrap with a knife. it was cut and not torn, just to the side of the clasp. Presumably a person would need to hold the strap firm while the cut was made alongside the holding position, the clasp.

If she was then rolled again, onto her back towards the bed, her bra could be pulled away from her body, possibly leaving the clasp behind(underneath her back) were it was found.

This scenario would also leave Meredith's body in the position in which it was found, to the side of the wardrobe and towards the bed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Brian S. wrote:
Just to add, on the subject of the removal of Meredith's bra, and this is my speculation, not in Micheli's report.

Meredith died lying on her back in front of the wardrobe wearing her bra.

If she was subsequently rolled onto her stomach towards the bed, a person would have access to cut through the backstrap with a knife. it was cut and not torn, just to the side of the clasp. Presumably a person would need to hold the strap firm while the cut was made alongside the holding position, the clasp.

If she was then rolled again, onto her back towards the bed, her bra could be pulled away from her body, possibly leaving the clasp behind(underneath her back) were it was found.

This scenario would also leave Meredith's body in the position in which it was found, to the side of the wardrobe and towards the bed.
Hi Brian, how are you?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
If you've watched the dancing of the defenses, they have all backed away from a sex attack on Meredith. Lalli's evidence doesn't prove there was although Rudy undoubtedly had intimate contact with Meredith.

RS and AK defenses say that Rudy killed Meredith because she caught him in the act of a robbery.

Biscotti claims that RS and AK staged the sex assault scene staged in Meredith's room. I believe he also claims that Meredith's jeans and knickers were removed at the same time as her bra. There is some evidence to back up his theory here because there is blood on Meredith's jeans(which like the bra were discarded in a position on the floor away from the blood) but not on her legs and lower body.

Micheli maintains in his report that whoever "staged" the sex attack scene must have been around when Rudy had his admitted sexual contact with Meredith in the kitchen. He asks why else would they know that evidence would be found on Meredith's body to implicate Rudy? Why else would they think to stage the sex scene?

Following this line of reasoning he draws the conclusion that all three were present when Rudy had his sexual contact with Meredith.


Unfortunately for us, (fortunately for sex attack victims in Italy) much of this intimate evidence has been given behind closed doors at this trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
In regard to your post about why ttrroonniicc's second post was allowed to stand, it has been removed. It was only allowed to stand because I was away, celebrating the 14 juillet, otherwise known as Bastille Day in the US. I asked t (etc.) to refrain from posting and this request was ignored. So action will be taken, but probably tomorrow. In the meantime, ttrroonniicc, if you are reading, do not post another line until further notice.

Hi Skeptical, i can send Posts from the iphone, but not from my regular pc!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Martin wrote:
Hi Brian, how are you?


Oh, I'm fine. I have to say I've enjoyed making this counter attack against the representatives of the netherworld over the last couple of days.

ft-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
malcolm wrote:
But note that he hasn't denied to this point that there are spots on part of her chest that would normally be covered by a bra. Does he later refute that in the report? I'll have to have another look.


These are the only other remarks in the report that I can find on this matter:
"Infine, e soprattutto, non va dimenticato che la maglietta della ragazza fu certamente tirata in su, sino a scoprirle l’intero busto e il reggiseno (altrimenti non ci sarebbero le macchie di sangue puntiformi)"

"Partendo dall’alterazione, e dunque procedendo a ritroso, è pacifico che il reggiseno fosse indossato al momento dei colpi ricevuti, altrimenti non presenterebbe le stesse macchioline di sangue puntiformi rilevate sul seno della ragazza; è altrettanto evidente che venne tolto alla vittima quando era passato del tempo, non si sa in che termini quantificabile, ma comunque sufficiente alla produzione, sulla schiena di M., dei segni palesati nelle fotografie nn. 268 e 770, in corrispondenza delle spalline. Comunque, e con pari innegabilità, quelle macchioline puntiformi ebbero modo di prodursi solo perché il reggiseno era l’unico indumento che la ragazza aveva sul busto, altrimenti avrebbero attinto la felpa o una delle maglie, che invece erano arrotolate fin sotto il suo collo."

Translated, this is,
"Finally, and above all, we must not forget that the T-shirt of the girl was certainly pulled up, to reveal the entire chest and the bra (otherwise there would not be spots of blood)"

"Starting from the alteration and proceeding backward, it is undisputed that the bra was worn at the time the blows were struck, otherwise it wouldn’t show the same spots of blood found on the girl's breast; it is equally clear that it [the bra] was removed from the victim after the passing of some time, which we cannot quantify, but still sufficient for the production, on the back of Meredith, of the marks revealed in photographs nos. 268 and 770 corresponding to the bra strap. However, and equally undeniably, those spots were able to occur only because the bra was the only clothing that the girl had on the chest, otherwise they would have got [marked] the sweatshirt or one of the T-shirts, which instead were rolled up to below her neck."

This doesn't really add anything to what was mentioned before. He keeps talking about spots of blood on her chest/breast, which would imply that some of her breast was exposed. But then, he only asserts that the pulled up shirt (in addition to the ano-genital contact) was indicative of a sexual assault, whereas if the bra had been displaced from her breasts, even while she continued to wear it, I would think that he would've mentioned that, too.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
I have to say, after looking over the Micheli report again, the evidence for a sex crime seems very weak. A rolled up shirt, with the bra undisplaced, is not very compelling evidence, considering the ferocity of the attack. And the experts indicated that there weren't injuries to the genitals that one would normally see from a sexual assault. But I just can't buy the idea that Rudy's below the waist contact was consensual.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
malcolm wrote:
I have to say, after looking over the Micheli report again, the evidence for a sex crime seems very weak. A rolled up shirt, with the bra undisplaced, is not very compelling evidence, considering the ferocity of the attack. And the experts indicated that there weren't injuries to the genitals that one would normally see from a sexual assault. But I just can't buy the idea that Rudy's below the waist contact was consensual.

This is my offering of the rest of the extract from Micheli's report, p60. Any suggestions for refinement happily accepted.

PM Micheli page 60 (cont)

Prescindendo dalle finalità intime di manovre del genere, non è chi non veda come esse mirassero comunque, e inevitabilmente, ad accreditare l’idea che fosse entrato un estraneo, e un’alterazione dello stato dei luoghi utile a far credere a un ladro, o comunque ad ammettere un ingresso non autorizzato, poteva aver interesse a farla solo chi abitava in quella casa. Esclusa la vittima, così come la MEZZETTI che era a Montefiascone e la ROMANELLI che passava la notte tranquillamente con il suo fidanzato, l’unico soggetto interessato a quella sceneggiata risulta la KNOX. KNOX che, pur escludendo qualunque significato della deduzione in punto di peculiare preparazione del delitto o addirittura di ipotetiche aggravanti (un po’ lumeggiate dal P.M., pur non contestandole, nella a dir poco fantasiosa ricostruzione descrittiva di riti, festini di Halloween, pubblicazioni manga ed occasioni da non lasciarsi sfuggire, magari dopo una pantomima di prova generale davanti al malcapitato KOKOMANI),
L’ipotesi di voler organizzare alla bell’e meglio e all’ultimo momento una visita alla KERCHER per sondarne, anche a costo di ricorrere alla violenza, la disponibilità a pratiche sessuali di gruppo non è dunque una mera illazione del Pubblico Ministero (se, si ribadisce, svuotata delle implicazioni fumettistiche e decisamente fuori luogo tratteggiate nel corso della requisitoria e opportunamente abbandonate in sede di repliche). E sembra proprio, in effetti, di dover riscontrare nel caso di specie gravi elementi indiziari di colpevolezza a proposito della contestata violenza sessuale, per quanto da ritenere assorbita nell’addebito di omicidio in quanto aggravante speciale

Leaving aside personal motives for such behaviour, it cannot be denied, however, that it inevitably has the intention of giving credence to the idea of entry by a person unknown, and changing the state of the premises so as to suggest a thief, or allowing an unauthorised entry, could only be of interest to someone living in the house.
Excluding the victim, as well as Mezzetti who was in Montefiascone, and Romanelli who was quietly spending the night with her fiancé, the only person with an interest in that scenario is Knox. Knox who, even putting aside the significance of the on the spot inference of special preparation for the crime or even of hypothetical aggravating circumstances (on which the PM shone some light, all the while not disputing them, with not so improbable descriptions of Halloween rites and parties, manga magazines and not-to-be-missed opportunities, perhaps after a pantomime dress rehearsal in front of the unfortunate Kokoman) is still the only person who could possibly have known that Meredith would be home alone that evening.

The theory of wanting to organise any-old-how and at the last moment a visit to Kercher to sound her out on her availability for group sex practices, even at the cost of resorting to violence, is not therefore a mere inference of the PM ( if, it is underlined, it is stripped of the cartoon-like and decidedly out-of-place implications made during the summing-up hearings and then conveniently abandoned at the objections hearing). And indeed it really seems that we must undertake verifications in the case of often serious types of circumstantial elements of guilt as far as the disputed sexual violence is concerned, so far as to deem it part of the charge of murder in that it is a special aggravating circumstance


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
martin wrote:
Hi Skeptical, i can send Posts from the iphone, but not from my regular pc!

Martin, check the chat box. You may be experiencing the same sort of problems that I and several other people did. Brian suggested a solution: Change your display option in user preferences. He's using prosilver, I'm using darkoholic.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
malcolm wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Skeptical, i can send Posts from the iphone, but not from my regular pc!

Martin, check the chat box. You may be experiencing the same sort of problems that I and several other people did. Brian suggested a solution: Change your display option in user preferences. He's using prosilver, I'm using darkoholic.


Thanks, malcom. I am now at the office, as soon as i am back home, i will try your solution.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
malcolm wrote:
I have to say, after looking over the Micheli report again, the evidence for a sex crime seems very weak. A rolled up shirt, with the bra undisplaced, is not very compelling evidence, considering the ferocity of the attack. And the experts indicated that there weren't injuries to the genitals that one would normally see from a sexual assault. But I just can't buy the idea that Rudy's below the waist contact was consensual.


I have trouble with the same thing.

But something else which I know has come up in evidence given (I believe by Mignini at Rudy's trial - I'll try and dig out the reference later, I'm about to go out)

Rudy obviously gave a VERY detailed description of his claimed amorous encounter with Meredith.

Mignini admitted that the individual bra cup on which Rudy's DNA was found co-incided with Rudy's description of "his groping". Something, which Mignini also admitted was not known to Rudy when he made his statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
In regard to your post about why ttrroonniicc's second post was allowed to stand, it has been removed. It was only allowed to stand because I was away, celebrating the 14 juillet, otherwise known as Bastille Day in the US. I asked t (etc.) to refrain from posting and this request was ignored. So action will be taken, but probably tomorrow. In the meantime, ttrroonniicc, if you are reading, do not post another line until further notice.


th-)

Happy you had time to celebrate!! I had too much work :-(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:24 pm
Posts: 13
Malcolm wrote - quoting translation of Micheli's report:
"Starting from the alteration and proceeding backward, it is undisputed that the bra was worn at the time the blows were struck, otherwise it wouldn’t show the same spots of blood found on the girl's breast."
To me this means Micheli believed it is undisputed that the bra was worn at the time the blows were struck, BECAUSE the spots of blood found on Meredith's breast MATCHED EXACTLY the spots found on the bra. i.e. they formed a duplicate pattern of the blood spots on the bra, as the blood seeped through and marked her chest in exactly the same positions. (Apologies for the graphic description.) I also think the work "undisputed" will be fundamantal for the final judgement of the jury, particlularly in reference to the alleged clean-up and post-crime scene changes.
Sri Lanka


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
srilanka wrote:
To me this means Micheli believed it is undisputed that the bra was worn at the time the blows were struck, BECAUSE the spots of blood found on Meredith's breast MATCHED EXACTLY the spots found on the bra. i.e. they formed a duplicate pattern of the blood spots on the bra, as the blood seeped through and marked her chest in exactly the same positions. (Apologies for the graphic description.) I also think the work "undisputed" will be fundamantal for the final judgement of the jury, particlularly in reference to the alleged clean-up and post-crime scene changes.

That' s an interesting theory. Micheli never phrases it in that way, so that he clearly means that the spots on the chest line up with the spots on the bra, but I couldn't rule that out as a possibility. But the Italian doesn't sound like that's what he means. What do you think, Yummi and Tiziano?

I don't think the fact that the bra was removed after the murder will have that much impact on the jury, unless they believe that RS's blood is on the clasp. It could've been removed afterward for some kind of sexual reason and doesn't necessarily indicate a cleanup. There's also no indication of how long MK's body must've remained in its original position before being moved. Then again, it does strengthen the notion that the sexual nature of the crime was played up and maybe even staged. And if it could be shown that her body lay on the floor for hours before it was moved, then it would be devastating for the defense.

BTW, are you actually in Sri Lanka, and if so, where?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The Last Seduction
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Can't you just picture Amanda as Linda Fiorentino from the Last Suduction? I could see her getting Rudy to have sex with her after the murder while she gathers evidence to frame him.

I must not be the only one who has noticed the similarity.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Zopi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
In regard to your post about why ttrroonniicc's second post was allowed to stand, it has been removed. It was only allowed to stand because I was away, celebrating the 14 juillet, otherwise known as Bastille Day in the US. I asked t (etc.) to refrain from posting and this request was ignored. So action will be taken, but probably tomorrow. In the meantime, ttrroonniicc, if you are reading, do not post another line until further notice.


th-)

Happy you had time to celebrate!! I had too much work :-(


I miss seeing the Défilé Militaire up close. It just isn't the same on television!

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
martin wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
In regard to your post about why ttrroonniicc's second post was allowed to stand, it has been removed. It was only allowed to stand because I was away, celebrating the 14 juillet, otherwise known as Bastille Day in the US. I asked t (etc.) to refrain from posting and this request was ignored. So action will be taken, but probably tomorrow. In the meantime, ttrroonniicc, if you are reading, do not post another line until further notice.

Hi Skeptical, i can send Posts from the iphone, but not from my regular pc!



Several people have reported problems posting lately. I'm not sure why but will try and straighten things out with Michael. Sorry for the inconvenience.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
The Janet Chandler case has been cited here a number of times.
Yesterday's news is that the four man sentenced last December all appealed.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/ot ... ndler_case

Quote:
"Attorneys for James Nelson, Freddie Parker and Anthony Williams took turns making their arguments in front of a three-member state Court of Appeals panel. The attorney for Arthur "Carl" Paiva filed only a written brief.

Nelson claims there was insufficient evidence proven to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt; Williams claims his due process was violated and he was identified through "impermissibly suggestive" methods. He also claims he was denied a fair trial by being tried jointly with the others; Parker claims his counsel was ineffective, and that the court abused its discretion in denying separate trials; and Paiva claims his Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation were denied.

The appellate judges did not appear receptive to their arguments.
...
Even the attorney for Nelson said his secretary had nightmares while preparing for the case. He said it's the worst he's handled."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
martin wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Hi Malcolm,
In regard to your post about why ttrroonniicc's second post was allowed to stand, it has been removed. It was only allowed to stand because I was away, celebrating the 14 juillet, otherwise known as Bastille Day in the US. I asked t (etc.) to refrain from posting and this request was ignored. So action will be taken, but probably tomorrow. In the meantime, ttrroonniicc, if you are reading, do not post another line until further notice.

Hi Skeptical, i can send Posts from the iphone, but not from my regular pc!



Several people have reported problems posting lately. I'm not sure why but will try and straighten things out with Michael. Sorry for the inconvenience.



Yes. Basically, there are three steps for dealing with the problem.

Before strating the steps, first look up at the top of the forum and check you are still logged in. The forum sometimes logs you out by itself. If you are, then:

1) empty cookies from your browser cache, close your browser then restart it. Log back into the forum and your browser will retrieve a new cookie. For most, this should solve the problem.

If you are still encountering the problem, move on to the next step:

2) The problem when it occurs tends to be intermittent. People suffer with it for a time , then it suddenly goes away, perhaps returning again days later. So, whilst you are exeriencing the problem and clearing your chche doesn't help, use the 'Quick Reply' box to make your posts instead of the main 'Post Reply' box. For many of you, the quick reply box is hidden. To make it show, simply scroll down to the bar at the base of the posts and clcik on the '[Show] Post a reply' hyperlink. This will then expand the quick reply box beneath and it will show until you click on the hyperlink you used to open it. For some reason, one doesn't get the 'Invalid post' messaged when making ones posts via that and it tends to go right through. Of course, you can't use that if you are quoting someone via having clicked the quick reply button, neither do you have the options of smileys on BBcode buttons, so you would have to add those things by manually typing the required BBcode directly into your post.

3) If all the above fails, try changing your forum style to a different one via your 'User Control Panel'. Some have found this to work.

4) if all the above fail, contact me via PM or email, letting me know the exact problem you are having including the error meassages, if any, you are getting. Also let me know which forum style you are using and which Internet Browser.

Michael

PS: The problem is also happening to me even as I try to post this post.

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:42 pm
Posts: 11
The damning revelation that Knox was captured on CCTV entering the flat that night comes after the student, who shared the flat with Meredith, dramatically changed her story once again, telling her mother Edda during a prison visit that she had not been at the murder scene.

Today a police source in Perugia, said: "It will be interesting to see what she has to say when we show her the footage."
12 Nov Mail Online


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... LL2HTJRl&C

I read prior to this article above that the CCTV image was too obscure for a positive - is this correct? Pity if it is. But won't it at least point to a definite time that Amanda entered the house that night as it did with the postal police the next day?. The article states further: "Cameras overlooking the house in Perugia have captured the 20-year-old American student, known as Foxy Knoxy, at 8.43pm on 1 November dressed in a light-coloured skirt and top."


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:13 pm
Posts: 6
Just checked the list of upcoming defence witnesses on TJMK and noticed the absence of any computer expert from Switzerland. Long holidays there sun-) ...or maybe water runs downhill from the Alps unlike it does in Bari??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
"is this correct?"

Yes, otherwise the case would be over.

" at 8.43pm "

I don't know if it is a corrected time or the time read from the CCTV footage as there were reports that the CCTV clock was about 10 minutes ahead so for example the postal police arrived not at 12:36 but about 10 minutes earlier.
But few explicit statements came out as the media ignored such details, they preferred to dissect the sweaters and shirts of Raffaele and Amanda.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm
Posts: 278
Location: Switzerland/Germany
Quote:
Then Deanna Knox showed up in a red, white, and blue ensemble, complete with hotpants, on July 4. "The jury pays attention to much more than the testimony," says Alessandra Batassa, a Rome-based criminal lawyer who has defended a number of murder suspects. Ideally, "the lawyers should take control of the client's complete image—including who attends court with her—not just the client's personal behavior."


Monkey Trial Barbie Nadeau i'd say Hoppla?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Note: As you may have noticed, you have either been unable to access the forum at all, or when you do it's not loading properly.

We are currently on the end of a DDOS attack and it's large. Members may recall last year the forums went down due to a DDOS attack, however, this attack is much different...it's personal. Rather then FreeForum's server/s being DDOS'd, this attack is against a specific forum. More later. If you are unable to post, you might have better luck with the chat box. We just have to weather the storm for now until the sirens stop.


Meanwhile, if you are currently finding the forum is not allowing you to particpate, you might want to go and read Barbie Nadeau's fantastic new article for Newsweek. She really gets to the root of a story and her article is a goldmine of new important information. You can read it HERE

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm
Posts: 236
Location: San Francisco
Brian S. wrote:
Just to add, on the subject of the removal of Meredith's bra, and this is my speculation, not in Micheli's report.

Meredith died lying on her back in front of the wardrobe wearing her bra.

If she was subsequently rolled onto her stomach towards the bed, a person would have access to cut through the backstrap with a knife. it was cut and not torn, just to the side of the clasp. Presumably a person would need to hold the strap firm while the cut was made alongside the holding position, the clasp.

If she was then rolled again, onto her back towards the bed, her bra could be pulled away from her body, possibly leaving the clasp behind(underneath her back) were it was found.

This scenario would also leave Meredith's body in the position in which it was found, to the side of the wardrobe and towards the bed.



Hi Brian,

Whenever I read discussion about "the clasp" (with Sollecito's high DNA content on it) it makes me wonder about the subject of gloves. It's understandable that during the "incident" the out-of-control state of mind that concluded in the murder also kept the suspect(s) from thinking about prints and therefore using gloves to avoid leaving evidence. But what about during the cleanup? Do you think there are some signs that gloves were on during that--or part of that? It seems that if the more logical, self-protective state of mind were in play by then, they would have gotten some gloves.
I've never heard this discussed as far as I recall.

Didi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Michael wrote:
Meanwhile, if you are currently finding the forum is not allowing you to particpate, you might want to go and read Barbie Nadeau's fantastic new article for Newsweek. She really gets to the root of a story and her article is a goldmine of new important information. You can read it HERE


Utterly BRILLIANT article by Barbie. She cuts all the cr** out and just lays it down. I did not know about the appearance of the girls in court before this date. What a cheek! To me this family have continuously showed 'contempt' for the Italian court. It's like they are getting 'cocky', and swaggering a little, because they think they can. They think she's innocent and that she's going to get off, so what does it matter. Absolutely no need whatsoever for Ashley to be in court. Totally unsuitable for a thirteen year old. They must have known that rule, but just...what...IGNORED IT? For goodness sake! I don't blame the girls, and I made my feelings about the posed photos quite clear: disgusting. I blame the family. I think they're confident y'know. I think they believe she's gonna walk, so they're relaxing into the whole media thing.

I don't think she's going to walk. Not for a moment. And SOMEONE should be preparing those children for that possibility.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am
Posts: 155
The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Meanwhile, if you are currently finding the forum is not allowing you to particpate, you might want to go and read Barbie Nadeau's fantastic new article for Newsweek. She really gets to the root of a story and her article is a goldmine of new important information. You can read it HERE


Utterly BRILLIANT article by Barbie. She cuts all the cr** out and just lays it down. I did not know about the appearance of the girls in court before this date. What a cheek! To me this family have continuously showed 'contempt' for the Italian court. It's like they are getting 'cocky', and swaggering a little, because they think they can. They think she's innocent and that she's going to get off, so what does it matter. Absolutely no need whatsoever for Ashley to be in court. Totally unsuitable for a thirteen year old. They must have known that rule, but just...what...IGNORED IT? For goodness sake! I don't blame the girls, and I made my feelings about the posed photos quite clear: disgusting. I blame the family. I think they're confident y'know. I think they believe she's gonna walk, so they're relaxing into the whole media thing.

I don't think she's going to walk. Not for a moment. And SOMEONE should be preparing those children for that possibility.



Its really a good one. Still, one wonders, why one can't get all the facts straight, if she is on it since it began. Nadeau: "Sollecito at first said he didn't remember if Knox was with him that night and then said he was at home downloading cartoons, even though his computer and Internet records said otherwise." This is not exact enough. Its like reading our board, where people -- me as well -- tend to mix up things. It wasn't "at first" at all -- it was minimum Sollecito's third version. But that is a small thing compared to Nadeau's overall sharp wit and concise style, she can really cut through this epic mess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
This also from Barbie:

Barbie Nadeau wrote:
Both the prosecution and the defense have said they will appeal if things don't go their way. Hopefully, by then, Knox's retinue will be on their best behavior.


So, there we have it...whatever the verdict is, guilty or innocent, we are going to have a second trial and we are in this for the long haul.

It's also interesting that the prosecution have said 'now' that they will appeal, since unlike the defendents, the prosecution can only appeal if they have new evidence not presented in the original trial. That tells me they haven't presented all that they have and have been holding some things back precisely for that eventually. I wonder what that could be? ;)

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
Micheli never phrases it in that way, so that he clearly means that the spots on the chest line up with the spots on the bra, but I couldn't rule that out as a possibility. But the Italian doesn't sound like that's what he means. What do you think, Yummi and Tiziano?


I think this is not the meaning in Micheli's word, neither I believe it to be possible. The bra tissue (a UK manufactured cloth) looks too thick.
Micheli says the "same spots" meaning "le stesse" = "identical" spots, the "same kind" (taken one by one, they are of an identical kind), rather than "the same stain". He doesn't say the pattern of stain on two surfaces is matching.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
Michael wrote:
This also from Barbie:

Barbie Nadeau wrote:
Both the prosecution and the defense have said they will appeal if things don't go their way. Hopefully, by then, Knox's retinue will be on their best behavior.


So, there we have it...whatever the verdict is, guilty or innocent, we are going to have a second trial and we are in this for the long haul.

It's also interesting that the prosecution have said 'now' that they will appeal, since unlike the defendents, the prosecution can only appeal if they have new evidence not presented in the original trial. That tells me they haven't presented all that they have and have been holding some things back precisely for that eventually. I wonder what that could be? ;)



I have a feeling we all are going to be BFF! gh-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
Michael wrote:
Note: As you may have noticed, you have either been unable to access the forum at all, or when you do it's not loading properly.

We are currently on the end of a DDOS attack and it's large. Members may recall last year the forums went down due to a DDOS attack, however, this attack is much different...it's personal. Rather then FreeForum's server/s being DDOS'd, this attack is against a specific forum. More later. If you are unable to post, you might have better luck with the chat box. We just have to weather the storm for now until the sirens stop.


Meanwhile, if you are currently finding the forum is not allowing you to particpate, you might want to go and read Barbie Nadeau's fantastic new article for Newsweek. She really gets to the root of a story and her article is a goldmine of new important information. You can read it HERE



From the Nadeau article:
The Knox-Sollecito defense team plans to wrap up their case this weekend even though they have presented only a handful of witnesses. Knox's original witness list contained 35 names but defense lawyers have retracted 23.



Wow! That is a mighty big cut in witnesses. I guess Knox's defense team wasn't feeling too secure about the potential cross examinations for these witnesses. Kind of hard to follow Amanda's performance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Germany
indie wrote:
Wow! That is a mighty big cut in witnesses. I guess Knox's defense team wasn't feeling too secure about the potential cross examinations for these witnesses. Kind of hard to follow Amanda's performance.


Some of them (like the sisters) can´t even follow some dresscode in court. Imagine goofy, taking the stand as a character witness, with shorts, flip-flops and a baseball-cap.... i guess the defense knows well that this could do further damage bricks-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 30
Michael wrote:
This also from Barbie:

Barbie Nadeau wrote:
Both the prosecution and the defense have said they will appeal if things don't go their way. Hopefully, by then, Knox's retinue will be on their best behavior.


So, there we have it...whatever the verdict is, guilty or innocent, we are going to have a second trial and we are in this for the long haul.

It's also interesting that the prosecution have said 'now' that they will appeal, since unlike the defendents, the prosecution can only appeal if they have new evidence not presented in the original trial. That tells me they haven't presented all that they have and have been holding some things back precisely for that eventually. I wonder what that could be? ;)



Can anyone explain the laws of the Italian court system in regards to the prosecution withholding evidence in a trial? In the US
this would be grounds for a mistrial is this possible in Italy?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Hi everybody,
this is just a test if í am able to post again after following
malcom's suggestions


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
mistercrunch wrote:
indie wrote:
Wow! That is a mighty big cut in witnesses. I guess Knox's defense team wasn't feeling too secure about the potential cross examinations for these witnesses. Kind of hard to follow Amanda's performance.


Some of them (like the sisters) can´t even follow some dresscode in court. Imagine goofy, taking the stand as a character witness, with shorts, flip-flops and a baseball-cap.... i guess the defense knows well that this could do further damage bricks-)


In addition to witnesses apparently dropping like flies, it becomes clear reading the Newsweek article why the defense strategy has been incoherent, and why it has often appeared that the various defense lawyers are working at cross purposes. Answer: because they are.


Quote:
Among the lawyers, chaos reigns: Sollecito's lead attorney, a parliamentarian in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's party, has not been in court for weeks, and his other two attorneys have dismantled their joint practice during the course of this case.


So Brusco and Maori have split up, and Bongiorno has simply gone AWOL, having more important clients to defend perhaps. Meanwhile, Knox's lawyers appear to have absolutely no power to control Knox or her entourage. I suppose they will be blamed for the photo shoot debacle and courtroom attire, now that Frank has refused to take a bullet.

Meanwhile, Chris Mellas tries on Candace's blog to put himself above the "blogwars" he in fact created, and Goofy (probably with the blessing of his boss) spends his time plotting DOS attacks.

I found the Newsweek article enlightening and courageous. I'm sure Barbie Nadeau and Newsweek will be subject to even more mindless and viscious attacks of the kind Chris Mellas has nothing to do with.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
malcolm wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Skeptical, i can send Posts from the iphone, but not from my regular pc!

Martin, check the chat box. You may be experiencing the same sort of problems that I and several other people did. Brian suggested a solution: Change your display option in user preferences. He's using prosilver, I'm using darkoholic.

Thank you so much, malcolm, i owe you
cl-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
mistercrunch wrote:
indie wrote:
Wow! That is a mighty big cut in witnesses. I guess Knox's defense team wasn't feeling too secure about the potential cross examinations for these witnesses. Kind of hard to follow Amanda's performance.


Some of them (like the sisters) can´t even follow some dresscode in court. Imagine goofy, taking the stand as a character witness, with shorts, flip-flops and a baseball-cap.... i guess the defense knows well that this could do further damage bricks-)


He would probably want to go shirtless, or maybe wear a sleeveless tank top, to show off his rippling torso.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
martin wrote:
Thank you so much, malcolm, i owe you
cl-)

Don't thank me. It was Brian who suggested the solution. I was just passing it on.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Hi Skeptical,
The next 14th of july you should celebrate in guadeloupe,
you would like it there! Excellent food, magnificent beaches,
all kind of sports activities, we have been there twice
and celebrated july 4th with americans and 14th with the french!!!!!!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2255
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Meanwhile, Chris Mellas tries on Candace's blog to put himself above the "blogwars" he in fact created, and Goofy (probably with the blessing of his boss) spends his time plotting DOS attacks.

I found the Newsweek article enlightening and courageous. I'm sure Barbie Nadeau and Newsweek will be subject to even more mindless and viscious attacks of the kind Chris Mellas has nothing to do with.
:D

Barbie Nadeau highlighted the significance of the instances of Amanda Knox's and Meredith's blood mixed together in the bathroom.

"Nor has the defense broached the topic of the mixed DNA in the bathroom the girls shared. Legal experts who follow this case have suggested that blood evidence cannot be dated and therefore could have been left weeks before the murder. But when Knox testified in her own defense in June, she conceded that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before the murder, effectively dating those blood stains to that night." (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek).

It's damning evidence. I can't see an innocent explanation for Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood to mixed together on the box of cotton swabs and on the tap. The most logical explanation is that Knox had Meredith's blood on her hands and touched the box of cotton swabs and tap. Meredith's blood was also found on the light switch, the toilet lid and bathmat, so the killers tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom. There was no physical trace of Rudy Guede in this bathroom.

I don't believe that anyone would shower in a bathroom which had 13 traces of blood, including a 10-inch-long smear on the floor, numerous droplets and a "notably stained" tap, and not phone the police immediately, especially if they were concerned about their missing housemate. Knox herself told Filomena that there was "blood everywhere" and that "something tragic" might have happened to Meredith.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
The Machine wrote:
I don't believe that anyone would shower in a bathroom which had 13 traces of blood, including a 10-inch-long smear on the floor....

It was on the door, not the floor.

Here's the Micheli report again:
"Sul profilo destro dell’imposta della porta d’ingresso al bagno, è una sgocciolatura ematica della lunghezza totale di cm. 26"

Translation:
"On the right edge of the shutter [frame] of the door to the bathroom is dripping blood of a total length of 26 cm"


Last edited by malcolm on Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2255
malcolm wrote:
The Machine wrote:
I don't believe that anyone would shower in a bathroom which had 13 traces of blood, including a 10-inch-long smear on the floor....

It was on the door, not the floor.

Here's the Micheli report again:
"Sul profilo destro dell’imposta della porta d’ingresso al bagno, è una sgocciolatura ematica della lunghezza totale di cm. 26"

Translation:
"On the right edge of the shutter of the door to the bathroom is dripping blood of a total length of 26 cm"


Hi Malcolm,

I got the information from The Daily Telegraph:

"Police forensic experts later found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom, including a 10-inch-long smear on the floor and numerous droplets." (The Daily Telegraph, 7 February, 2009).

I assumed the 10 inch smear on the floor referred to Sollecito's bloody footprint on the bathmat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
lone_wolfe wrote:
Can anyone explain the laws of the Italian court system in regards to the prosecution withholding evidence in a trial? In the US
this would be grounds for a mistrial is this possible in Italy?

Welcome back, Sir Wolfe.
If the evidence that was not presented at trial is favourable to the prosecution, I doubt that would be grounds for a mistrial even in the US.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
The Machine wrote:
I got the information from The Daily Telegraph:

"Police forensic experts later found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom, including a 10-inch-long smear on the floor and numerous droplets." (The Daily Telegraph, 7 February, 2009).

I assumed the 10 inch smear on the floor referred to Sollecito's bloody footprint on the bathmat.

No, they (or whoever gave them this info) just misread the report. And the footprint was on the bathmat, not the floor.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
malcolm wrote:
If the evidence that was not presented at trial is favourable to the prosecution, I doubt that would be grounds for a mistrial even in the US.

Moreover, if a new witness, for example, is found after the prosecution has rested its case, it can't present that witness at the current trial, so his or her testimony would have to wait for a new trial.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2255
malcolm wrote:
No, they (or whoever gave them this info) just misread the report. And the footprint was on the bathmat, not the floor.


The article was written by Nick Squires who was reporting from Perugia. I know the bloody footprint was on the bathmat. Perhaps, his report was vague rather than inaccurate; the bathmat was on the floor of the bathroom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
The Machine wrote:
The article was written by Nick Squires who was reporting from Perugia. I know the bloody footprint was on the bathmat. Perhaps, his report was vague rather than inaccurate; the bathmat was on the floor of the bathroom.

But that 10" figure is a direct conversion of the 26 cm number.

Here's another source:
[urlx=http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C308/]http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C308/[/urlx]

"Amanda testified that when she came home around 11:30 a.m. that the apartment door was open, that there was visible blood in the bathroom (which would have been numerous scattered blood drops, a ten inch smear on the bathroom door, and a bloody footprint on the floor) and that there was feces in a toilet."

The ony source I can find for the 10" smear on the floor claim is Nick Squires's article and other articles that are quoting him.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1301
The Machine wrote:
I can't see an innocent explanation for Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood to mixed together on the box of cotton swabs and on the tap. The most logical explanation is that Knox had Meredith's blood on her hands and touched the box of cotton swabs and tap. Meredith's blood was also found on the light switch, the toilet lid and bathmat, so the killers tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom. There was no physical trace of Rudy Guede in this bathroom.

AK was pretty specific about them taking a long (blood doesn't come off easy) shower together that night. RS helping her with cleaning her ears. Probably not enough space for them on the bathmat together so RS stepped off a bit. Later RS seemed very eager to specifically deny this part of AK's story.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am
Posts: 72
max wrote:
The Machine wrote:
I can't see an innocent explanation for Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood to mixed together on the box of cotton swabs and on the tap. The most logical explanation is that Knox had Meredith's blood on her hands and touched the box of cotton swabs and tap. Meredith's blood was also found on the light switch, the toilet lid and bathmat, so the killers tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom. There was no physical trace of Rudy Guede in this bathroom.

AK was pretty specific about them taking a long (blood doesn't come off easy) shower together that night. RS helping her with cleaning her ears. Probably not enough space for them on the bathmat together so RS stepped off a bit. Later RS seemed very eager to specifically deny this part of AK's story.



This is the ONLY credible explanation for why AK took a shower in that house that late night/early morning -- to get blood, tiny pieces of glass, etc. off her body.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am
Posts: 72
That Newsweek article was excellent. I'm not sure this case is a total slam dunk for the prosecution legally, but any reasonable person with common sense will conclude that AK and RS are involved somehow.

And, if their involvement was insignificant, they would have come clean and told the police everything they know a long time ago.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Micheli never phrases it in that way, so that he clearly means that the spots on the chest line up with the spots on the bra, but I couldn't rule that out as a possibility. But the Italian doesn't sound like that's what he means. What do you think, Yummi and Tiziano?


I think this is not the meaning in Micheli's word, neither I believe it to be possible. The bra tissue (a UK manufactured cloth) looks too thick.
Micheli says the "same spots" meaning "le stesse" = "identical" spots, the "same kind" (taken one by one, they are of an identical kind), rather than "the same stain". He doesn't say the pattern of stain on two surfaces is matching.


I have looked back and cannot find any statement in Micheli's report that would lead one to believe he was talking about the spots lining up.
He says:
sulle coppe si vedono con palese evidenza lo stesso tipo di macchioline puntiformi riscontrabili sul busto
on the cups the same type of round spots can be very clearly seen, comparable to those on the chest.

Since he has already commented that the upper part of the chest was free of blood droplets because it was covered by the rolled up teeshirt, it can be deduced that there were droplets on the chest between the teeshirt and the bra, and we are told that the droplets were all the same, or of "lo stesso tipo";"the same type". They may have lined up, but this is not stated.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Quote:
Hungarian wrote:
This is not exact enough. Its like reading our board, where people -- me as well -- tend to mix up things.


Like this:
"Confronted with records showing that the cell phones of both suspects were turned off at the same moment the night before the murder and then turned on again the next morning about 6"

If only we had such records.
Here Nadeau repeats an exaggerated claim.

The only thing we (and the police, I'm sure) know about AK's phone is that
- there was no traffic during the night and the following morning
- she claims that she switched it off

So there is no record when she switched it off, and no record when she switched it on again. We only know that she sent an SMS at 20:35 Nov 1 and that she made a call at 12:07 Nov2. That is all.

And no proof exists that RS switched it off at the same time as AK.
We only know that from 23:13 Nov 1 to 6:02 Nov 2 his phone was not accessible.

Far from a proof of simultaneous switch-off.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: For Kermit
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 247
Location: Seattle. WA
This is for Kermit...


_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2255
bolint wrote:

Like this:
"Confronted with records showing that the cell phones of both suspects were turned off at the same moment the night before the murder and then turned on again the next morning about 6"

If only we had such records.
Here Nadeau repeats an exaggerated claim.

The only thing we (and the police, I'm sure) know about AK's phone is that
- there was no traffic during the night and the following morning
- she claims that she switched it off

So there is no record when she switched it off, and no record when she switched it on again. We only know that she sent an SMS at 20:35 Nov 1 and that she made a call at 12:07 Nov2. That is all.

And no proof exists that RS switched it off at the same time as AK.
We only know that from 23:13 Nov 1 to 6:02 Nov 2 his phone was not accessible.

Far from a proof of simultaneous switch-off.


The key point is that Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's mobile activity on the night of the murder was highly unusual. Police investigator Letterio Latella stated that he did not find any evidence of a similar “blackout” of Knox's and Sollecito’s mobile phones in the month before the murder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
This is a translation of page 89 of Micheli's report requested by Brian.

It is equally reasonable to claim, that after the murder, a certain period of time elapsed prior to the activities of changing the crime scene, and that in this instance it is not possible to prove that more than one person took part in this second phase, or that these persons were the same present at the time of the attack on Kercher.
It has already been equally asserted that somebody came back to the house, carrying out the pretense of an illegal entry by thieves or other random miscreants, and there is once more justification to request remand in custody: in the same time, those who carried out the adulteration of the scene also went into the victim's room, and perhaps they removed the bra from Meredith's body, if they had not done so immediately after the girl fell to the floor.
The subject is of indirect interest, as here it is a matter of an accused who is not required to answer to simulating a crime, but it must be addressed because - from the opposite point of view put forward in fact by the Guede defence - that person went back in and set to work to make it appear that there had been a sexual assault, with the aim of falsely blaming the accused, not just being satidfied with the idea of suggesting a robbery which degenerated into an out of control lethal outcome.
Starting from the changing of the scene and going back in time, it is plain that the bra was worn at the moment the blows were received, otherwise it would not present the same round spots of blood visible on the girl's breast; it is similarly obvious that it was removed from the victim after some time had passed, how long is not quantifiable, but however long enough to produce evident signs on Meredith's back, visible in photos # 269 & 277, corresponding with the shoulder straps. However, and similarly unrefutable, those round droplets were produced only because the bra was the sole garment which the girl had on her chest, otherwise they would have stained the windcheater or one of the teeshirts, which were on the other hand rolled up as far as her neck.
At the same time it was made out that someone had entered the house through the window of Romanelli's room (ostensibly to steal, but not even the laptop computer on the desk or the jewellery easily accessible in a drawer was taken) and a more or less basic attempt to clean up was made, enough to remove from the whole house, except on a glass on the dish drainer, the finger prints of a girl who lived there day and night.
From this it is seen that changes were made, someone certainly being interested in coming back to the scene (from which he/she had been forced get away in a hurry) to cobble together fictitious scenes and to eliminate compromising signs, but this did not serve to produce such results as to lead on their own to the conclusion that there had been a sexual assault: that conclusion was was already compatible with the context, for it would have been ascertained no matter what that the girl was half-naked at the time when she was attacked. Further, taking up again the considerations dealt with a few pages back, it is not obvious why the unknown dissemblers, wishing to make the suspicions all converge on the young coloured man whom they had come across, as a perpetrator to offer up as a scapegoat, would have had to force themselves to set up a pretence of sexual assault: what did they know about Rudi going into the bathroom in the grips of a stomach upset, after having made sexual overtures to Meredith, and that consequently from the vaginal swab and from other investigations the proof of petting or something like it between the unfortunate and the murdered girl would emerge, so as to make it necesssary to weigh up the thesis that there had been sexual contact without consent? Why would they not have had to be happy with making it seem like a burglary gone wrong, seeing that their fundamental interest was to point the investigations towards suspects who were not resident in that house?
This so-called throwing the investigation of the track, carried out later, did not have the deliberate intention of implicating Guede. Nevertheless it is still valid to hold that Guede did not take part in it, in accordance with the indictment: furthermore, if he had had the means and a reason to go back to that house, he would have at least taken care to get rid of the faeces, which were a sort of autograph of his presence, from the toilet. And it is not odd that only one person did go back, given the agitated circumstances - simultaneous with the scream heard by Signora Capezzali, which all those present recognised as having the potential to result in the arrival of the curious or the forces of law and order - in which the departure of the attackers took place. As noted several times, the witness heard the noise of footsteps running on the path, then on the metal steps in the other direction, "two seconds, a minute" after the scream which had given her goosebumps, a very brief period which certainly would not have allowed for the full carrying out of the setting of the scene in Romanelli's room, or the probable cleaning activities.
The consequence of this is that the decision to go back into the residence was made when whoever had run away was already separated from the other fugitives, because he/she had gone off in one direction, while the others had gone in the second: and if it was Rudi who had actually gone in the second direction, the others did not even have his mobile phone number to let him know about the idea of going back, even if the person who decided to do so was interested in involving him.
A further logical consequence to be deduced, however, is the impossibility of fixing the time when the mobile phones and money belonging to the victim were taken: the unlikely eventuality that this happened when everyone was running away after the scream (and Rudi was one of the group) has the same weight as the possibility of the theft being carried out in the context of the cleaning, the breaking of the window and the moving of the body. In fact the latter thesis appears more likely, given that the moment of the initial flight was necessarily characterised by extreme haste, and such premeditated behaviour as taking the phones, not for their monetary value but to get rid of them, does not sit well with haste: the judicial outcomes which demand that Guede be found guilty of complicity in murder aggravated by sexual assault cannot, consequently, be held sufficient to find him also responsible for the further charge against him of crime against property.
The finding of the mixture of DNA of the accused, together with that of the victim, on her purse is also not decisive for such a purpose: on the basis of witness statements obtained, it seems that Meredith had the habit of keeping at least one of her phones in the pocket of her trousers or on her person, and it is not written anywhere that the 300 Euros purported to have been stolen were in that purse at the time.


Last edited by Tiziano on Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Quote:
The article was written by Nick Squires who was reporting from Perugia. I know the bloody footprint was on the bathmat. Perhaps, his report was vague rather than inaccurate; the bathmat was on the floor of the bathroom.


Good Lord Machine, you really aren't able to pronounce the "I made a mistake" words, are you? If Nick Squires wrote "there was a 10'' stain on the floor" rather than "a 10'' stain on the wall", then he was making a mistake. If he wrote "there was a 10'' stain on the floor" rather than "a 7'' footprint on the bathmat", then he was making a double mistake. He probably freely admits it, because it's no big deal. Why don't you do that, too?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Thanks, Tiziano, for the translation of p. 89 (and the rest of p. 60). Every time I flip through the report I stumble on something interesting that I hadn't noticed before. If you go through all the comments posted here you'll find a lot of the document has been translated by various people already - I'm thinking about translating the rest. (I already have a Google translation of the entire document.) It would be easier if several people work on it simultaneously, with the document being divided up beforehand to avoid duplication. If anyone else is interested we can discuss allocating it.

First I'll gather together all the parts that have been well translated (i.e., not just by Google).

If we do translate the whole thing, I would suggest that it be put into a separate forum, spread over multiple comments of course, with page numbers, section headings, and maybe an index added as well, to make browsing easier. I'm willing to add those elements, but an administrator, such as Michael or Skep, will have to create the forum.


Last edited by malcolm on Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 138
Location: UK
Does anyone know if the trial is definitely going ahead this weekend as planned or whether Judge Massei is still too ill?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why didn't Amanda Knox leave Italy?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
This is an old one from 2catsintheyard, but I never saw a complete answer:

2catsintheyard wrote:
Hello all, I have been following your discussion for some time but just signed up tonight. I have been wondering: why didn't Amanda Knox leave Italy at her first opportunity after the murder? Several days elapsed before she was formally charged with any crime. If she had returned to the US, was she at risk of being extradited back to Italy for questioning? Does the fact that she stayed willingly in Perugia indicate she had nothing to hide? I appreciate your dedication to this case and the insight you all offer on this Forum.


While several people pointed out that she was a suspect from the beginning and thus she may not have been allowed to leave Italy (how? did they take her passport?), I have a few other points to add:
1. Fleeing would make her look much more guilty if she were put on trial (plus she'd be unlikely to get an OJ-type jury filled with FrumpyCats in Italy).
2. Fleeing would also make her the prime suspect in the case, and likely lead to the Italian police issuing an arrest warrant for her.
3. The US has an extradition treaty with Italy, and it's not like the US govt would refuse to extradite her b/c of claims of political persecution.
4. She was probably not prepared to spend the rest of her life on the lam trying to stay one step ahead of the police.

Rudy, OTOH, was already used to being on the move, he wasn't a suspect at the time that he fled, and nobody even seemed to notice his disappearance, or at least connect it with Meredith's murder.

There was no way AK was going to be able to avoid being caught if she were found guilty, so her best bet was to try to avoid being arrested in the first place, and fleeing would eliminate any hope of that.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why didn't Amanda Knox leave Italy?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 138
Location: UK
malcolm wrote:
This is an old one from 2catsintheyard, but I never saw a complete answer:

2catsintheyard wrote:
Hello all, I have been following your discussion for some time but just signed up tonight. I have been wondering: why didn't Amanda Knox leave Italy at her first opportunity after the murder? Several days elapsed before she was formally charged with any crime. If she had returned to the US, was she at risk of being extradited back to Italy for questioning? Does the fact that she stayed willingly in Perugia indicate she had nothing to hide? I appreciate your dedication to this case and the insight you all offer on this Forum.


While several people pointed out that she was a suspect from the beginning and thus she may not have been allowed to leave Italy (how? did they take her passport?), I have a few other points to add:
1. Fleeing would make her look much more guilty if she were put on trial (plus she'd be unlikely to get an OJ-type jury filled with FrumpyCats in Italy).
2. Fleeing would also make her the prime suspect in the case, and likely lead to the Italian police issuing an arrest warrant for her.
3. The US has an extradition treaty with Italy, and it's not like the US govt would refuse to extradite her b/c of claims of political persecution.
4. She was probably not prepared to spend the rest of her life on the lam trying to stay one step ahead of the police.

Rudy, OTOH, was already used to being on the move, he wasn't a suspect at the time that he fled, and nobody even seemed to notice his disappearance, or at least connect it with Meredith's murder.

There was no way AK was going to be able to avoid being caught if she were found guilty, so her best bet was to try to avoid being arrested in the first place, and fleeing would eliminate any hope of that.


You've forgotten one last reason -

5. She is surpremely arrogant and thought that if she fluttered her eyelashes at people all of the bleugh would go away. I think it was because she thought that she'd cleaned up enough and had Raffaelle to back up her alibi. I don't believe that she ever anticipated that under pressure RS might withdraw the alibi and start pointing the blame in her direction.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
BellaDonna wrote:

Quote:
You've forgotten one last reason -

5. She is surpremely arrogant and thought that if she fluttered her eyelashes at people all of the bleugh would go away. I think it was because she thought that she'd cleaned up enough and had Raffaelle to back up her alibi. I don't believe that she ever anticipated that under pressure RS might withdraw the alibi and start pointing the blame in her direction.


I don't think the decision to flee or stay is solid proof of guilt or innocence per se. However, I believe that neither AK nor RS thought they would have any problems with the "stupid" police. A life on the lam with a boyfriend who had 40 euros in his account at the time of the crime does not sound like a particularly good long-term solution. And AK was not as flush with cash as her family and friends suggest, especially given the euro-dollar exchange rate. Her 4,000 dollars would not have gone far. If it was in the bank and her only way of getting to it was through withdrawals, it would have been easy to trace her whereabouts had she tried to flee.

In addition, she is not an EU national and so would not have automatically had the right to work within the EU. Even if she could work under her own name, Interpol would have put out an alert throughout Europe. An American who flees an Italian town after the death by murder of her roommate becomes an immediate suspect -- for good reason.

Had she jumped on the next flight to Seattle -- presumably via Rome -- AK's family might have helped her elude the authorities after landing, but what kind of life would she have had? When you think about it, flight was not an option for these two. And I suspect they are smart enough to have figured that one out.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why didn't Amanda Knox leave Italy?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
BellaDonna wrote:
You've forgotten one last reason -

5. She is surpremely arrogant and thought that if she fluttered her eyelashes at people all of the bleugh would go away. I think it was because she thought that she'd cleaned up enough and had Raffaelle to back up her alibi. I don't believe that she ever anticipated that under pressure RS might withdraw the alibi and start pointing the blame in her direction.


Well, i did forget one last reason:
5. RS probably tried to convince her not to leave, since he certainly couldn't and if she fled that would make both of them look more guilty.

I should've also added this:
[urlx=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties[/urlx]


Last edited by malcolm on Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
BellaDonna wrote:
Does anyone know if the trial is definitely going ahead this weekend as planned or whether Judge Massei is still too ill?


I have heard it will convene briefly to announce a postponement until the fall, but I have no firm confirmation of this. Given the drastically reduced list of defense witnesses, it seems that adding a couple of extra hearings this fall is the most likely option.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:34 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
malcolm wrote:
Thanks, Tiziano, for the translation of p. 89 (and the rest of p. 60). Every time I flip through the report I stumble on something interesting that I hadn't noticed before. If you go through all the comments posted here you'll find a lot of the document has been translated by various people already - I'm thinking about translating the rest. (I already have a Google translation of the entire document.) It would be easier if several people work on it simultaneously, with the document being divided up beforehand to avoid duplication. If anyone else is interested we can discuss allocating it.

First I'll gather together all the parts that have been well translated (i.e., not just by Google).

If we do translate the whole thing, I would suggest that it be put into a separate forum, spread over multiple comments of course, with page numbers, section headings, and maybe an index added as well, to make browsing easier. I'm willing to add those elements, but an administrator, such as Michael or Skep, will have to create the forum.



Hang on a moment Malcom. I kind of really need to think about this. PMF policy up to now was to not translate the whole report this is for three reasons.

Firstly, we originally obtained the document from one of our sources and to protect the source we weren't going to publish the whole thing. However, since that time somebody else put the whole document on the Internet, so since it's available to everyone, it makes the this reason now redundant.

Secondly, there were legal issues. Under Italian law, one can't digitise a legal document, it must kept in hard copy only. Secondly, one cannot publish a whole document, extracts only. But again, since someone else has placed the whole document online elsewhere, this reason is also now redundant.

Thirdly, it was decided that only a redacted form would be published due to some of the highly graphic content on what happened to Meredith (injuries and sexual aspects, autopsy stuff). We decided we weren't going to render professional translations of those sections. As far as I'm aware I still feel the third reason still counts for why the document will not be translated in it's full form on PMF. Skep may have more to say on that.

As for the forum, it already exists, only you can't see it on the board. That's where our translation and interpretation team were working with the original source. The team consisted of Brian, Catnip and was led by Nicki. Any major translation of the document requires Nicki's involvement due to the DNA data contained and she is top of her field in that area. If you like, contact me and I'll grant you access to that forum (along with any other translator who would like access). There hasn't been any activity in there for many weeks, but Nicki is still in charge of that project.

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
I'll start with the proviso that this is all my speculation and opinion but I think I've finally figured out the dynamic which lead to Meredith's death.

It's probably gonna take me two or three posts to get this down because I can't work out how to best make the order.

And the killer is Amanda

I'll start you off with this post.

Remember, Filomena and Laura both testified that a day or two before Meredith's death the girls all had a dicussion about two timing boys. They described it as almost an argument between Meredith and Amanda. Meredith criticised Amanda for dating other boys while still in theory in a relationship with DJ. Even Patrick has made reference to this when he talked about his surprise that Amanda was dating Raffaele.

It's obvious that Amanda described to the girls, Patrick and others that her and DJ were still an item.

Meredith on the other hand had ended her relationship with her English boyfriend. She said she wanted to be free to enjoy the possibilities in Italy. She didn't feel it was right to keep her English boyfriend "on a string". She wanted to be a free agent.

The details of this argument between Meredith and Amanda are available to read in any of the press stories which detail the testimony given by Filomena and Laura. Suffice to say they suggest it was a real argument and Amanda may have even felt offended by the things which Meredith said.

To be coontinued....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
Does anyone know if the trial is definitely going ahead this weekend as planned or whether Judge Massei is still too ill?


I have heard it will convene briefly to announce a postponement until the fall, but I have no firm confirmation of this. Given the drastically reduced list of defense witnesses, it seems that adding a couple of extra hearings this fall is the most likely option.


According to Barbie Nadeau's article, the trial is to continue this weekend and we're to hear the last of the defence witnesses. It's possible there may have been some last minute changes to that plan though.

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Michael wrote:

Quote:
Thirdly, it was decided that only a redacted form would be published due to some of the highly graphic content on what happened to Meredith (injuries and sexual aspects, autopsy stuff). We decided we weren't going to render professional translations of those sections. As far as I'm aware I still feel the third reason still counts for why the document will not be translated in it's full form on PMF. Skep may have more to say on that.

As for the forum, it already exists, only you can't see it on the board. That's where our translation and interpretation team were working with the original source. The team consisted of Brian, Catnip and was led by Nicki. Any major translation of the document requires Nicki's involvement due to the DNA data contained and she is top of her field in that area. If you like, contact me and I'll grant you access to that forum (along with any other translator who would like access). There hasn't been any activity in there for many weeks, but Nicki is still in charge of that project.


I have nothing to add. Anyone who wants to join the ongoing translation project should be allowed into that forum. I am personally quite dubious of google or other software generated translations, especially from Italian to English. I realize they are sometimes the only tool, but the result is often the source of more confusion than anything else.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Michael wrote:
As for the forum, it already exists, only you can't see it on the board. That's where our translation and interpretation team were working with the original source. The team consisted of Brian, Catnip and was led by Nicki. Any major translation of the document requires Nicki's involvement due to the DNA data contained and she is top of her field in that area. If you like, contact me and I'll grant you access to that forum (along with any other translator who would like access). There hasn't been any activity in there for many weeks, but Nicki is still in charge of that project.

Thanks, Michael. I sent you a PM.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: The real railroad job from hell?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
There's been some speculation that AK and RS set up RG intentionally, even to the extent that they may have planned on his participation precisely to frame him. I'm a bit dubious of the notion that they intended for him to take the fall, for the following reasons.

Clearly AK and RS staged the break in, partially cleaned the murder scene, faked the robbery, and played up the sexual assault to direct suspicion away from them and toward an unknown burglar. But I don't think they really wanted Rudy to be caught. The ideal scenario for them would have been that the police searched for the burglar/murderer but never found him. After all, Rudy was the only witness to their participation, so they certainly wouldn't want him to be caught. That's why Amanda fingered Patrick and not Rudy - there was nothing Patrick could reveal that would implicate her in the murder.

Ironically they did too good of a job leaving Rudy's traces (11 visible bloody prints) while erasing their own, since it was his palmprint that led to his identification in the first place. How might the investigation have proceeded without that piece of evidence? He wasn't a suspect before, and it's not as if his shoeprints or DNA were on file with the police.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
It's all about Papadoc and musrooms:

Raffaele took a call from his Pa while he was watching Amelie with Amanda. Already they knew that Amanda didn't have to work and minutes later Raffaele would be told that he didn't have to drive to the station. He could turn off his mobile to get rid of Pa but he couldn't ditch the landline.

Let's decamp to the cottage. No-one can interupt us there

He and Amanda get the makings of a meal together including mushrooms(the same kind as found in a halfempty container in his fridge by the police a few days later) and take the lot along with a kitchen knife up to the cottage. On the way they meet Rudy in Piazza Grimana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
lone_wolfe wrote:
Can anyone explain the laws of the Italian court system in regards to the prosecution withholding evidence in a trial? In the US
this would be grounds for a mistrial is this possible in Italy?


Things are certainly different in Italy. Recall that this whole thing started with a 10,000 page prosecution-produced indictment document that was made available to lawyers for the defenses and the victim (who was, in fact, Meredith Kercher). There are a number of things in that document that, for one reason or another, will never be presented as evidence in the current trial. The point is this: everyone knows what is in that 10K page document and they make conscious decisions regarding what elements they will focus on. Some key elements may never be discussed in court because each side limits the evidence presented according to how they will present their case and how they plan to defend it. If both sides choose to ignore certain evidence it will never make an appearance in court, however, if the initial argument and approach don't work then parties may, in an appeal, try a different tack with some of that evidence that was not presented because 1. it didn't fit well with the original framing, 2. it was somewhat controversial, or 3. it is more difficult to prove. That's how it works in Italy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
All three arrive at the cottage and there's Meredith.

We''re gonna make a meal, try these mushrooms.

Giacomo's away. Why not test her.

Go on Rudy, give it a go.........

Miss perfect says she doesn't two time boys.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The real railroad job from hell?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
malcolm wrote:
Ironically they did too good of a job leaving Rudy's traces (11 visible bloody prints) while erasing their own, since it was his palmprint that led to his identification in the first place. How might the investigation have proceeded without that piece of evidence? He wasn't a suspect before, and it's not as if his shoeprints or DNA were on file with the police.


Are you saying you don't think Sollecito left any "bloody" footprints? Clearly, Sollecito was not overjoyed that Guede had been captured. If Sollecito were not somehow involved he should have been ecstatic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The real railroad job from hell?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Fly by Night wrote:
malcolm wrote:
Ironically they did too good of a job leaving Rudy's traces (11 visible bloody prints) while erasing their own, since it was his palmprint that led to his identification in the first place. How might the investigation have proceeded without that piece of evidence? He wasn't a suspect before, and it's not as if his shoeprints or DNA were on file with the police.


Are you saying you don't think Sollecito left any "bloody" footprints?

What makes you say that? Rinaldi stated that the number of Rudy's visible bloody prints was 11. The defense I'm sure would say that it was higher, at least 13.

I suppose they did too good of a job leaving Rudy's prints, but not quite a good enough job of erasing their own, even allowing for them not knowing about luminol.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Fly by Night wrote:
lone_wolfe wrote:
Can anyone explain the laws of the Italian court system in regards to the prosecution withholding evidence in a trial? In the US
this would be grounds for a mistrial is this possible in Italy?


Things are certainly different in Italy. Recall that this whole thing started with a 10,000 page prosecution-produced indictment document that was made available to lawyers for the defenses and the victim (who was, in fact, Meredith Kercher). There are a number of things in that document that, for one reason or another, will never be presented as evidence in the current trial. The point is this: everyone knows what is in that 10K page document and they make conscious decisions regarding what elements they will focus on. Some key elements may never be discussed in court because each side limits the evidence presented according to how they will present their case and how they plan to defend it. If both sides choose to ignore certain evidence it will never make an appearance in court, however, if the initial argument and approach don't work then parties may, in an appeal, try a different tack with some of that evidence that was not presented because 1. it didn't fit well with the original framing, 2. it was somewhat controversial, or 3. it is more difficult to prove. That's how it works in Italy.


I don't know how to explain this.....

It's like an enquiry, say into a plane crash....

The whole procedure and conduct is different. I only know from watching French trials which involve UK nationals.

I'll tell you what... I wouldn't fault their procedure, it's as good as what we've got. It just does it in a totally different way.

Think about this:

Tom Paine is English but he's an American hero. He wrote "The right's of man".

Napolean Bonaparte was so impressed he invited Tom Paine to help him draw up what has become "Napoleonic law".

Amanda Knox is subject to a procedure which resulted from the ideas of Tom Paine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The real railroad job from hell?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
malcolm wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
malcolm wrote:
Ironically they did too good of a job leaving Rudy's traces (11 visible bloody prints) while erasing their own, since it was his palmprint that led to his identification in the first place. How might the investigation have proceeded without that piece of evidence? He wasn't a suspect before, and it's not as if his shoeprints or DNA were on file with the police.


Are you saying you don't think Sollecito left any "bloody" footprints?

What makes you say that? Rinaldi stated that the number of Rudy's visible bloody prints was 11. The defense I'm sure would say that it was higher, at least 13.

I suppose they did too good of a job leaving Rudy's prints, but not quite a good enough job of erasing their own, even allowing for them not knowing about luminol.


Well, that and I'm saying that I believe that it was Sollecito's visible bloody footprint that was left on the bathmat which is very compelling evidence along with the bra clasp and luminol print attributable to him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The real railroad job from hell?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Fly by Night wrote:
malcolm wrote:
What makes you say that? Rinaldi stated that the number of Rudy's visible bloody prints was 11. The defense I'm sure would say that it was higher, at least 13.

I suppose they did too good of a job leaving Rudy's prints, but not quite a good enough job of erasing their own, even allowing for them not knowing about luminol.


Well, that and I'm saying that I believe that it was Sollecito's visible bloody footprint that was left on the bathmat which is very compelling evidence along with the bra clasp and luminol print attributable to him.

I haven't disagreed with anything you're saying, but it was irrelevant to the point I was making. What do you think those 2 extra prints are that the defense claims are Rudy's and the prosecution does not (and I do not either)?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The real railroad job from hell?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
malcolm wrote:
I haven't disagreed with anything you're saying, but it was irrelevant to the point I was making. What do you think those 2 extra prints are that the defense claims are Rudy's and the prosecution does not (and I do not either)?


I was disagreeing with your claim that Knox and Sollectio did "too good" of a job of cleaning. I don't think it was anything like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Brian S. wrote:
Amanda Knox is subject to a procedure which resulted from the ideas of Tom Paine.


Absolutely, and let's not ignore the fact that the American Revolution and the very concept of democracy as we know it in the USA today were inspired by other thinkers and leaders in that region of Europe, including Pasquale Paoli of the Corsican Republic (a short distance due west of Perguia). The American Revolutionaries did not invent our constitution out of thin air - they studied, copied, and revised most of it from what they observed in that region during the mid-18th century. All of Corsica knows this, but the Knox family clearly place themselves way above these indigents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For Kermit
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Professor Snape wrote:
This is for Kermit...
http://www.imageposter.com/storage/t164 ... C_0025.jpg

Hi Professor, well that's mighty nice of you .... I think ==>> That poor frog looks like he doesn't have much between the ears! I hope you're not insinuating anything. eee-)

And while these comments are obviously off-topic, they are of interest: the image that each one creates on the Internet can be surprising or amusing. Somebody from "another blog" once accused me of being pudgy and eating bags of Cheesies at the keyboard. No Cheesies for me! co-)

Although I'm kind of embarrassed, and I fear that it carbon dates me to Funnycat's age (oh no, I'm not that old), but Funnycat and I actually have something in common: for this weekend I've pulled out my very own old copy of "The Freedom of the Hills" (4th Edition) - sounds like the countdown for the Holy Hand Grenade: be careful, not the 5th Edition, nor the 3rd Edition. ((while on the topic of Monty Python, maybe, just maybe could our co-moderator Michael look a little like Michael Palin?))

Seriously, I have a copy from many many years ago, and I'll be going up to the Pyrenees over the weekend to practise some "manteling". Especially on 1) an overhang, 2) downward sloping ledge and 3) a narrow ledge above shoulder height. I'm sure I'll find one which meets the requirements.

If I find an appropriate ledge, I still don't think I'll be able to do it, even with the didactic instruction of Funnycat's and my old book, because I'm not much of a basketball player.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Fascinating historical tidbit about Thomas Paine. Cool. Thank you!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
If I find an appropriate ledge, I still don't think I'll be able to do it, even with the didactic instruction of Funnycat's and my old book, because I'm not much of a basketball player.

* * *
ROFL.

Brian S you're scaring me! I look forward to more. If we substitute Rudy for Patrick ("he wanted her....") I was hoping there would be a reason to bring the knife, so I read your scene with relief, but it wore off. I still wouldn't bring a knife from one kitchen to another with perfectly good knives already there. *thinks*...*thinks*...No, it would never occur to me to do so. is-) ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
bucketoftea wrote:
If I find an appropriate ledge, I still don't think I'll be able to do it, even with the didactic instruction of Funnycat's and my old book, because I'm not much of a basketball player.

* * *
ROFL.

Brian S you're scaring me! I look forward to more. If we substitute Rudy for Patrick ("he wanted her....") I was hoping there would be a reason to bring the knife, so I read your scene with relief, but it wore off. I still wouldn't bring a knife from one kitchen to another with perfectly good knives already there. *thinks*...*thinks*...No, it would never occur to me to do so. is-) ?



How about if it was your very favorite mushroom slicing knife? Does that thought help give your mind a bit of relief? I know for me, the thought of this being a planned murder just seems so much more evil. I can sort of rationalize a taunt gone wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am
Posts: 257
Location: Seattle
Brian S. wrote:
Remember, Filomena and Laura both testified that a day or two before Meredith's death the girls all had a dicussion about two timing boys. They described it as almost an argument between Meredith and Amanda. Meredith criticised Amanda for dating other boys while still in theory in a relationship with DJ. Even Patrick has made reference to this when he talked about his surprise that Amanda was dating Raffaele.
It's obvious that Amanda described to the girls, Patrick and others that her and DJ were still an item.

Meredith on the other hand had ended her relationship with her English boyfriend. She said she wanted to be free to enjoy the possibilities in Italy. She didn't feel it was right to keep her English boyfriend "on a string". She wanted to be a free agent.

The details of this argument between Meredith and Amanda are available to read in any of the press stories which detail the testimony given by Filomena and Laura. Suffice to say they suggest it was a real argument and Amanda may have even felt offended by the things which Meredith said.
To be coontinued....



Interesting thoughts, Brian. I was thinking about your theory and remembered Knox's flury
of calls to Meredith wondering why she was so intent on talking to her. Meredith, it seems, had no interest in talking with Knox as she did not return the calls.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 9
Brian S. wrote:
All three arrive at the cottage and there's Meredith.

We''re gonna make a meal, try these mushrooms.

Giacomo's away. Why not test her.

Go on Rudy, give it a go.........

Miss perfect says she doesn't two time boys.


I don't know. I find their argument over two timing to be an implausible reason for murder. It had to be more than that. AK clearly hated her enough to do this and I don't think that is reason enough.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Brian S. wrote:
All three arrive at the cottage and there's Meredith.

We''re gonna make a meal, try these mushrooms.

Giacomo's away. Why not test her.

Go on Rudy, give it a go.........

Miss perfect says she doesn't two time boys.


if I went with the multiple-murderer scenario, this is more the scene I can think up too.

All three just met up for some small time dope buying from Rudy, unplanned.
Rudy scum,thief tags along to sponge off them and try to get with Meredith hopefully.
Rudys already started showing up at the cottage by now, unannounced....he likes the cottage "crew", his new friends. The guys downstairs befriending him and partying with him. ( I bet they regret this!)

the mushroom was always an important detail (if true).

I don't buy the Migninni planned murder for that night at all, it wasn't planned for weeks for Nov 1, it wasn't a Satanic cult membership startegically planned event.

Raffaele had offered a ride to that lady Nov 1 evening, Amanda was supposed to work that night. can't agree the planned murder Satanic Orgy crap with cartoons, that took a while to warm Meredith up to sex.

I think it was fast and sloppy murder, and of course this is why I tend to think it was a Rudy burglary gone bad most of the time.

yes, maybe they went out to get some dope, ran into Rudy. Brought the knife and some mushrooms, play some guitar, party....things got out of control....AK and RS don't have the Nov 1 alibi 100% covered.

I think if anyone knows and isn't talking its Rudy. He speaks in half truths. He si the 100% guilty on both sides.

from him it gets foggy, did Raffaele stab or was it Amanda? Who did the cleanup, who was home who wasn't home, what was the motive?
and all the other contradicting testimonys.....there's not much contradiction about Rudy being guilty. No one argues he was there.

just 2 more cents...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
indie wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
If I find an appropriate ledge, I still don't think I'll be able to do it, even with the didactic instruction of Funnycat's and my old book, because I'm not much of a basketball player.

* * *
ROFL.

Brian S you're scaring me! I look forward to more. If we substitute Rudy for Patrick ("he wanted her....") I was hoping there would be a reason to bring the knife, so I read your scene with relief, but it wore off. I still wouldn't bring a knife from one kitchen to another with perfectly good knives already there. *thinks*...*thinks*...No, it would never occur to me to do so. is-) ?



How about if it was your very favorite mushroom slicing knife? Does that thought help give your mind a bit of relief? I know for me, the thought of this being a planned murder just seems so much more evil. I can sort of rationalize a taunt gone wrong.


No. It isn't a possibility that it was taken just to chop mushrooms. Even if it makes it harder to believe, I just don't buy them taking the knife over for that purpose. I find the premed. side of it very difficult to believe however. Just implausible.

I think maybe RS had cooked there before maybe, and with his fetish, wasn't happy with the knives available to him there. May have thought it an idea to take one over there with him at some point. Ok, maybe it WAS that night, but not with premeditated murder intent. This was a horrible screaming mess, a car-crash of a night...no-one planned it. If they had they'd have planned a better get out. It seem plausible to me that RS had found the knives in the house not up to the mark, been irritated with them. People with knife fetishes, what is it? Is it the fact that the knives are sharp? The ease with which they can slice and cut, their sharpness? Or is an invisible feeling of safety , they feel more powerful knowing they have a knife on them? He carried them a lot, I believe. All the time. What did he use them for? Those knives he carried? What was behind that need? He felt safer. I think so. But he played with them too. Tested what they could do. He didn't like the knives at AKs. He had a REALLY good knife, she'd see how good it was to cut with.

The rest....we can only speculate...Who knows. Am going to look at knife fetishism...

Bard

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm
Posts: 71
I'm curious how this idea of a prosecution appeal and fresh trial with different eveidence works in practice. A question for the legal brains: In the event of an aquittal and a prosecution appeal are the defendents released on bail or do they get unconditional release until the merits of the appeal are argued? If they get out of prison do the original grounds for refusing AK bail get to be argued again? The prosecution would surely want to stop her from skipping home to Seattle. The PR machine would go into overdrive to prevent extradition back again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2255
The Bard wrote:
I find the premed. side of it very difficult to believe however. Just implausible


Why is it implausible that Meredith's murder was premeditated?

Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured with a knife, strangled until her hyoid bone was broken and the kitchen knife was plunged through her neck with such force it left a huge, gaping hole. There were 47 separate wounds on Meredith's body. This was a prolonged and exceptionally brutal attack.

Are you arguing that Meredith's murder wasn't premeditated because her killers aren't capable of such evil?

Meredith's last half an hour was beyond hell on earth. Her killers are maniacs. They are not normal human beings. It's pointless trying to impose your logic on them. They don't think like you do. They don't share your compassion, empathy or ethics. You should never forget that. You shouldn't exclude the possibility that Meredith's murder was premeditated just because such a scenario is beyond your comprehension.


Last edited by The Machine on Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 138
Location: UK
Maybe someone who is more knowledgable about forensics and DNA can help me with this question.

The knife was cleaned with bleach, to the point where only a tiny amount of Meredith's DNA was discovered on the blade. However, there was clearly enough of Knox's DNA on the handle that it is undisputed by the defense. If it was so thoroughly cleaned with the bleach, you would think that the amount of Knox's DNA would be equally tiny or even totally lost.

I take this as a sign that the knife was cleaned and scrubbed with the bleach until they were satisfied that it was 'clean' (although a tiny amount of Meredith's DNA remained). Then maybe Amanda handled the knife to consign it to its place at RS's house and some DNA transfered to the knife at that point (from where she had been dealing with the blood on her ears?). This would mean that it was not necessarily Knox who used the knife during the attack on Meredith, it could have been RS or RG ... I would have thought that RS would be more likely, with his strange knife fetish.

What do you think?


Last edited by BellaDonna on Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 217
Maybe "two-timing boys" wasn't enough of a reason for murder, but clearly there were other serious differences (Meredith taking Amanda to task for bringing strange guys into the house, not doing her share of the cleaning, not flushing the toilet, having the condoms and vibrator in the bathroom for all to see. etc) and, if Meredith actually called her a "drugged-up tart" and accused her of stealing the rent money as Rudy claims, the fight could have escalated significantly. And as others have noted, Amanda probably envied Meredith quite a lot, and resented her--I think she called her a goody-two shoes, which doesn't indicate to me that she liked Meredith very much. I wouldn't be surprised if Rudy had been promised a little help with fulfilling his desire for Meredith in exchange for drugs, either.

I don't think Rudy is innocent of all of it, he clearly attacked her sexually and he left her to die rather than trying to get help for her, but it wouldn't surprise me if the knife wounds actually occurred while he was in the bathroom. (Possibly he was there because things were getting out of control and he was really frightened.) And I don't think Rudy came up with "black man found, black man guilty" (to paraphrase, I don't remember the actual quote). That sounds just like what a rather spoiled, upper-class kid whose old man says money can make water run uphill, would think and say. I remember reading something just before the murder about the racial tensions in Italy caused by all of the immigration. And in fact, this statement might have been a not-so-delicate way for Raffaele to tell Rudy he'd better keep his mouth shut--who'd believe him anyway.

I don't know whether the clean-up was supposed to leave actual identifying evidence that Rudy, specifically, had been there--maybe it was just left that way to indicate a complete outsider had killed her. But, quite possibly, AK and RS felt that if a black-man were identified, no one would believe him (as indeed Micheli did not) and would not look further for additional suspects. Possibly Rudy was involved in this, by AK and RS just to give them an out--I hate to think this was premeditated, but the knife was there and Rudy was involved for some reason. Meredith doesn't seem the type to get willingly involved in a four-way sexual encounter. Maybe Amanda thought that they could cut Meredith down to size by helping Rudy rape her--then it would be three to one that it was consensual, or if that didn't work, Rudy could be the fall guy. But of course, Meredith fought and it became obvious they couldn't leave her alive.

Maybe Amanda coyly accused Patrick, when it seemed that the police were looking hard at her and Rafaelle, to point them toward a black man, that is to say, Rudy. Certainly, their defense teams would like to have everyone believe that Rudy is the only guilty person (or if not just him, he and one of his friends) definitely not the lily-white Amanda and Rafaelle.


Last edited by beans on Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
The Bard wrote:
indie wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
If I find an appropriate ledge, I still don't think I'll be able to do it, even with the didactic instruction of Funnycat's and my old book, because I'm not much of a basketball player.

* * *
ROFL.

Brian S you're scaring me! I look forward to more. If we substitute Rudy for Patrick ("he wanted her....") I was hoping there would be a reason to bring the knife, so I read your scene with relief, but it wore off. I still wouldn't bring a knife from one kitchen to another with perfectly good knives already there. *thinks*...*thinks*...No, it would never occur to me to do so. is-) ?



How about if it was your very favorite mushroom slicing knife? Does that thought help give your mind a bit of relief? I know for me, the thought of this being a planned murder just seems so much more evil. I can sort of rationalize a taunt gone wrong.



No. It isn't a possibility that it was taken just to chop mushrooms. Even if it makes it harder to believe, I just don't buy them taking the knife over for that purpose. I find the premed. side of it very difficult to believe however. Just implausible.

I think maybe RS had cooked there before maybe, and with his fetish, wasn't happy with the knives available to him there. May have thought it an idea to take one over there with him at some point. Ok, maybe it WAS that night, but not with premeditated murder intent. This was a horrible screaming mess, a car-crash of a night...no-one planned it. If they had they'd have planned a better get out. It seem plausible to me that RS had found the knives in the house not up to the mark, been irritated with them. People with knife fetishes, what is it? Is it the fact that the knives are sharp? The ease with which they can slice and cut, their sharpness? Or is an invisible feeling of safety , they feel more powerful knowing they have a knife on them? He carried them a lot, I believe. All the time. What did he use them for? Those knives he carried? What was behind that need? He felt safer. I think so. But he played with them too. Tested what they could do. He didn't like the knives at AKs. He had a REALLY good knife, she'd see how good it was to cut with.

The rest....we can only speculate...Who knows. Am going to look at knife fetishism...

Bard



Bard,
I am not sure if I am reading your post correctly but in a way you are supporting the possibility that Raffaele brought the knife over there not with the intent to murder but because they are part of his psyche. That was my point too, Raffaele is such a knife nut only "HIS" prized knife could handle the snack or dinner prep.



And Brian, thanks for always pushing us to think in different ways. You bring so much to the discussion table.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2255
BellaDonna wrote:
Maybe someone who is more knowledgable about forensics and DNA can help me with this question.

The knife was cleaned with bleach, to the point where only a tiny amount of Meredith's DNA was discovered on the blade. However, there was clearly enough of Knox's DNA on the handle that it is undisputed by the defense. If it was so thoroughly cleaned with the bleach, you would think that the amount of Knox's DNA would be equally tiny or even totally lost.

I take this as a sign that the knife was cleaned and scrubbed with the bleach until they were satisfied that it was 'clean' (although a tiny amount of Meredith's DNA remained). Then maybe Amanda handled the knife to consign it to its place at RS's house and some DNA transfered to the knife at that point (from where she had been dealing with the blood on her ears?). This would mean that it was not necessarily Knox who used the knife during the attack on Meredith, it could have been RS or RG ...

What do you think?


Hi BellaDonna,

I'm fairly certain that Amanda Knox's DNA was caught in a groove on the handle. Also bear in mind that it's harder to clean the handle of knife as vigorously as the blade.

Rudy Guede sexually assaulted Meredith, so I think it's highly unlikely that he also inflicted the fatal wound. Besides, the double DNA knife came from Sollecito's apartment, which indicates that Knox or Sollecito transported it to the cottage and used it to stab Meredith. The knife was then transported back to Sollecito's cottage and cleaned.

I don't think that Knox and Sollecito would have intentionally left traces of Guede at the cottage, but would have vigorously cleaned the murder weapon, if it did contain his DNA.

The police and prosecutors believe that Knox inflicted the fatal wound. The double DNA knife evidence strongly supports their belief. I think Knox's shaking fits at the police station and at the cottage are telling. It seems the horror of what she had done dawned upon.

Knox's behaviour at the police station is indicative of someone seriously disturbed and traumatised by what they had done: shaking fits, hitting herself repeatedly on the head, crying and shouting out, turning carthweels and doing the splits. Her writings from that night are bizarre; rambling and childlike. She seems completely disconnected from reality.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 625
This part of the Newsweek article stuck out for me and maybe it's bee-cause I missed it when it happened.

"Sollecito's chief forensic consultant walked away from the case (and stuck lawyers with a 50,000 euro bill) in May because he disagreed with the defense strategy."

As far as courtroom attire goes, Deanna showing up in red, white and blue sure doesn't surprise me as she has been playing the "they hate her because she's American" card right from the first interview. I can almost hear Lee Greenwood singing in my head whenever I see her and yes, it's quite painful. But hotpants? Surely that's a mistake or a misinterpretation or something. Where I come from, hotpants allow for the lower portion of your cheeks to show. I'm hoping she was just wearing shorts that were a little, well, short. I know some of the photos I've seen of the dark-haired policewoman (can't remember her name), she dresses in what could be considered sexy, but still very classy. There's a not-so-fine line between classy and that other word. I think I'll treat this like the yoga/cartwheel thing. If a former travel and food blogger from Seattle can re-write history, why can't I?

Doctor, my eyes............................................................................................................


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The Bard wrote:
No. It isn't a possibility that it was taken just to chop mushrooms. Even if it makes it harder to believe, I just don't buy them taking the knife over for that purpose. I find the premed. side of it very difficult to believe however. Just implausible.


Yeah, I kind of go the middle way...that the knife was taken to the cottage, not to murder...but rather for some joke, some prank, some caper. The caper didn't go as planned, as the plan was naive in the first place. It blew up in their faces and they had to react. Then things escalated. From that point, we are in the Twilight Zone of FBN's 'Perfect Storm'. Suddenly what is happening becomes unreal and as a result the reactions to deal with it become unreal. That removes limits and results in the inhumane and poor Meredith's brutal death.

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2255
Michael wrote:
Yeah, I kind of go the middle way...that the knife was taken to the cottage,not to murder...but rather for some joke, some prank, some caper. The caper didn't go as planned, as the plan was naive in the first place. It blew up in their faces and they had to react. Then things escalated. From that point, we are in the Twilight Zone of FBN's 'Perfect Storm'. Suddenly what is happening becomes unreal and as a result the reactions to deal with it become unreal. That removes limits and results in the inhumane and poor Meredith's brutal death.


Hi Michael,

I can't reconcile knives and sexual assault with the words joke, prank or caper. What kind of joke do you think they had in mind?

I can't ignore the cruelty and the sadistic nature of Meredith's murder either. The "game that went wrong" or "prank that went too far" scenarios don't account for the level of violence that was inflicted upon Meredith that night.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:19 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
BellaDonna wrote:
Maybe someone who is more knowledgable about forensics and DNA can help me with this question.

The knife was cleaned with bleach, to the point where only a tiny amount of Meredith's DNA was discovered on the blade. However, there was clearly enough of Knox's DNA on the handle that it is undisputed by the defense. If it was so thoroughly cleaned with the bleach, you would think that the amount of Knox's DNA would be equally tiny or even totally lost.

I take this as a sign that the knife was cleaned and scrubbed with the bleach until they were satisfied that it was 'clean' (although a tiny amount of Meredith's DNA remained). Then maybe Amanda handled the knife to consign it to its place at RS's house and some DNA transfered to the knife at that point (from where she had been dealing with the blood on her ears?). This would mean that it was not necessarily Knox who used the knife during the attack on Meredith, it could have been RS or RG ... I would have thought that RS would be more likely, with his strange knife fetish.

What do you think?


Well, not if one is holding the knife by the handle while cleaning the blade. That would screen that handle somewhat.

But, it's not just the bleach thing going on with that knife. It was covered in scratches and striations showing someone had scrubbed at it with something abrasive. Now, the normal things a knife such as that cuts in the kitchen wouldn't require cleaning with something like a wire brush.

This is why Stefanoni saw a red flag with that knife and changed the sensitivity of the machine. To her, it told a clear story that there was something on the knife that someone was desperate to hide. Stefanoni wanted to know what that was. She found it.

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Yeah, I kind of go the middle way...that the knife was taken to the cottage,not to murder...but rather for some joke, some prank, some caper. The caper didn't go as planned, as the plan was naive in the first place. It blew up in their faces and they had to react. Then things escalated. From that point, we are in the Twilight Zone of FBN's 'Perfect Storm'. Suddenly what is happening becomes unreal and as a result the reactions to deal with it become unreal. That removes limits and results in the inhumane and poor Meredith's brutal death.


Hi Michael,

I can't reconcile knives and sexual assault with the words joke, prank or caper. What kind of joke do you think they had in mind?

I can't ignore the cruelty and the sadistic nature of Meredith's murder either. The "game that went wrong" or "prank that went too far" scenarios don't account for the level of violence that was inflicted upon Meredith that night.


Alright TM, put the word 'nasty' in front of each term then.

That's what I meant. Many jokes and pranks can be exceedingly nasty and cruel.

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 9
The Machine wrote:
I can't reconcile knives and sexual assault with the words joke, prank or caper. What kind of joke do you think they had in mind?

I can't ignore the cruelty and the sadistic nature of Meredith's murder either. The "game that went wrong" or "prank that went too far" scenarios don't account for the level of violence that was inflicted upon Meredith that night.


I agree. The whole sex game gone wrong scenario doesn't work for me. I think it was a build up that led to intense hatred and jealousy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 138
Location: UK
The Machine wrote:
Knox's behaviour at the police station is indicative of someone seriously disturbed and traumatised by what they had done: shaking fits, hitting herself repeatedly on the head, crying and shouting out, turning carthweels and doing the splits. Her writings from that night are bizarre; rambling and childlike. She seems completely disconnected from reality.


I find RS's general demeanour equally troubling. He seems so cold and calculating. :twisted:

Also, I can't find information on this anywhere - Do the prosecution believe that the attack was confined to Meredith's room? I know the blood evidence suggested that the fatal blow was struck in her bedroom. It was just this phrase from RS that struck me. "the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around". Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that suggest that maybe some of the more 'minor' attacks with the knife could have occured in the bathroom? Maybe Meredith ran to the safety of her room to try and lock the door (screaming?) but didn't make it there in time to lock herself in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Yeah, I kind of go the middle way...that the knife was taken to the cottage,not to murder...but rather for some joke, some prank, some caper. The caper didn't go as planned, as the plan was naive in the first place. It blew up in their faces and they had to react. Then things escalated. From that point, we are in the Twilight Zone of FBN's 'Perfect Storm'. Suddenly what is happening becomes unreal and as a result the reactions to deal with it become unreal. That removes limits and results in the inhumane and poor Meredith's brutal death.


Hi Michael,

I can't reconcile knives and sexual assault with the words joke, prank or caper. What kind of joke do you think they had in mind?

I can't ignore the cruelty and the sadistic nature of Meredith's murder either. The "game that went wrong" or "prank that went too far" scenarios don't account for the level of violence that was inflicted upon Meredith that night.


Alright TM, put the word 'nasty' in front of each term then.

That's what I meant. Many jokes and pranks can be exceedingly nasty and cruel.


I don't know about this, but I can testify to the fact that dope can take you to wierd old places that are not of this world. I remember way way back when I was a little Bard of seventeen or eighteen, and being so out of it one night that I became convinced that my boyfriend (now husband) was going to murder me. I was so convinced of this that I could only perceive my surroundings in the flat we shared in terms of 'Scene of crime' photos. I would not let him walk behind me to the kitchen as I thought he was going to stab me. I am sure many of us have had similar bad nights, my point being that the most innocent night can take on a hellish, nightmarish quality if you are sufficiently off your head. Should something have happened that night, with someone else in the flat? To me, then, I would not really have been so surprised, let alone act normally (call the police, etc). I know that may sound wierd, but I think I was off my head enough in terms of perception of reality, that almost nothing would have seemed strange. If AK had been like that, if RS had been disinhibited, and it all goes......

Hell, I don't know what I would have done. Would I have done the right thing? I really don't know, hand on heart. I was so 'incapacitated' I could quite legitimately argued diminished responsibility.

Interesting debate today on Radio 4 about 'mental capacity' re medical ethics. Don't know if anyone else heard it. Joan Bakewell discussing a case with some eminent doctors. The issue was one of mental capacity: was someone with such a morbid fear of surgery that they could not go through with life saving operation to remove cancerous kidney 'mentally capable of making the right decision'. It made me think about altered states of mind, which is what they were arguing the phobia was creating. Is murder, or complicity in murder or coverup, as culpable when the individual is under the influence of drugs. Do they have the 'mental capacity' (legal term) to decide that what they are doing is wrong?

At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest: Discuss!

_________________


Last edited by The Bard on Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
The Machine wrote:
The Bard wrote:
I find the premed. side of it very difficult to believe however. Just implausible


Why is it implausible that Meredith's murder was premeditated?

Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured with a knife, strangled until her hyoid bone was broken and the kitchen knife was plunged through her neck with such force it left a huge, gaping hole. There were 47 separate wounds on Meredith's body. This was a prolonged and exceptionally brutal attack.

Are you arguing that Meredith's murder wasn't premeditated because her killers aren't capable of such evil?

Meredith's last half an hour was beyond hell on earth. Her killers are maniacs. They are not normal human beings. It's pointless trying to impose your logic on them. They don't think like you do. They don't share your compassion, empathy or ethics. You should never forget that. You shouldn't exclude the possibility that Meredith's murder was premeditated just because such a scenario is beyond your comprehension.



No, I am not arguing that her killers aren't capable of such evil, as the evidence is that they are! I am not imposing my logic upon them, I just find the imagined scenario implausible. If they had known each other for longer, had a more sophisticated sexual history, had had time to recognise the depravity in each other...then maybe. But it was two weeks FFS. The sort of Hindley/Bradey relationship you are hinting at here requires a huge amount of control and trust to build up. That doesn't happen over night I suggest. I am not arguing that the Perfect Storm never happened. I just don't see them as that kind of killer, I think it is more like was just suggested, something that went wrong. I don't even see it as a premeditated prank. More of a stoned **** up really. With Guede as the catalyst. I think AK and RS might have found their middle-class asses out of their depth with Mr Guede somehow. But somehow I don't even see it as premed. then. I think she started screaming and she needed to be silenced. We have no idea how 'long' the attack went on, whether it was 'sustained', do we?

Just speaking what I think Machine. Not trying to get anyone orf the hook!

_________________


Last edited by The Bard on Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The Bard wrote:
If they had known each other for longer, had a more sophisticated sexual history, had had time to recognise the depravity in each other...then maybe. But it was two weeks FFS. The sort of Hindley/Bradey relationship you are hinting at hear requires a huge amount of control and trust to build up.


Actually, Brady and Hindley had only been together for about two weeks before their first murder. That case in fact bears many resemblances to this one. Hindley and Brady were the same age. Also, in the case of Hindley, once arrested, none of the friends and family could believe she was involved. She was from a strong upstanding family and she was highly thought of in her home town. She went from that to murder within two weeks. The difference was of course, their primary targets were children and they didn't get caught until after multiple murders. They kept a cassette tape recording of little Lesley Anne Downe begging for her life and it was never heard publicly for years (although it was heard in the trial). A few years ago on a documentary it was aired for the first time and I happened to watch it at the time. It was heartbreaking hearing this little girl pleading for her mummy and the memory of it upsets me to this day.

But, the thing is, they also kept trophys ( the tape, the photos of Hindley near to where they'd burried the bodies etc,). That may have been why the knife was kept after Meredith's murder.

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
If they had known each other for longer, had a more sophisticated sexual history, had had time to recognise the depravity in each other...then maybe. But it was two weeks FFS. The sort of Hindley/Bradey relationship you are hinting at hear requires a huge amount of control and trust to build up.


Actually, Brady and Hindley had only been together for about two weeks before their first murder. That case in fact bears many resemblances to this one. Hindley and Brady were the same age. Also, in the case of Hindley, once arrested, none of the friends and family could believe she was involved. She was from a strong upstanding family and she was highly thought of in her home town. She went from that to murder within two weeks. The difference was of course, their primary targets were children and they didn't get caught until after multiple murders. They kept a cassette tape recording of little Lesley Anne Downe begging for her life and it was never heard publicly for years (although it was heard in the trial). A few years ago on a documentary it was aired for the first time and I happened to watch it at the time. It was heartbreaking hearing this little girl pleading for her mummy and the memory of it upsets me to this day.

But, the thing is, they also kept trophys ( the tape, the photos of Hindley near to where they'd burried the bodies etc,). That may have been why the knife was kept after Meredith's murder.



Maaaaan. I feel sick reading this.

Now I did NOT KNOW they had been together for that short a time. I thought it had been longer. I know Hindley was obsessed with Brady. But I did not know it was only two weeks.

You know, that crime, amongst all the crimes in living memory, will never fade. The tape should never have been played in my view. What purpose could it serve? Why play it? If we had a tape of anyone else dying, would it be played? I don't think so. But a child has no power, and even in death, no right to dignity it seems to some. I cannot even think about it or discuss it Michael. I literally feel nauseous.

But VERY interesting info on the length of the relationship. The case is salutary for many reasons.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For Kermit
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Kermit wrote:
...Funnycat and I actually have something in common: for this weekend I've pulled out my very own old copy of "The Freedom of the Hills" (4th Edition) - sounds like the countdown for the Holy Hand Grenade: be careful, not the 5th Edition, nor the 3rd Edition. ((while on the topic of Monty Python, maybe, just maybe could our co-moderator Michael look a little like Michael Palin?))

Seriously, I have a copy from many many years ago, and I'll be going up to the Pyrenees over the weekend to practise some "manteling". Especially on 1) an overhang, 2) downward sloping ledge and 3) a narrow ledge above shoulder height. I'm sure I'll find one which meets the requirements.

If I find an appropriate ledge, I still don't think I'll be able to do it, even with the didactic instruction of Funnycat's and my old book, because I'm not much of a basketball player.


Well, the 4th edition came out in 1982 and the 5th came out in 1992. While Funnycat surely bought her copy hot of the press - you, Kermit, could claim that you bought yours as a very smart shopper in early 1992, at a discount in the closeout bin at the Mountaineers bookstore just before Edition 5 went on sale.

Let's see - if you were in your mid 20s in 1992 (like many newbie one-time-only climbers tend to be) that makes you about 40 years old today Kermit. Not bad. But be careful out there if you're relying on that book, Kermit - I hear the upcoming 8th edition has a lot of apologies and changes in it...

By the way, I just watched the Eiger Sanction with Clint Eastwood which came out in 1975 - just a year after the 3rd edition of Freedom of the Hills was published. That movie is valuable for its history of climbing equipment and technique all on its own. While I didn't see any examples of mantleling there were a lot of tough guys belaying each other, using bad climbing technique, relying on poorly set anchors, causing rock falls, and finally falling to their deaths. For these reasons alone, I don't think anyone who started out with the 3rd edition is actually climbing anymore.

But those who survived have all advanced to the outstanding first edition of The Freedom of the Rocking Chair and I just happened to see the Cook and her sister eyeballing that book at the Bellevue Barnes and Noble last weekend. Then, I saw Funnycat go on watch while the Cook secretly cleared off a shelf in the cookbook section and in place of the books put up a large placard advertising presale information for signed copies of her upcoming book.
be-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ARMY SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Fly by Night wrote:
But be careful out there if you're relying on that book, Kermit - I hear the upcoming 8th edition has a lot of apologies and changes in it...

Don't tell me that my Sticht plate is a actually a killer ... I swear by it.

Fly by Night wrote:
I just happened to see the Cook and her sister eyeballing that book at the Bellevue Barnes and Noble last weekend. Then, I saw Funnycat go on watch while the Cook secretly cleared off a shelf in the cookbook section and in place of the books put up a large placard advertising presale information for signed copies of her upcoming book.

Does she still claim that she understands how Meredith's family feels, because she too lost a family member? Or does she admit that her book is only about Amanda?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Sorry for the OT
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
Oh my goodness guys count me in as a 4th edition Freedom of the Hills owner. Sadly FBN I did buy in the 80s so I guess you could say I'm in the 10 + 40 yr. range. I wasn't a mountaineer but a canoeist back in the day and mainly used that book for the equipment info. Path of the Paddle however is my favorite "how to" book of all time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am
Posts: 72
I think Brian S is onto something! The issue of motive has bugged me since day one. RG's motive is easy to understand (rejection by MK, fear of rape charges), but why would AK and RS want to commit murder? And what common goal do they share with RG?

Brian S provided some plausible answers to these questions, at least for me. Now I believe that if MK accused AK of being a slut or whatever a few days earlier, I can totally imagine that AK would want to take revenge by showing that MK was one too. And she could do that by arranging a rendez-vous between MK and RG while MK's boyfriend from downstairs was out of town. So I think AK convinced RG that MK liked him, with assistance from RS, and told RG to come over to the cottage. RG was likely receptive to this idea, since he admittedly found MK attractive.

So then RG shows up at the cottage that night expecting some easy action. But MK spurned his advances, and he ends up raping her. AK and RS probably did not intend for their little prank to go this far, but it did. And now MK is freaking out, discovers that she was set up, and threatens to call the police on all three of them. And that's why they kill her.

Pure Agatha Christie! :lol:


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Michael wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
Yeah, I kind of go the middle way...that the knife was taken to the cottage,not to murder...but rather for some joke, some prank, some caper. The caper didn't go as planned, as the plan was naive in the first place. It blew up in their faces and they had to react. Then things escalated. From that point, we are in the Twilight Zone of FBN's 'Perfect Storm'. Suddenly what is happening becomes unreal and as a result the reactions to deal with it become unreal. That removes limits and results in the inhumane and poor Meredith's brutal death.


Hi Michael,

I can't reconcile knives and sexual assault with the words joke, prank or caper. What kind of joke do you think they had in mind?

I can't ignore the cruelty and the sadistic nature of Meredith's murder either. The "game that went wrong" or "prank that went too far" scenarios don't account for the level of violence that was inflicted upon Meredith that night.


Alright TM, put the word 'nasty' in front of each term then.

That's what I meant. Many jokes and pranks can be exceedingly nasty and cruel.




The knife evidence definitely suggests premeditation, but some of us have had difficulty in envisioning the planning and scheming of such a cold blooded murder. One of the reasons is when we hear "sex game" or "cruel prank" we tend to think of something that has a definite order and plan, some rules, a strategy, (as any game would: i.e., "first you do this, then we both make sure that, and then you ask her this...." And some people can't picture AK and RS doing that without one of them saying: "Woahhhhhh, time out! We have gotta stop this insane talk!"

While I think that there was premeditation to do harm, I sense the premeditation of RS and AK was PRESENT but nonspecific, and without details.

Here's how I see it: AK and RS had not known each other for a short period of time. However, they both described their relationship as intense. I'm certain that AK began confiding to RS about the ongoing friction in
the house. I'm sure Amanda's version emphasized that Meredith was the "source" of that friction. Meredith was starting to be a real (excuse the expression) killjoy who might put a damper, if not an end to all their fun and their self-indulgent plans to have all kinds of EXTREME EXPERIENCES (to borrow an RS phrase) no matter what the consequences, or feelings of others.

In their drug-induced haze, having no real moral compass, the adrenalin was flowing, and the very idea of using the knife to intimidate Meredith became a shared and exciting obsession.

"That bitch needs to be taught a lesson."either one of them could have said, while brandishing the knife. With the other agreeing "Yeahhhhh!" Without either of the two necessarily specifying anything. Of course, if you're thinking/threatening malice with a weapon, and don't have a "plan B" to make sure no one gets killed...someone might well be killed.

I doubt they went into excruciating detail about the clean-up or anything besides showing brutal force against Meredith to intimidate and punish her.
It was an "understood thing" between the two. They were high on drugs and their fantasies and adrenalin. And they were going to settle the score. So the knife was coming to the cottage and if and when Meredith messed with them, they would swiftly show her who was in charge.. Inevitably, there was a confrontation, and the premeditated desire materialized into murder.

So, I'm of the opinion that the killing wasn't necessarily discussed in excruciating detail, but there was premeditation to do something cruel to Meredith, up to and including murder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Is there any evidence that they were high on anything stronger than pot? Unless they were smoking diesel I just don't see how it could have such an effect on them that would push them into a violent frenzy. Grass tends to mellow people out. Even alcohol would better explain the violence. (OTOH if it were diesel then I could totally understand the crime.)

This is starting to sound like Fatal Vision. I'm expecting Rudy to claim that Amanda said, "Acid is groovy."


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm
Posts: 236
Location: San Francisco
Michael said:

But, it's not just the bleach thing going on with that knife. It was covered in scratches and striations showing someone had scrubbed at it with something abrasive. Now, the normal things a knife such as that cuts in the kitchen wouldn't require cleaning with something like a wire brush.

This is why Stefanoni saw a red flag with that knife and changed the sensitivity of the machine. To her, it told a clear story that there was something on the knife that someone was desperate to hide. Stefanoni wanted to know what that was. She found it.[/quote]



I think this is so important and so significant--and yet it's kind of a hard thing to make part of the "evidence" supporting the DD knife. The investigator going through RS's kitchen drawer said that the knife stood out amongst everything else in the drawer because it was so highly polished it "looked important." I'm sure AK and RS believed they (whichever one cleaned it) had gotten every trace of anything off that knife and that putting it back in the drawer where it had come from was the smart and safe thing to do (still pretty daft thinking though...). But the police ID'd it immediately.

Didi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:55 am
Posts: 23
With regards to the knife transporting itself to the cottage - In one of Amanda's statements (could have been her email home) didn't she state that the last time she saw Meredith was around lunch time when she was waiting for RS at the cottage where they ate lunch together? Couldn't this have been the time the mushrooms and knife and whatever else they had with their pasta arrived at the cottage? Raffaele was trying to impress his new 'love' and made her lunch, this could explain the mushrooms and perhaps he packed up some ingredients from his place and came over to cook for Amanda and brought his usual knife to prepare the meal. The knife and mushrooms could have been at the cottage all day.
I had a guy do this many years ago all to make a good impression, he brought absolutely everything with him including his favourite knife, cutting board, bottle opener and wine glasses and even his pepper mill all of which I had in my home but that wasn't the point- very charming, all I had to do was sit there and watch him dazzle me with his cooking prowess :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: LOCKING THREAD!
PostPosted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:07 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15904
Location: England
Highscores: 113
picture of a pumpkin
This topic has been locked by a Moderator
Reason: :!: I am now locking this thread. Please continue the discussion in the new main discussion thread : XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -

Thank You

Michael

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

"Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I was just a fuckin visa to
you."
~ Kelsey Kay to Raffaele Sollecito


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 [ 2441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report: English Translation     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher 


24,433,888 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group