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

Last visit was: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:11 am It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:11 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 2441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm
Posts: 14
beans wrote:
Hi ks1,

From Brian S.'s post of June13 or 14:

Quote:
The broken down car did not come out of the car park else its owners would have been traced from it's registration plate as were all the others by December.

I don't know in which direction it was facing - out of town, towards the cottage or facing towards Piazza Grimana. I'll give you a guess - it was facing towards Piazza Grimana and had broken down when it stopped at the junction by the bins. Either way, it's occupants didn't see anything untoward but I suspect they were well occupied with their own problems at the time.

Kokomani says he was stopped back where the vegetation came over the car park wall, very near the cottage. His headlights would have blinded the scene behind the front of Kokomani's car if the occupants of the broken down car looked in that direction and people don't make a habit of looking into car headlights anyway.

I don't believe the breakdown truck was there at the time, I believe that the car had only just broken down. This places the time at just after 10:30pm. Kokomani makes no mention of the breakdown truck in his testimony, just the broken down car.


I think I've read somewhere that the folks with the broken down car had a young child with them. If the child were anything like mine when young, they might have had a very upset kid to deal with to add to the tension of being away from home (they were from Rome) late at night with a broken down car.

On a different subject, I think 23pixiep is right on the money when she says Amanda and Raffaele have lent credence to a number of things by giving rather detailed phony-sounding explanations.

Wouldn't having Kokomani testify to the location of that vehicle in his testimony and having the vehicle owners also testify to the location have made a huge difference in his credibility or lack thereof? As to the statement that the headlights would have blinded the scene, I'm not so sure. I guess my confusion would be cleared up by knowing which way both vehicles were headed, I thought that he had to go around the broken down vehicle, and based on that assumption, his headlights would have also illuminated the scene for them. As to being distracted by a young child, most people alone in a broken down vehicle away from home would be even more aware of what was going on around them, and even more observant in my opinion. I have been in that situation a few times and was always very nervous and aware of every vehicle that passed as you never know who might stop and offer assistance, or, who might stop and be a threat to you.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Wow!
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Yummi, thank you! I'm like in front of dessert here. I'm going to compare every word of your version with mine and pick up all the corrections and little legal bits I didn't quite understand. After working so hard on this, it is frustrating when there are some fuzzy bits, so I'm very grateful to you. I'll incorporate it into the final product. Most interesting! Ha!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Question for all the legal types out there
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
I did (mea culpa) translate "inutilizzabile" by "inadmissible" each and every time throughout the discussion. But the reason I did this was because "such-and-such is inadmissible as evidence" sounded reasonably correct to my (un-legally-trained) ear, and "this is unusable as evidence" did not.

Yummi is making the point that the documents are all present in the dossier, but the lawyers may not ask questions about them under certain circumstances (for instance, using them against Amanda). What would the right English translation have been? Does
"unusable" exist?

eek-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
such-and-such is inadmissible as evidence" sounded reasonably correct to my (un-legally-trained) ear, and "this is unusable as evidence" did not.


And you are right, in fact it is not reasonably correct.
In this case, we are talking of things that are "unusable for putting questions", but they are perfectly admissible as evidence (in the charge of slander).
On what concerns the charge of murder, they are not usable as "evidence" in the sense that they are void as a confession, because in the Italian system a wintess cannot incriminate himself. But they can be considered as a clue, if you have to make an assessment about why she accused another person.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:51 am
Posts: 64
Location: U.S. Nebraska
[/quote]


Hi machine, i know that you are extremly well informed about this case and I would never
try to argue or reason with you about how the facts, details and testimonies fit into the
puzzle. But, let's imagine you just killed somebody: Could you calmly sit on a park bench,
observing the house where the crime took place as if nothing unusual happened and wait
for the right moment to go back and remove your traces? I would surely freak out and would
not be able to act "rationally"[/quote]


That's just it!! Persons capable of murder.....are not all there to begin with. Of course you would freak out! You are normal!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Greek to me--or sometimes, Latin
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
This is very interesting, Yummi. I've read it through, now. Many things are clearer, not least the bits where they're all speaking together. I am impressed that you picked out Francesco Maresca's voice for this one-word intervention: "Presidente". But of course, it made perfect sense when reading through the discussion.

So here are two terms used in the text in the sense that Yummi explains:

utilizzabile (in the sense of your message above)
contestazione (which Yummi explains really means: asking the defendant about contradictions in the statements. This was new to me, I did not understand exactly what was meant.)

Yummi translates "opposizione" as "opposition", but I think here "objection" is the proper legal term (no?)

Then there is the frequent use of the term "argomento" which seems to mean "topic of discussion".

Yummi translates "corpo del reato" as "body of crime", I think the legal term would be "corpus delicti" ? (Thanks Yummi, I couldn't even guess what that meant until I read your words in English).

Finally, this is a detail, but Yummi translates one term as "cautional custody", which I take to mean "putting someone in prison because they might be a criminal", something like that?

Please lawyers out there, give me the proper English terms for all this! A collective effort! gh-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: IF THE SHOE FITS ...
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
thoughtful wrote:
... here we're talking about very fashion-conscious young Italian women. We've heard all about Laura's multiple piercings and Filomena's designer sunglasses.

What's the source on this fashion stuff and Filomena's sunglasses? I hadn't heard about that.

thoughtful wrote:
And Amanda was surrounded by many other friends who saw her in bars and in class on a daily basis. Not even to speak of her sister who traveled with her. My 21 year old daughter just walked in, so I asked her, and she says she would definitely know all of her roommates' shoes.

Skill testing question: what brand are these shoes?





I don't know the brand. I assume they are Meredith's. They seem non-descript to me. If an ASICS sole is of the molded rubber type which appears in Finn's ASICS photo in one of his last posts, then these shoes don't seem to be that type of sole (from the grainy image of the investigators holding up these running shoes).

thoughtful wrote:
Raffaele was certainly able to describe Amanda's clothing and shoes on the 2nd

Yeah, he said this of Amanda in his prison diary:

"I don't remember how she (Amanda) was dressed on the first (of Nov.), but I'm sure that she had changed and had put on the white skirt and her usual black hiking boots."

That doesn't sound too fashion conscious to me. Didn't she have something other than hiking boots to put on with her white skirt? Maybe her normal shoes got misplaced.

thoughtful wrote:
(Amanda) has stated that she was wearing jeans and a grey and black striped sweatshirt on the morning of November 1st, and Filomena has confirmed that she was wearing these at midday. The sweatshirt (perhaps the jeans, too) were found on her bed. So, did she run into her room and change her clothes for the murder? ... did she change them by chance later in the afternoon of the 1st, tossing on her bed the only clothes that any witnesses could testify to, and put on clothes and shoes that no one ever saw instead? That would be one of those strange coincidences...

There's another option: in the hypothesis that Amanda was in the cottage and involved actively or passively in the murderous events, perhaps her shoes, socks (and clothing?) weren't shed after the murder as part of the clean up activity, but in fact she was already in her birthday suit when things got out of hand:

"I can't remember if my friend Meredith was there or if she came later. We were all separate," she said.
"He (Lumumba) wanted her (Meredith).
"Yes we were in the house. That evening we wanted to have a bit of fun. We were drunk. We asked her to join us.
"Diya wanted her. Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard screams.
"Patrick and Meredith were in Meredith's bedroom while I think I stayed in the kitchen.
"I can't remember how long they were together in the bedroom but the only thing I can say is that at a certain point I remember hearing Meredith's screams and I covered my ears.
"Then I don't remember anything else. There is such a lot going on in my head.
"I can't remember if Meredith was screaming and if I heard thuds but I could imagine what was going on.'

[urlx=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492365/How-Foxy-Knoxy-changed-tune-night-Meredith-murdered.html]From Daily Mail[/urlx]
============================

bucketoftea wrote:
I can't stop wondering if Edda knows Amanda is missing a pair of Asics.

And I keep thinking of the deep sinking feeling of realisation that her mother would have had when she returned alone to her hotel on 11 November 2007, with the nagging fear of the potential implications of Amanda denying any memory of the early morning (Seattle time) wake up call where Edda told her daughter to call the police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 217
The point of Kokomani's being called to testify is that he told his friends the night of the murder, BEFORE the discovery of Meredith's body with its knife wounds, that he he had witnessed something strange (I'm not sure at this point whether he definitively identified Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy) but at any rate he said he saw two men and a woman with two knives. I think the throwing of the cell phone and olives has been pretty much discounted (but I don't know what the evidence to the contrary is). Are the two men and a women and the knives, then, just more of the many "coincidences" that seem to multiply like rabbits bu-) in this case. Who knows whether the thumping continued for some time or whether there were just a couple of thumps, or even if there were no thumps, the important thing is he told someone about two men and a woman outside the cottage with knives before the discovery that a murder using knives had taken place or been reported. It doesn't sound like Kokomani was still in the vicinity when the tow truck arrived.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Quote:
thoughtful wrote:
... here we're talking about very fashion-conscious young Italian women. We've heard all about Laura's multiple piercings and Filomena's designer sunglasses.

What's the source on this fashion stuff and Filomena's sunglasses? I hadn't heard about that.



I recall reading that Filomena had a pair of expensive sunglasses that were not stolen from her room during the alleged break-in. Otherwise, I only recall Filomena being described as bespectacled.
As for multiple piercings, I'm not sure they equate with being fashion-conscious.
Incidentally, O8 has described Rudy Guede as being very fashion-conscious and there is of course the famous photo of him with Giorgio Armani. It is surprising that he would have left Filomena's designer sunglasses unstolen, as he must surely have realized the resale value of such items.


Kermit wrote:

Quote:
Thoughtful wrote:
And Amanda was surrounded by many other friends who saw her in bars and in class on a daily basis. Not even to speak of her sister who traveled with her. My 21 year old daughter just walked in, so I asked her, and she says she would definitely know all of her roommates' shoes.

Skill testing question: what brand are these shoes?


I will say again that I would be unable to identify all the shoes of my closest friends, and don't know what kind of running shoes my walking partner wears. I am not totally oblivious to fashion by any means. As for my roommate (i.e., husband), I might be able to identify some of his shoes in a line-up, but probably not all, but don't count on me to say what brand they are. And I am often present when he buys them.

If I were asked to state whether or not I knew if my roommate had such and such type of shoes and I wasn't absolutely sure, I would have to say - for the sake of honesty - that I could not be sure. If I were asked to state if my roommate had a pair of white shoes, or brown shoes, I might do better. If I were asked to look at a pile of shoes belonging to my roommate and say if a pair was missing, I am not sure I would be able to do so.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Ks1 wrote:
I have been in that situation a few times and was always very nervous and aware of every vehicle that passed as you never know who might stop and offer assistance, or, who might stop and be a threat to you.


Yes, but not when rescue has arrived in the form of the breakdown guy. And also, we have to bear in mind, they hadn't broken down in the middle of nowhere in the dead of night, although it was dark, they were right on the edge of Perugia on a maybe not busy, but lively road. It isn't one of those sort of breakdowns like where you break down in the dead of night on some isolated country road and have to be on alert for axe murderers.

This whole breakdown thing also has too many variables missing that we don't know about. For example, what was the exact position of the truck, or of the car? Which way were they facing and so, what was their primary field of view? How much noise and messing about was the car owner doing in trying to get it working, ditto for the mechanic when he arrived and how distracting would that have been to what may have been going on some way down the road?

In this context. Let's take Kokomani's story and think in our minds..how long would that have taken to play out in real time? If we say one or two minutes for arguments sake, then it also means that the occupants of the car needed to only have been distracted for one or two minutes for them not to have seen anything strange enough to make them take note and keep looking. People notice a lot. But it's also true people are easily distracted, especially when they have other things on their minds. Breaking down with a child...I'd say that offers many potential distractions.

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

Quote:
utilizzabile (in the sense of your message above)
contestazione (which Yummi explains really means: asking the defendant about contradictions in the statements. This was new to me, I did not understand exactly what was meant.)

Yummi translates "opposizione" as "opposition", but I think here "objection" is the proper legal term (no?)

Then there is the frequent use of the term "argomento" which seems to mean "topic of discussion".


I am not a lawyer but have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary which I use in my work. The terms admissible and inadmissible correspond to legal notions, but I was not able to find usable or unusable. Perhaps other terms are used. I did find some interesting legal material online about the admissibility of voluntary oral and written statements in which the terms "admissible" and "usable" seem to be used interchangeably, as synonyms.

As for argomento, my Italian-English dictionary translates it as "subject" and "argument".

_________________
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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1029
rexfelis wrote:
I'm new here, so hello to everyone.

I have been following the case for quite some time and originally fell into the boat that Knox couldn't possibly be guilty because she looks so innocent nor did there seem to be a motive since the reports were that Kercher and Knox were friends. Eventually after studying the evidence it became apparent that Knox along with Sollecito are liars.

You may or may not have seen the following two photos before, but I will warn you they are graphic and extremely disturbing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orror.html

Are these photographs real? If so, this truly cements it for me because if you look at the amount of blood in the bathroom on the sink and ground there is no way any female would ever attribute this due to a girl with a "period problem".

Also I had read somewhere that Knox lost her job at the bar the day prior to the murder and Kercher was to replace her. Is this true?



The photos of the bathroom from the Daily Mail I have also seen ... I also want to know:

1. I know there were two bathrooms in the cottage/crime scene ... was this the bathroom that Knox had her shower in on the morning after the crime?

2. If not had she not seen the state of this bathroom (door closed, not visible or inaccessible to Knox or not the bathroom she generally uses) - because this is not "just a few spots of blood on bathmat etc).

In the photograph there is a bidet ... is that the bidet drain that both knoxies and kerchers blood were found in?

Anyone who had seen that bathroom would have ran out of that house screaming IMO.


Can somebody clarify this?

Also one other thing --- the blood within the photo on the left : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orror.html

It looks to me that *some* cleaning has gone on .... it appears to be smeared on the sink, on the side of the bath ....

This makes me think that when interrupted by the postal police kercher and soll. had actually been in the house for a very short time but were unable to complete a cleanup .... This also fits in with another thing - If they were at the square at midnight and continually looking back at the house they either couldn't go back because there was still that breakdown outside the house, or they were too afraid to go back to the scene (just speculation on my part).

As to the second point of rexfelis - yes amanda knox had been firstly demoted from working the bar in "le chic" nightclub by the bar owner Lumumba to giving outside leaflets outside the bar. Kercher had been offered a bar job according to Lumumba. Lumumba has indicated in interview that in his opinion Knox was jealous of Kercher - when told that she wasn't to work within the club any more she didn't say anything just looked at him blankly and walked off. The text message Lumumba sent to Knox on the night of the murder could be interpreted as "don't bother coming we don't need your services anymore". Lumumba has stated in interview that Knoxy was more interested in associating with males within the nightclub than doing the job (apparently this was the case even after Knox had commenced a relationship with Solleceto).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Greek to me--or sometimes, Latin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Finally, this is a detail, but Yummi translates one term as "cautional custody", which I take to mean "putting someone in prison because they might be a criminal", something like that?

Please lawyers out there, give me the proper English terms for all this! A collective effort! gh-))[/quote]

Hi, Thoughtful!
Let me add my voice to the chorus of thanks for all of your translations. And thanks to Yummi, too!
I think the term you're looking for is "protective custody" (as in someone "being taken into protective custody").
And now that I have your attention bf-)) : Do you remember listening to AK's tapped telephone conversation with her flatmate Filomena, from November 2007? Needless to say, her Italian, at that time was far less fluent. But, beyond that obvious difference, I ALSO noticed a very different kind of voice and tone. She sounded nasal and kinda slow talkin' and distinctly different from the voice we heard during her court appearance. Is she just stoned? Or what?

Somewhere, I wrote down the time and tape where that snippet of recorded conversation. But, just wondering, offhand, if that left an impression.
MERCI!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm
Posts: 236
Location: San Francisco
ttrroonniicc wrote:
rexfelis wrote:
I'm new here, so hello to everyone.

I have been following the case for quite some time and originally fell into the boat that Knox couldn't possibly be guilty because she looks so innocent nor did there seem to be a motive since the reports were that Kercher and Knox were friends. Eventually after studying the evidence it became apparent that Knox along with Sollecito are liars.

You may or may not have seen the following two photos before, but I will warn you they are graphic and extremely disturbing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orror.html

Are these photographs real? If so, this truly cements it for me because if you look at the amount of blood in the bathroom on the sink and ground there is no way any female would ever attribute this due to a girl with a "period problem".

Also I had read somewhere that Knox lost her job at the bar the day prior to the murder and Kercher was to replace her. Is this true?



The photos of the bathroom from the Daily Mail I have also seen ... I also want to know:

1. I know there were two bathrooms in the cottage/crime scene ... was this the bathroom that Knox had her shower in on the morning after the crime?

2. If not had she not seen the state of this bathroom (door closed, not visible or inaccessible to Knox or not the bathroom she generally uses) - because this is not "just a few spots of blood on bathmat etc).

In the photograph there is a bidet ... is that the bidet drain that both knoxies and kerchers blood were found in?

Anyone who had seen that bathroom would have ran out of that house screaming IMO.


Can somebody clarify this?

Also one other thing --- the blood within the photo on the left : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orror.html

It looks to me that *some* cleaning has gone on .... it appears to be smeared on the sink, on the side of the bath ....

This makes me think that when interrupted by the postal police kercher and soll. had actually been in the house for a very short time but were unable to complete a cleanup .... This also fits in with another thing - If they were at the square at midnight and continually looking back at the house they either couldn't go back because there was still that breakdown outside the house, or they were too afraid to go back to the scene (just speculation on my part).

As to the second point of rexfelis - yes amanda knox had been firstly demoted from working the bar in "le chic" nightclub by the bar owner Lumumba to giving outside leaflets outside the bar. Kercher had been offered a bar job according to Lumumba. Lumumba has indicated in interview that in his opinion Knox was jealous of Kercher - when told that she wasn't to work within the club any more she didn't say anything just looked at him blankly and walked off. The text message Lumumba sent to Knox on the night of the murder could be interpreted as "don't bother coming we don't need your services anymore". Lumumba has stated in interview that Knoxy was more interested in associating with males within the nightclub than doing the job (apparently this was the case even after Knox had commenced a relationship with Solleceto).



As far as the gory bathroom pictures, this has come up before. This is not a real life photo, but a photo of the bathroom after it was "treated" with some sort of forensic chemical, as I understand it, which creates a pink wash over everything. It's not the luminol, which requires darkness to be revealed, but something else. About which I am not the expert---maybe someone else will further clarify.

Didi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
disinterested wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
The photos of the bathroom from the Daily Mail I have also seen ... I also want to know:

1. I know there were two bathrooms in the cottage/crime scene ... was this the bathroom that Knox had her shower in on the morning after the crime?

2. If not had she not seen the state of this bathroom (door closed, not visible or inaccessible to Knox or not the bathroom she generally uses) - because this is not "just a few spots of blood on bathmat etc).

In the photograph there is a bidet ... is that the bidet drain that both knoxies and kerchers blood were found in?

Anyone who had seen that bathroom would have ran out of that house screaming IMO.


Can somebody clarify this?

Also one other thing --- the blood within the photo on the left : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orror.html

It looks to me that *some* cleaning has gone on .... it appears to be smeared on the sink, on the side of the bath ....

This makes me think that when interrupted by the postal police kercher and soll. had actually been in the house for a very short time but were unable to complete a cleanup .... This also fits in with another thing - If they were at the square at midnight and continually looking back at the house they either couldn't go back because there was still that breakdown outside the house, or they were too afraid to go back to the scene (just speculation on my part).

As to the second point of rexfelis - yes amanda knox had been firstly demoted from working the bar in "le chic" nightclub by the bar owner Lumumba to giving outside leaflets outside the bar. Kercher had been offered a bar job according to Lumumba. Lumumba has indicated in interview that in his opinion Knox was jealous of Kercher - when told that she wasn't to work within the club any more she didn't say anything just looked at him blankly and walked off. The text message Lumumba sent to Knox on the night of the murder could be interpreted as "don't bother coming we don't need your services anymore". Lumumba has stated in interview that Knoxy was more interested in associating with males within the nightclub than doing the job (apparently this was the case even after Knox had commenced a relationship with Solleceto).



As far as the gory bathroom pictures, this has come up before. This is not a real life photo, but a photo of the bathroom after it was "treated" with some sort of forensic chemical, as I understand it, which creates a pink wash over everything. It's not the luminol, which requires darkness to be revealed, but something else. About which I am not the expert---maybe someone else will further clarify.

Didi


Thank you, Didi. I had the same reaction to the photo as ttrroonniicc, but then later I also heard something similar about the chemical treatment. But to answer ttrroonniicc's other questions,

1. Yes, this was the bathroom in which she showered, which also contained the blood-stained bathmat that she used.

2. The bidet is the one in question with the mixed blood, too.

3. The forensics team has testified that there was evidence of some cleaning in the bathroom, i.e., that blood had been wiped up. Maybe this chemical helps determine that.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:56 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Although Dempsey will keep on tellin' ya there's no evidence of a clean-up. It's all 'just a theory' people ;)

_________________
"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: The bra clasp
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:40 am
Posts: 9
malcolm wrote:
Some things have been bothering me about the clasp, and I wish someone with expertise (such as Kit) could answer at least one of them:

1. The defense has been talking about 6 people's DNA on the bra, and there was an article last year that stated that according to "police sources" there were 2 other unidentified DNA prints on the bra. First of all, there seems to be some confusion here about whether everyone is talking about the bra, the clasp, or the combination of the 2. RG's and MK's DNA were found on the bra. RS's and perhaps MK's DNA were found on the clasp. Supposedly, AK's DNA has also been found on one of those 2, as were 2 other people's DNA. But were these 3 new samples found on the clasp or the bra, and was Rudy's DNA also found on the clasp? If some of these new DNA samples were found on the bra, it would undercut the defense's claim that the clasp was inadmissible b/c it had lain in the room for a month.

OTOH, the presence of 2 new unidentified DNA samples could be due to police handling the bra and/or clasp w/o gloves. But how could that put RS's or AK's DNA on the bra/clasp?

2. Kit said that she doubted the results of both the test on the clasp and the knife. The reason for the knife is clear: It could be a false positive, i.e., some contamination during the testing, which can't be double checked since there was not enough DNA.

But the clasp supposedly had plenty of RS's DNA, so presumably it was double checked (otherwise, the defense would definitely have raised that point like they did for the knife). So wouldn't this make a false positive unlikely? Is anyone suggesting that RS's DNA was actually transferred to the clasp, rather than just getting mixed in during the testing? If so, how would that happen? It's not like RS has since grasped the clasp.


I just want to clarify that I would in no way call myself an expert in DNA forensic analysis, very far from it, though I do have significant experience in various highly sensitive PCR techniques but solely as related to detection of plant pathogens, so that's a big difference...I just didn't want to imply in anyway that I'm truly an expert as it pertains to this case...Tonight I had a dinner meeting with two collaborators from a different campus and a colleague from my department and I brought up this case (interestingly, only one had heard of the case prior!!) Anyway, more to the point, I would consider at least one of these three folks to have a pretty signficant expertise in this area (all PhD, one w/a PhD in biotech..but not forensic analysis!) each of these colleagues agreed that the knife DNA could definitely have been a contamination given that it was in such low quantity and could not be repeated, they all felt it was not valid (even if it was very possibly REAL, it was not something they would ever consider reportable...these folks have expertise in this area of MO BIO but NONE of us are forensic scientists or know anything about the law or crime, etc)

Previously I had asked another colleague about the contamination potentially on the BRA strap.. (the colleague I mentioned in a previous post is a fish geneticist and studies fish paternity...yes, for real, there's people who study fish paternity LOL) he unequivicably stated that couldn't be used as legitimate evidence (AGAIN none of us are crime experts!!) but do have knowledge of the reality of contamination, etc....even in EXCELLENT facilities there is no way you can ever rule out contamination, especially on this bra strap that really was shuttled here there and everywhere!

With ALL that said, I'm more and more convinced they are guilty, there is only SO much coincidence that you can tolerate....how many times can things be contaminated? How can anyone REALLY believe you'd walk into that bloody bathroom and not immediately LEAVE and call the police (that picture posted earlier was really eye opening for me).

Without seeing ALL the actual court presented evidence it's difficult to make a final verdict with NO doubt, but all signs point to this trio being guilty.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
thoughtful & yummi BIG THANKS for the good work! I know (I do have experience) how tiring and difficult could be... cl-)

kitrinkles, please be aware that there are other pictures of the same bathroom looking more 'normal', but I do agree with you... so many 'coincidences'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
disinterested wrote:

‘As far as the gory bathroom pictures, this has come up before. This is not a real life photo, but a photo of the bathroom after it was "treated" with some sort of forensic chemical, as I understand it, which creates a pink wash over everything. It's not the luminol, which requires darkness to be revealed, but something else. About which I am not the expert---maybe someone else will further clarify.’

There is a catalytic test for blood that uses phenolphthalein as an indicator. It can detect blood down to dilution rates of 1 to 100,000 or lower. Phenolphthalein is colorless but turns pink in the presence of blood, and is used to highlight stains because of its visual color change. It’s not as specific for blood as luminol. One of the names it goes by is the ‘Kastle-Meyer test’. Another advantage is that it’s relatively none destructive, so other test’s can be run on the samples.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The bra clasp
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1029


Kitrinkles wrote :

With ALL that said, I'm more and more convinced they are guilty, there is only SO much coincidence that you can tolerate....how many times can things be contaminated? How can anyone REALLY believe you'd walk into that bloody bathroom and not immediately LEAVE and call the police (that picture posted earlier was really eye opening for me).


Read what people have said about the appearance of the bathroom covered in blood (which even the Daily Mail reported).

Apparently It's some kind of chemical for highlighting a crime scene (reportedly not luminol). I would like clarification on this because it does not look erm scientific (It's just swabbed about all over the place - no consistancy). Why was it photographed - what does it show? Maybe it is highlighting blood cleanup in just the same way as luminol. It strikes me that in testing for something anything of a color must mean something (blood cleanup)??

These photos from the site "Perugia shock" show luminol evidence of a cleanup - it seems that blood shows up under ultra violet light?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mqKZSZYw_HQ/SPgiBK2N_iI/AAAAAAAAAxA/gFIrNSgTavc/s200/washed+floor.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mqKZSZYw_HQ/SPgiIHYSKeI/AAAAAAAAAxI/15TS5ARF1cA/s200/cleaned+table.jpg

ok ... this clarifies --- (reply to mrsdarcy a few weeks ago) - the pink wash is Luminol.

Hi Mrsdarcy,

The pics you may have seen of Meredith's room all show a lot of blood and are actual photo's of the scene.

There are two kinds of pics from the bathroom:[i]

Some show the real scene, spots and smears of blood on the faucett etc, the bloody footprint on the bathmat but these are all minor compared to the scene in Meredith's room.

After the forensic team had collected the obvious samples of blood which were visible in the bathroom, they applied luminol to try and expose any blood stains which may not have been visible to the naked eye.

The pink pics of the bathroom come from after the time they applied the luminol.

They don't show the luminol in action which reveals blood under an ultra violet light.

The just show where the luminol was applied and were taken after the forensics team had finished their biz.

In short, the pink is used luminol and not blood.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Question for all the legal types out there
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
thoughtful wrote:
I did (mea culpa) translate "inutilizzabile" by "inadmissible" each and every time throughout the discussion. But the reason I did this was because "such-and-such is inadmissible as evidence" sounded reasonably correct to my (un-legally-trained) ear, and "this is unusable as evidence" did not.

Yummi is making the point that the documents are all present in the dossier, but the lawyers may not ask questions about them under certain circumstances (for instance, using them against Amanda). What would the right English translation have been? Does
"unusable" exist?

eek-)


The concept of two trials running simultaneously, one of which uses evidence that cannot be used in the other, is very . . . well . . . foreign to me.
:D That just wouldn't happen in the U.S. because of the differently structured legal system. Therefore, I think that the unusable/inadmissible distinction might be something unique to the Italian system and similar systems. In other words, it might be one of those situations where there's not really a proper English translation because it's quite literally a foreign concept.

So, basically, the concept, I'm thinking, is that something can be "admissible" in the "overall trial," but "unusable" in the murder case against Amanda.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Greek to me--or sometimes, Latin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 405
Location: United States
The 411 wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:
Finally, this is a detail, but Yummi translates one term as "cautional custody", which I take to mean "putting someone in prison because they might be a criminal", something like that?

Please lawyers out there, give me the proper English terms for all this! A collective effort! gh-))


Hi, Thoughtful!
Let me add my voice to the chorus of thanks for all of your translations. And thanks to Yummi, too!
I think the term you're looking for is "protective custody" (as in someone "being taken into protective custody").


Hey 411! Long time no talk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ghu-)) Protective custody would generally refer to protecting an at-risk prisoner from other dangerous prisoners or to protecting a witness to a crime from being harmed. I think that the idea of "cautional custody" might be another situation where there is simply no English translation because it's a concept not employed by the U.S./U.K. common-law systems.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Greek to me--or sometimes, Latin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
thoughtful wrote:
This is very interesting, Yummi. I've read it through, now. Many things are clearer, not least the bits where they're all speaking together. I am impressed that you picked out Francesco Maresca's voice for this one-word intervention: "Presidente". But of course, it made perfect sense when reading through the discussion.

So here are two terms used in the text in the sense that Yummi explains:

utilizzabile (in the sense of your message above)
contestazione (which Yummi explains really means: asking the defendant about contradictions in the statements. This was new to me, I did not understand exactly what was meant.)

Yummi translates "opposizione" as "opposition", but I think here "objection" is the proper legal term (no?)

Then there is the frequent use of the term "argomento" which seems to mean "topic of discussion".

Yummi translates "corpo del reato"as "body of crime", I think the legal term would be "corpus delicti" ? (Thanks Yummi, I couldn't even guess what that meant until I read your words in English).

Finally, this is a detail, but Yummi translates one term as "cautional custody", which I take to mean "putting someone in prison because they might be a criminal", something like that?

Please lawyers out there, give me the proper English terms for all this! A collective effort! gh-))


Not a lawyer, but can help you with "corpo del reato" which means body of evidence and
custodia cautelare ("cautional custody") which means remand in custody.

This is one of the things which I really like about this site: people share knowledge and co-operate with one another.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:50 am 
Hello,

I posted once in the past when stewartathome was posting. I am sad he hasn't posted since.

To be upfront I do not believe that AK and RS killed MK. I'm pretty biased against this. Especially b/c it seems so many of the "absolutes" have crumbled over the past several months. I believe they found the original killer in RG. I've been following this case since the beginning of the year. I believe what happened to MK was terrible, and I feel for her family. I also feel for AK and RS's families who have really stuck up for them, and I don't believe for erroneous reasons.

When I heard of this murder in 2007 I thought she was guilty. But then when I got reintroduced to the murder, the inconsistencies, and the arrest of RG, and what has happened LTD, has made me angry that I was originally lied to by the prosecution.

I am very nervous on posting on a site like this. From lurking (on this site and others) I've noticed all the blogs are very polarized and biased. But a constant has been "justlooking", I liked his posts on Perugia Shock, and I noticed recently that he relishes a debate. That is cool. I'm not here to start arguments, but, if willing, I'd like to approach "the other side" and actually have a discourse.
Heck, first question, how do you explain that AK and RS killed MK when there was none of their DNA found in MK's room? What is your current theory?

FC


Last edited by Frumpycat on Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am
Posts: 257
Location: Seattle
Kermit wrote: Skill testing question: what brand are these shoes?


I think those shoes in your picture look like the brand Puma. I have a pair of Puma brand sneakers that have the same design on the tongue of the shoe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The bra clasp
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
kitrinkles wrote:
Previously I had asked another colleague about the contamination potentially on the BRA strap.. (the colleague I mentioned in a previous post is a fish geneticist and studies fish paternity...yes, for real, there's people who study fish paternity LOL) he unequivicably stated that couldn't be used as legitimate evidence (AGAIN none of us are crime experts!!) but do have knowledge of the reality of contamination, etc....even in EXCELLENT facilities there is no way you can ever rule out contamination, especially on this bra strap that really was shuttled here there and everywhere!


How much movement of the bra clasp was there really? It was found during the initial inspection and left in situ. A little more than a month later it was collected, I believe from the spot where it originally had lain (can someone confirm this?). Then it was tested like anything else.

As for contamination: If you could never rule out contamination, DNA evidence would be worthless at trial.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
Heck, first question, how do you explain that AK and RS killed MK when there was none of their DNA found in MK's room? What is your current theory?


Hello Frumpycat,
All opinions and POV are welcome here, at least as far as I can tell. (I can't speak for everyone.) In fact, it's nice to see a different perspective. I'll try to answer your question based on what I know:

First of all, RS's DNA was supposedly found on the bra clasp. That was in the room, so your statement is not factually correct. In addition, his defense has sometimes claimed (and may do so again) that AK's DNA was also on the bra and/or clasp.

As for RG, his DNA was found only on the bra, MK's jacket cuff, her bag, and inside her body. It's easy to explain why only his DNA was found inside her body: He is the only one accused of having committed that sex act against her, and inside body cavities it is easier to preserve DNA evidence.
OTOH, no one's DNA, not even Rudy's, was found on the surface of her body, which was almost completely naked!

There is evidence of the crime scene having been altered and cleaned. (E.g., the body was moved, footprints were erased, blood was wiped.) This could destroy DNA evidence. There was also much DNA/fingerprint evidence that was found to be useless, as it had been damaged or decayed. The only fingerprints lifted from the room were RG's palmprint on the pillow, 2 fingerprints of RS on the door that probably resulted from when he tried to open the door, 2 other unidentified fingerprints I think on a calendar in part of the room that was out-of-the way and unlikely to have been cleaned, and 2 other fingerprints of the other boys near the door that they had broken down.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:31 am 
First of all, RS's DNA was supposedly found on the bra clasp. That was in the room, so your statement is not factually correct. In addition, his defense has sometimes claimed (and may do so again) that AK's DNA was also on the bra and/or clasp.

As for RG, his DNA was found only on the bra, MK's jacket cuff, her bag, and inside her body. It's easy to explain why only his DNA was found inside her body: He is the only one accused of having committed that sex act against her, and inside body cavities it is easier to preserve DNA evidence.
OTOH, no one's DNA, not even Rudy's, was found on the surface of her body, which was almost completely naked!

- Thanks for the reply! Still, my main question is why wasn't AK's and RS's DNA found all over MK's room? For the prosecution's theory of a sex game gone wrong you would think their DNA would be all over the room. I was actually surprised to hear AK's wasn't there as they were roommates and I thought there would be some sort of "hey we lived together contamination". According to the prosecution they held her down and AK stabbed her in the throat. From that violence I would expect more in the way of DNA evidence.

Was the bra clasp found in the room? From what I heard it was moved around several times. And the announcements about other dna being on the clasp. I can't find any sources for either side. Personally, after seeing the latest on Stefoni concerning the knife, I don't have much confidence on anything she worked on in this case. It smacks to me of fitting the evidence to the crime theory.

Another note: Concerning RG's DNA in her bag, wouldn't that be proof that RG stole from her, not MK and RS?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:44 am 
There is evidence of the crime scene having altered and cleaned. (E.g., the body was moved, footprints were erased, blood was wiped.) This could destroy DNA evidence. There was also much DNA/fingerprint evidence that was found to be useless, as it had been damaged or decayed. The only fingerprints lifted from the room were RG's palmprint on the pillow, 2 fingerprints of RS on the door that probably resulted from when he tried to open the door, 2 other unidentified fingerprints I think on a calendar in part of the room that was out-of-the way and unlikely to have been cleaned, and 2 other fingerprints of the other boys near the door that they had broken down.

-Hmmm...thoughts on the above - How did they manage to selectively clean their DNA evidence yet leave RG's intact? To a perfect degree? These were college students, I can't see them as forensic scientists knowing exactly what to destroy. Concerning the DNA/fingerprint evidence that was found to be useless...wasn't if found useless for a reason? Even the prosecutions own professional witnesses stated that the absence of AK's fingerprints in her apartment wasn't unusual.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
Heck, first question, how do you explain that AK and RS killed MK when there was none of their DNA found in MK's room? What is your current theory?


In fact, there is an abundant amount of Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp. The clasp was safe, under a pillow, which in turn was under the victim at the time of discovery. From that point onwards, only gloved and foot sheathed investigators entered the room. The clasp was identified, then placed on the floor again. When it was collected, it was no more than a metre away from its original placement under the pillow.

Raffaele's legal team has insinuated / stated that Amanda's and Rudy's DNA is also on the clasp.

Amanda's DNA/blood has been found mixed with the victim's blood in a number of locations (I'm not even thinking of the bidet, which could be explained away).

I start my thinking about this case in a different way. Instead of trying to reconstruct in my mind the specific dynamics of two or three attackers in Meredith's room, and how they held her, and who struck the blow, and from which side and how that battle would have left each of the attackers' DNA in the victim's bedroom, I prefer to look start with the overall situation: a brutal killing, a staging (which everyone except for The Cook and The Entourage believes) including a fake breakin, footprints in blood which don't match Rudy's, conflicting and changing alibis, telephone data which makes their description of the morning of Nov. 2 a Benny Hill comedy routine, etc. etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying: I don't feel that Amanda is guilty of murder because there is none of her DNA within 2 metres of the victim (the radius which defines the victim's room). However, Amanda doesn't have to be the one to have pushed the knife (which maybe she did, or maybe she didn't) to be accused of murder from a legal perspective.

What you should ask yourself is: am I convinced that Amanda is being truthful and upfront with all information she may know concerning the events which took place in her house on the evening of 1 November 2007? Personally, I find that impossible to say "yes, I am convinced". And as you look at the "hard" and "circumstantial" evidence, it starts to roll and accumulate and makes it difficult to believe that Amanda is unconnected to those events.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
Was the bra clasp found in the room? From what I heard it was moved around several times. And the announcements about other dna being on the clasp. I can't find any sources for either side. Personally, after seeing the latest on Stefoni concerning the knife, I don't have much confidence on anything she worked on in this case.


Over on The Cook's blog a couple of weeks ago, someone made a comment about Stefanoni's being unprofessional. To his credit Charlie Wilkes came back and said that in fact she is very professional, a recognised expert.

At this point, the defence doesn't doubt the DNA test results which are positive. Their argument is contamination. However, the bra clasp never left the bedroom. It was placed on the floor about a metre from its original placement. Only appropriately appareled investigators entered the bedroom from the moment of discovery. The other day, a defence DNA expert, when asked by the judge how the contamination could have taken place, admitted that it was simply a theoretical possibility, like once in a while these things happen. The defence experts seems to feel less adamant about the weakness of the DNA results than you.

What specifically makes you uncomfortable about Stefanoni's work?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:06 am 
Kermit,

"Raffaele's legal team has insinuated / stated that Amanda's and Rudy's DNA is also on the clasp."

But wouldn't the prosecution who actually has the evidence and did the tests brought this out in court? Are they holding it back for some reason?

"Amanda's DNA/blood has been found mixed with the victim's blood in a number of locations (I'm not even thinking of the bidet, which could be explained away)."

Not that many locations, most in the bathroom..kinda biological in there....and if you can explain away one, as even you admit, you can explain away others. Also, what if after the murder AK shows up like a dork and walks through a bunch of crime scene? Does that make her guilty?

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying: I don't feel that Amanda is guilty of murder because there is none of her DNA within 2 metres of the victim (the radius which defines the victim's room). However, Amanda doesn't have to be the one to have pushed the knife (which maybe she did, or maybe she didn't) to be accused of murder from a legal perspective."

I would feel more comfortable in condemning her of murder if their was ANY DNA evidence. And its not just about Amanda, its about RS as well. Their DNA was not found in the room.

"What you should ask yourself is: am I convinced that Amanda is being truthful and upfront with all information she may know concerning the events which took place in her house on the evening of 1 November 2007? Personally, I find that impossible to say "yes, I am convinced". And as you look at the "hard" and "circumstantial" evidence, it starts to roll and accumulate and makes it difficult to believe that Amanda is unconnected to those events."

Tell you the truth? This is where I had the most problem originally, but as the trial goes on, you know what? Young people do stupid sh**. Did they go out of their way to kill a roommate? Not likely. Should she have lawyered up (in a foreign country no doubt) HECK YES. I think they lied to get out of being accused of murder... and inadvertantly gave RG a basis for an appeal, and made themselves notorious number one from stupid statements. Guilty of stupidity, yes, guilty of killing their roommate in a sex game gone wild, no.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
thoughtful wrote:
So, I find it pretty strange also that Kokomani describes all this happening--bumping into people with his car (?!), them threatening
him with a big knife, him taking pictures and throwing olives and phones at them, then Rudy offering to pay him to use his car, while
all this time the people in the broken down car are sitting there waiting for the tow truck, or being repaired, and they do not see a thing. To me, this makes the story very doubtful. However, someone on this board, I don't remember who, has suggested that if the broken down car was parked near the trash bins and Kokomani's car was coming up behind them, the glare of the headlights would have prevented the occupants from seeing anything of what was going on. Even with a fussy kid, I find this hard to believe, especially as frequently when kids are fussy, mom is calming them down inside the car while dad stands outside the car, phone in hand, looking up and down the street to see if the tow truck is coming yet.

The occupants of the car testified that all was calm, there were just cars passing by and people on the street. They did not hear screaming or thumping or olive-throwing or anything else noticeable. So, there is a kind of contradiction there.

As for being visible by the CCTV, I believe the car came out of the parking lot before breaking down, and was filmed before it passed out of the line of vision. Then the tow truck must have passed through the line of vision on its way to the car.

The repairman worked for maybe 15 minutes. He fixed the car, and did not hear any thumping, screaming or other incidents either. I believe that Kokomani drove down that street and saw the car, otherwise he couldn't have known about it. But I don't believe in the incidents he describes during the time when the breakdown was going on. I don't believe it would all have gone unnoticed by the waiting people. (Nor do I really believe in knife brandishing and olive-and-telephone chucking). It's very possible Kokomani saw something; a "trash bag" that he suddenly realized was crouching people, hiding on the edge of the road in front of the cottage. But I think he must have embroidered.




ks1 wrote:
beans wrote:
Hi ks1,

From Brian S.'s post of June13 or 14:

Quote:
The broken down car did not come out of the car park else its owners would have been traced from it's registration plate as were all the others by December.

I don't know in which direction it was facing - out of town, towards the cottage or facing towards Piazza Grimana. I'll give you a guess - it was facing towards Piazza Grimana and had broken down when it stopped at the junction by the bins. Either way, it's occupants didn't see anything untoward but I suspect they were well occupied with their own problems at the time.

Kokomani says he was stopped back where the vegetation came over the car park wall, very near the cottage. His headlights would have blinded the scene behind the front of Kokomani's car if the occupants of the broken down car looked in that direction and people don't make a habit of looking into car headlights anyway.

I don't believe the breakdown truck was there at the time, I believe that the car had only just broken down. This places the time at just after 10:30pm. Kokomani makes no mention of the breakdown truck in his testimony, just the broken down car.


I think I've read somewhere that the folks with the broken down car had a young child with them. If the child were anything like mine when young, they might have had a very upset kid to deal with to add to the tension of being away from home (they were from Rome) late at night with a broken down car.

On a different subject, I think 23pixiep is right on the money when she says Amanda and Raffaele have lent credence to a number of things by giving rather detailed phony-sounding explanations.

Wouldn't having Kokomani testify to the location of that vehicle in his testimony and having the vehicle owners also testify to the location have made a huge difference in his credibility or lack thereof? As to the statement that the headlights would have blinded the scene, I'm not so sure. I guess my confusion would be cleared up by knowing which way both vehicles were headed, I thought that he had to go around the broken down vehicle, and based on that assumption, his headlights would have also illuminated the scene for them. As to being distracted by a young child, most people alone in a broken down vehicle away from home would be even more aware of what was going on around them, and even more observant in my opinion. I have been in that situation a few times and was always very nervous and aware of every vehicle that passed as you never know who might stop and offer assistance, or, who might stop and be a threat to you.




beans wrote:
The point of Kokomani's being called to testify is that he told his friends the night of the murder, BEFORE the discovery of Meredith's body with its knife wounds, that he he had witnessed something strange (I'm not sure at this point whether he definitively identified Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy) but at any rate he said he saw two men and a woman with two knives. I think the throwing of the cell phone and olives has been pretty much discounted (but I don't know what the evidence to the contrary is). Are the two men and a women and the knives, then, just more of the many "coincidences" that seem to multiply like rabbits bu-) in this case. Who knows whether the thumping continued for some time or whether there were just a couple of thumps, or even if there were no thumps, the important thing is he told someone about two men and a woman outside the cottage with knives before the discovery that a murder using knives had taken place or been reported. It doesn't sound like Kokomani was still in the vicinity when the tow truck arrived.




Beans has it exactly right.

Since I made that post I have found out that the car did in fact come from the car park as Thoughtful says and was facing in the direction of Piazza Grimana. The distance between that car and Kokomani's could have been more than 20 metres.

It doesn't matter whether the people in the car saw Kokomani. They were there for 45 minutes, he was only there for 2. Maybe the driver was sat in the car cranking it over hoping for the best when Koko happened by.

Nor can the court rely on the detail of Kokomani's evidence. As Amanda demonstrated in court she hasn't got wide spaced teeth. Kokomani was probably driving drunk and it's all a bit of a blur.


BUT


What does matter is that Kokomani knew all about the broken down car "he had to manouvre around" and then he drove on to a cafe and told his friends all about a strange confrontation he'd just had with 2 guys and a girl waving knives near the car park in Via del Pergola.

How often does that happen, even when you're drunk?

When the police carried out their rescontri did those friends say, "Yes, Koko told us about that but we thought he'd had one too many and was off his head"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
Still, my main question is why wasn't AK's and RS's DNA found all over MK's room? For the prosecution's theory of a sex game gone wrong you would think their DNA would be all over the room. I was actually surprised to hear AK's wasn't there as they were roommates and I thought there would be some sort of "hey we lived together contamination". According to the prosecution they held her down and AK stabbed her in the throat. From that violence I would expect more in the way of DNA evidence.

Was the bra clasp found in the room? From what I heard it was moved around several times. And the announcements about other dna being on the clasp. I can't find any sources for either side.

Another note: Concerning RG's DNA in her bag, wouldn't that be proof that RG stole from her, not MK and RS?


But Rudy's DNA wasn't found "all over the room" either. DNA is apparently not as easy to spread everywhere as you may think. Stabbing someone in the throat requires only that the perpetrator leaves DNA on one place - the knife handle - which coincidentally was exactly where they found AK's. The violence has nothing to do with it, since Rudy's violence apparently didn't get any DNA on her body, even though according to your theory he stripped her, choked her, stabbed her, molested her, and bruised her all over her body.

The bra clasp was indeed found in the room. And collected from there, too. The only issue with the bra clasp was that it sat in a sealed room for a while before they removed it. As for a source on the RS's defense's claim that the bra has AK's DNA on it, see any of the 6 or so references that lone_wolfe linked to a couple of days ago.

I agree that Rudy's DNA on MK's bag could be used to argue that he stole from her. Judge Micheli disagreed, for reasons that he explained in his report, when he found him not guilty of theft. I'll dig up the relevant section and translate it later when I get the chance.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:16 am 
"Over on The Cook's blog a couple of weeks ago, someone made a comment about Stefanoni's being unprofessional. To his credit Charlie Wilkes came back and said that in fact she is very professional, a recognised expert."

Who cares? Why are you bringing this up in the discussion? I did not see this post.

"At this point, the defence doesn't doubt the DNA test results which are positive. Their argument is contamination. However, the bra clasp never left the bedroom. It was placed on the floor about a metre from its original placement. Only appropriately appareled investigators entered the bedroom from the moment of discovery. The other day, a defence DNA expert, when asked by the judge how the contamination could have taken place, admitted that it was simply a theoretical possibility, like once in a while these things happen. The defence experts seems to feel less adamant about the weakness of the DNA results than you."

The defense blew up Stef. Your quote on they don't doubt the results were postive? Half truth, they said "cuz stef was so incompetent in her testing everything was showing up positive". That's why Comodi freaked out and had to get some air. It became an accusation of who are liars. And Stef wilted. Mignini sat there, Comodi went for a smoke.

"What specifically makes you uncomfortable about Stefanoni's work?"

The fact that she went beyond the limits of the dna machine. That she was pressured to have to "find that golden bullet". Repeatablity of sampling the evidence (especially for the defense) is the norm. That she had to go beyond this and destroy the single sample is incomprehensible. Not to mention the police stating "hey...out of all these knives in the drawer, we picked this one." And didn't test any of the others.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Brian S. wrote:
What does matter is that Kokomani knew all about the broken down car "he had to manouvre around" and then he drove on to a cafe and told his friends all about a strange confrontation he'd just had with 2 guys and a girl waving knives near the car park in Via del Pergola.


Until his friends come out and testify it, or at least give an interview, all you have is hearsay. And I totally disagree with the suggestion that someone made earlier that his friends couldn't have tesified as to what he told them, since his lawyer certainly did.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: KIDS DO STUPID THINGS ... AND THEN TELL STUPID THIN
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
"Raffaele's legal team has insinuated / stated that Amanda's and Rudy's DNA is also on the clasp." But wouldn't the prosecution who actually has the evidence and did the tests brought this out in court? Are they holding it back for some reason?

I don't know if the Prosecution has it or not. If it exists, maybe it's not a strong match. It's Raffaele's team that has brought this up, not the prosecution nor Amanda's team.

Frumpycat wrote:
"Amanda's DNA/blood has been found mixed with the victim's blood in a number of locations (I'm not even thinking of the bidet, which could be explained away)." Not that many locations, most in the bathroom..kinda biological in there....and if you can explain away one, as even you admit, you can explain away others. Also, what if after the murder AK shows up like a dork and walks through a bunch of crime scene? Does that make her guilty?

One of the locations is Filomena's bedroom and the hallway, in addition to the bathroom. You say "kinda biological in there", okay, as regards the bidet. However, on top of the basin faucet and even higher on the box of Qtips ... those aren't normal locations.

Frumpycat wrote:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying: I don't feel that Amanda is guilty of murder because there is none of her DNA within 2 metres of the victim (the radius which defines the victim's room). However, Amanda doesn't have to be the one to have pushed the knife (which maybe she did, or maybe she didn't) to be accused of murder from a legal perspective." I would feel more comfortable in condemning her of murder if their was ANY DNA evidence. And its not just about Amanda, its about RS as well. Their DNA was not found in the room.

So we agree that there's no Bongiorno's Flying Clasp, i.e. that the clasp didn't leave the bedroom and travel around the cottage? RS's DNA wasn't in the room. I think that everyone except for you accepts that it is RS's DNA, and in abundant quantities which is on the clasp. The defence argument (after months of preparing the trial) isn't a false positive, but contamination.

Frumpycat wrote:
[i]"What you should ask yourself is: am I convinced that Amanda is being truthful and upfront with all information she may know concerning the events which took place in her house on the evening of 1 November 2007? Personally, I find that impossible to say "yes, I am convinced". And as you look at the "hard" and "circumstantial" evidence, it starts to roll and accumulate and makes it difficult to believe that Amanda is unconnected to those events."[/i ] Tell you the truth? This is where I had the most problem originally, but as the trial goes on, you know what? Young people do stupid sh**. Did they go out of their way to kill a roommate? Not likely. Should she have lawyered up (in a foreign country no doubt) HECK YES. I think they lied to get out of being accused of murder... and inadvertently gave RG a basis for an appeal, and made themselves notorious number one from stupid statements. Guilty of stupidity, yes, guilty of killing their roommate in a sex game gone wild, no.

I agree, young people do stupid things. But by the time a trial comes around, and after over a year of legal and family counselling, it would be normal to expect that a defendant doesn't try to convince the jury that a whirlwind of activity, visual inspections, arrivals of two new groups of persons, etc. etc. takes place in just 4 minutes and 24 seconds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:27 am 
"But Rudy's DNA wasn't found "all over the room" either. DNA is apparently not as easy to spread everywhere as you may think. Stabbing someone in the throat requires only that the perpetrator leaves DNA on one place - the knife handle - which coincidentally was exactly where they found AK's. The violence has nothing to do with it, since Rudy's violence apparently didn't get any DNA on her body, even though according to your theory he stripped her, choked her, stabbed her, molested her, and bruised her all over her body."

But there was still none of their DNA found. Look, I've been in fist fights before, there is definitely going to be dna there. MK wasn't some weakling...I think she fought like crazy. But why only bring out one persons dna? And as we've seen from DNA it isn't that hard. If they were in her room there should have been something. And having it isolated on a clasp sounds to me like bs.

"The bra clasp was indeed found in the room. And collected from there, too. The only issue with the bra clasp was that it sat in a sealed room for a while before they removed it. As for a source on the RS's defense's claim that the bra has AK's DNA on it, see any of the 6 or so references that lone_wolfe linked to a couple of days ago."

Can you prove this? The problem I have from both of the sides is they can never back up their stuff. Can you do it on this? Was is seriously taken from her room and was their no chance, that over 40 days of visits by the cops, nothing happened? How sealed is a sealed room? Didn't some satanists or something steal MK's mattress?


"I agree that Rudy's DNA on MK's bag could be used to argue that he stole from her. Judge Micheli disagreed, for reasons that he explained in his report, when he found him not guilty of theft. I'll dig up the relevant section and translate it later when I get the chance."

Yeah, for me this was a maaaasive stretch by him...my guess is he wanted additional charges to tag on to make this trial even bigger, make it seem the case even stonger. Make the defense work from a ton of more angles.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
malcolm wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
What does matter is that Kokomani knew all about the broken down car "he had to manouvre around" and then he drove on to a cafe and told his friends all about a strange confrontation he'd just had with 2 guys and a girl waving knives near the car park in Via del Pergola.


Until his friends come out and testify it, or at least give an interview, all you have is hearsay. And I totally disagree with the suggestion that someone made earlier that his friends couldn't have tesified as to what he told them, since his lawyer certainly did.


Total rubbish.

Those "friends" will have been interviewed by the police as part of their rescontri, just like the people Laura visited in Rome. Their statements will have been presented to the court as written evidence. How many witnesses do you want on the stand, 1000?

The reason Kokomani's lawyer gave evidence in court was because Kokomani phoned him with his evidence before the end of November. The lawyer obviously "put him off". He said he was "busy".

This detail needed to be explained to the court.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:39 am 
Kermit

"One of the locations is Filomena's bedroom and the hallway, in addition to the bathroom. You say "kinda biological in there", okay, as regards the bidet. However, on top of the basin faucet and even higher on the box of Qtips ... those aren't normal locations."

But then you start quibbling about where roommates can share blood. From what i heard a lot of the mixing was from blood, and then dna like skin flakes. Anything mixed in with MK and AK i take as suspect. How much RS and MK mixes do you have?

"So we agree that there's no Bongiorno's Flying Clasp, i.e. that the clasp didn't leave the bedroom and travel around the cottage? RS's DNA wasn't in the room. I think that everyone except for you accepts that it is RS's DNA, and in abundant quantities which is on the clasp. The defence argument (after months of preparing the trial) isn't a false positive, but contamination."

I wanna see how this was tested. Look, can you we agree the fact that they didn't find it important day one, that they had to wait 40 days isn't a good sign and brings in reasonable doubt? Could it have been some college students drinking in the "murder house" for fun? Over a 40 day period I can think of all sorts of way for contamination.

"I agree, young people do stupid things. But by the time a trial comes around, and after over a year of legal and family counselling, it would be normal to expect that a defendant doesn't try to convince the jury that a whirlwind of activity, visual inspections, arrivals of two new groups of persons, etc. etc. takes place in just 4 minutes and 24 seconds."

I'm not sure what you're referring to. If its Finn's timeline I just don't buy it. Too many variables. And seriously....if that's what you're referring to...the times were soooo close, that anyone who lied, f'd up etc including the police makes this a big, black hole. Absolutes are someones DNA in a body. RG went to rob the place, it was the end of the month when he knew students would have money, got caught, saw a rape of opportunity, and did it.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
But there was still none of their DNA found. Look, I've been in fist fights before, there is definitely going to be dna there. MK wasn't some weakling...I think she fought like crazy. But why only bring out one persons dna? And as we've seen from DNA it isn't that hard. If they were in her room there should have been something.

Whose DNA was that? NO ONE's DNA was found on the surface of her body! If you want to argue that the police were incompetent and couldn't pick out DNA that should've been there, then you undercut your own argument.

Did you ever take DNA tests after those fist fights? Did you clean up first before you ran those tests?

Frumpycat wrote:
"The bra clasp was indeed found in the room. And collected from there, too. The only issue with the bra clasp was that it sat in a sealed room for a while before they removed it. As for a source on the RS's defense's claim that the bra has AK's DNA on it, see any of the 6 or so references that lone_wolfe linked to a couple of days ago."

Can you prove this? The problem I have from both of the sides is they can never back up their stuff. Can you do it on this? Was is seriously taken from her room and was their no chance, that over 40 days of visits by the cops, nothing happened? How sealed is a sealed room? Didn't some satanists or something steal MK's mattress?

Can you prove that it was removed from the room before collection? Do you ANY evidence of this at all?

The house was broken into many months later. No one knows (except them, I suppose) what their religious beliefs are.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1290
My brother once fell off the stairs and I happen to step in his blood when I went there to help him. It only took a minute or so and I went back to my room to clean up my foot because I thought it was making a mess all over the place. But that wasn't the case cuz the blood had totally dried on my foot and it was hard enough to clean it. The point is that in my opinion mixed blood and bloody footprints is very condemning evidence. You don't get those hours after the crime.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: READ UP ON THINGS
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
was their no chance, that over 40 days of visits by the cops, nothing happened? How sealed is a sealed room? Didn't some satanists or something steal MK's mattress?


You're mixing up your facts.

No, neither "Cops" nor anyone else visited the cottage during 40 days (or so). During the first several days after the crime there were a number of inspections, all by forensic inspectors in "space suits" and with latex gloves and protective footwear. Then the cottage was sealed and no one entered until the 18th of December (I believe it was the 18th). Then, once again the forensic inspectors in their forensic outfits entered the sealed cottage.

The intruders who entered the cottage did so this spring, over a year after the crime, on two occasions. In fact, instead of entering through Filomena's window, they did so via the "standard", logical, safe, discrete route: the kitchen window on the other side of the cottage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Brian S. wrote:
Those "friends" will have been interviewed by the police as part of their rescontri, just like the people Laura visited in Rome. Their statements will have been presented to the court as written evidence. How many witnesses do you want on the stand, 1000?

The reason Kokomani's lawyer gave evidence in court was because Kokomani phoned him with his evidence before the end of November. The lawyer obviously "put him off". He said he was "busy".

This detail needed to be explained to the court.


Don't defendants have the right to cross-examine witnesses against them in Italian court? How could you have witnesses that don't testify? If I was on trial, I would be outraged that secret testimony could be given against me without an opportunity for me to challenge it.

But that is moot. The fact is we have no account of what they may or may not have heard from him. Until I have a reliable account of it, I will disregard it like I do all those other rumors that haven't panned out.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
FC wrote:
But there was still none of their DNA found. Look, I've been in fist fights before, there is definitely going to be dna there. MK wasn't some weakling...I think she fought like crazy.


Meredith couldn't have fought like crazy, nothing was found under her fingernails.

She may have struggled like crazy but when you are being restrained by several arms there isn't much you can do to fight back.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: CHARLIE STICKS UP FOR STEFANONI
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Good news Frumpycat, I found that quote of Charlie sticking up for Stefanoni .... on The Cooks Smog:

Posted by sept79 at 6/30/09 5:20 p.m.
.........
Sort of like Patrizia Stefanoni and her disregard for published equipment limits and protocol when testing for DNA on the knife.

Bob


And Charlie replies:

Posted by Charlie Wilkes at 6/30/09 5:51 p.m.

Stefanoni isn't like Rinaldi. Not even close. Stefanoni has made a very aggressive call that is subject to question and I believe will be shown to be unreliable. But she is competent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:57 am 
malcolm

"Whose DNA was that? NO ONE's DNA was found on the surface of her body! If you want to argue that the police were incompetent and couldn't pick out DNA that should've been there, then you undercut your own argument.

Did you ever take DNA tests after those fist fights? Did you clean up first before you ran those tests?"

Dude, its a fight. You're getting hurt even when your are winning. Imagine punching someone in the teeth...my dna from my knuckles is definitely there. My blood is dripping. MK would have snagged some other people present other than RG, chick looked like a fighter. I also believe RG, whom a ton of DNA was found, was a Much. Bigger. Guy. Total coward as*****. Men at their worst.

And please show the source of "NO ONE'S DNA" was found on her body. I've already been bitten by sources who say ITS A FACT and then turned out to be utter freaking poseurs.

"Can you prove that it was removed from the room before collection? Do you ANY evidence of this at all?

The house was broken into many months later. No one knows (except them, I suppose) what their religious beliefs are."

Seriously dude, at this point...who cares? It sat their for 40 days. If it was important it would have been in evidence day one. It's more like "shit...find something!" so they go look...what....a 10th time?

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Brian S. wrote:
She may have struggled like crazy but when you are being restrained by several arms there isn't much you can do to fight back.


But then, why wasn't anyone's DNA found on her wrists or neck?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: UNLESS IF RAFFAELE ESCAPED FOR THE NIGHT
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
I wanna see how this was tested. Look, can you we agree the fact that they didn't find it important day one, that they had to wait 40 days isn't a good sign and brings in reasonable doubt? Could it have been some college students drinking in the "murder house" for fun? Over a 40 day period I can think of all sorts of way for contamination.


Not unless if that drunk student was named Raffaele Sollecito and he escaped from Capanne Prison, sneaked into the cottage, and had his party. And he would have had to do so in such a manner that when the investigators reentered the cottage again in December they didn't notice anything disturbed - not like this spring when they detected the intrusion because the "Satanists" had turned everything upside down.

Then he sneaked out again, ensuring that no signs of his entry or exit were detectable either (like shutters covering a broken window, with glass on top of clothes).

Then he made his way back to Capanne and the safety of his cell.

Frumpycat, you're grasping at straws. Everyone, including the defence, recognises that that is Raffaele's DNA. Their only argument is contamination. Let's see if it convinces the jury. The "drunk Satanist student party" explanation honestly doesn't go far, and I don't think the defence teams will be using it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
malcolm wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Those "friends" will have been interviewed by the police as part of their rescontri, just like the people Laura visited in Rome. Their statements will have been presented to the court as written evidence. How many witnesses do you want on the stand, 1000?

The reason Kokomani's lawyer gave evidence in court was because Kokomani phoned him with his evidence before the end of November. The lawyer obviously "put him off". He said he was "busy".

This detail needed to be explained to the court.


Don't defendants have the right to cross-examine witnesses against them in Italian court? How could you have witnesses that don't testify? If I was on trial, I would be outraged that secret testimony could be given against me without an opportunity for me to challenge it.

But that is moot. The fact is we have no account of what they may or may not have heard from him. Until I have a reliable account of it, I will disregard it like I do all those other rumors that haven't panned out.


Oh, it's not moot.

The evidence isn't secret, it will have been submitted as written statements.

Ghirgha could have called those people from the cafe to the stand. Nothing to stop him.

But do you really think he would enjoy perhaps three sober people confirming Kokomani's story?

Or is he better off trying to pull Koko apart on the stand without resorting to those witnesses?

You'd better shell out for a copy of those 10,000 pages.


Last edited by Brian S. on Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:03 am 
Brian S.

"Meredith couldn't have fought like crazy, nothing was found under her fingernails.

She may have struggled like crazy but when you are being restrained by several arms there isn't much you can do to fight back."

I don't think she just layed down...I think she was punching as she went out. I don't think she was restrained. Otherwise, SOMETHING...would have showed up...some form of DNA. "Copious amounts"on her clasp? How about all the evidence they would have left holding her down? I have a hard time believing AK and RS wouldnt have been sweating like crazy trying to hold her down for the "sex game". I want to see her defense wounds again. They're going to be on her knuckles...and to tell you the truth from martial arts...on her elbows and knees. I bet RG had one hell of a bruise on his instep.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
Dude, its a fight. You're getting hurt even when your are winning. Imagine punching someone in the teeth...my dna from my knuckles is definitely there. My blood is dripping. MK would have snagged some other people present other than RG, chick looked like a fighter. I also believe RG, whom a ton of DNA was found, was a Much. Bigger. Guy. Total coward as*****. Men at their worst.


What ton of DNA evidence for Rudy was found? I listed ALL of it in my earlier post. Bra, jacket cuff, bag, inside her body (I'm not going to go into more detail here because this upsets some people). By your description there should be a lot, lot more. But I think you overestimate how much DNA gets deposited on another person during a fight.

Frumpycat wrote:
And please show the source of "NO ONE'S DNA" was found on her body. I've already been bitten by sources who say ITS A FACT and then turned out to be utter freaking poseurs.

There have been a lot of links to articles on this blog that discuss the DNA evidence. I have also quoted extensively from the Micheli report. Can you name a single piece of DNA evidence in MK's room (other than her own) that I've omitted?

Frumpycat wrote:
Seriously dude, at this point...who cares? It sat their for 40 days. If it was important it would have been in evidence day one.


As if they would know right away where all the DNA was. It was discovered on the first day, though.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:10 am 
Kermit

"And Charlie replies:

Posted by Charlie Wilkes at 6/30/09 5:51 p.m.

Stefanoni isn't like Rinaldi. Not even close. Stefanoni has made a very aggressive call that is subject to question and I believe will be shown to be unreliable. But she is competent."

That's weak dude. Are you trying to infer b/c the group you disagree with said something positive leads to the direct conclusion that she is not in error?

Look, I think she was pressured heavily into saving Mignini's career who was already in trouble. Comodi almost passed out when she found this out and all of a sudden Massei is ill. I don't think this is a coincidence.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Posts: 419
Location: California/U.S.A.
Frumpycat wrote:
malcolm wrote:
I agree that Rudy's DNA on MK's bag could be used to argue that he stole from her. Judge Micheli disagreed, for reasons that he explained in his report, when he found him not guilty of theft. I'll dig up the relevant section and translate it later when I get the chance.

Yeah, for me this was a maaaasive stretch by him...my guess is he wanted additional charges to tag on to make this trial even bigger, make it seem the case even stonger. Make the defense work from a ton of more angles.

Frumpycat, I don't see how this makes any sense.

I'm not familiar with the theft charges, but from the exchange above I'm assuming that AK and/or RS was charged with theft. I can't imagine how this would make the prosecution's "case even stronger" unless they had some real evidence that AK/RS actually committed the theft. Making the accusation without any evidence at all would actually weaken their case in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
I want to see her defense wounds again. They're going to be on her knuckles...and to tell you the truth from martial arts...on her elbows and knees. I bet RG had one hell of a bruise on his instep.


She had multiple cuts on one hand but only 1 tiny one on the other. The explanation given by the police for this was that one hand was being restrained while she was trying to fight off the knife with other. She had no cuts to her elbows or knees, and I don't think the ones to her hands were on her knuckles either. There were bruises on her thighs and near her genitals. There were also bruises on her face and the hyoid bone in her neck was broken. She also had bruises on her neck and of course multiple cuts, too. Hard to see how one person with a knife in one hand could do all that at the same time.

I haven't seen anything about an injury to Rudy, and of course his blood was not found at the scene. OTOH, AK's blood was found in several rooms, and a witness testified that she had been cut.

It's easier to explain a lack of bruises on MK's elbows, knees, or fists if she was fighting multiple attackers than just one.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
malcolm wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
She may have struggled like crazy but when you are being restrained by several arms there isn't much you can do to fight back.


But then, why wasn't anyone's DNA found on her wrists or neck?


If I'm wearing a jersey(it was November) and I bearhug you from behind, am I going to leave my DNA on you?

Rudy's DNA was found on the cuff of Meredith's top.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
Look, I think she was pressured heavily into saving Mignini's career who was already in trouble. Comodi almost passed out when she found this out and all of a sudden Massei is ill. I don't think this is a coincidence.


FC, now you're sounding like a conspiracy-theory looney.

Mignini's career is not in jeopardy. The accusations against him have been exaggerated in the US media.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:20 am 
Itchy Brother (yeeks...kinda creepy name...is there are good story behind it?)

"Frumpycat, I don't see how this makes any sense.

I'm not familiar with the theft charges, but from the exchange above I'm assuming that AK and/or RS was charged with theft. I can't imagine how this would make the prosecution's "case even stronger" unless they had some real evidence that AK/RS actually committed the theft. Making the accusation without any evidence at all would actually weaken their case in my opinion."

I'm being too much of an American. In the US...the prosecution will try and throw so many things up against you they hope that something will stick. We nailed Capone through tax fraud. They'll try and throw up everything to make it stick - hoping they get the number of years they are looking for. From my narrow blinders I assumed the same of the Italian prosecution.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Brian S. wrote:
Rudy's DNA was found on the cuff of Meredith's top.


Wouldn't this support the theory that he held her wrist with one hand while stabbing her with the other?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
malcolm wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Rudy's DNA was found on the cuff of Meredith's top.


Wouldn't this support the theory that he held her wrist with one hand while stabbing her with the other?


Well, who was holding on to her other arm? Who had a hand over her mouth so hard it bruised her lips and stopped her shouting?

All it proves is that Rudy touched her cuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Posts: 419
Location: California/U.S.A.
Frumpycat wrote:
Itchy Brother (yeeks...kinda creepy name...is there are good story behind it?)

Yeah, old cartoon character from early 1960s and the nickname I was given due to my close association with another boy nicknamed "Biggy Rat" (Itchy was Biggy's sidekick).
Frumpycat wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
"Frumpycat, I don't see how this makes any sense.

I'm not familiar with the theft charges, but from the exchange above I'm assuming that AK and/or RS was charged with theft. I can't imagine how this would make the prosecution's "case even stronger" unless they had some real evidence that AK/RS actually committed the theft. Making the accusation without any evidence at all would actually weaken their case in my opinion."

I'm being too much of an American. In the US...the prosecution will try and throw so many things up against you they hope that something will stick. We nailed Capone through tax fraud. They'll try and throw up everything to make it stick - hoping they get the number of years they are looking for. From my narrow blinders I assumed the same of the Italian prosecution.

FC


Yeah, but Capone actually did commit tax fraud, they had the evidence, and they successfully convicted him of same. Perhaps they have some credible evidence that AK and/or RS committed theft. If they do, then this does in fact strengthen the murder case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:34 am 
Malcolm

"She had multiple cuts on one hand but only 1 tiny one on the other. The explanation given by the police for this was that one hand was being restrained while she was trying to fight off the knife with other. She had no cuts to her elbows or knees, and I don't think the ones to her hands were on her knuckles either. There were bruises on her thighs and near her genitals. There were also bruises on her face and the hyoid bone in her neck was broken. She also had bruises on her neck and of course multiple cuts, too. Hard to see how one person with a knife in one hand could do all that at the same time."

Do you have the entire list of where she was injured to share with us? Seriously. Then we can really figure out where she was hurt. PLEASE send me a link. This is what's so frustrating about this case. I don't trust anyone til they give the goods. No matter what the injuries are, I'm sure she went down fighting. And it wasn't cuz she was held down.

"I haven't seen anything about an injury to Rudy, and of course his blood was not found at the scene. OTOH, AK's blood was found in several rooms, and a witness testified that she had been cut."

Read above posts. They shared the same apartment. Do you also have examples of RS's and MK's blood mixed together?

"It's easier to explain a lack of bruises on MK's elbows, knees, or fists if she was fighting multiple attackers than just one.


FC, now you're sounding like a conspiracy-theory looney.

Mignini's career is not in jeopardy. The accusations against him have been exaggerated in the US media."

Dude, I think this guy is seriously in trouble. Here I am making myself look like a conspiracy theory looney but the "monster of florence" book was pretty convincing for me. They get a hollywood movie, he gets a subpoena. I know that sounds lame :P but I'll go out on a stretch and give my theory. Not so different from the "mop buckets" and "lack of fingerprints" theories as well.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
I've noticed a pattern with people who post on here defending AK and RS (well, mainly AK). At first the come off as very polite, asking if it would be OK to post in the forum. They just want ask a few innocent questions. Maybe they'll claim not to know too much about the case. But then they become more and more strident, eventually accusing the Italian justice system of perpetuating a vast conspiracy against the defendants. I always wondered, where are all the doubters who just rely on the actual evidence we have?

But then it hit me, they're basically mimicking the defense strategy, and most of the American media. They argue in this fashion because that is the only method that the defense has tried. It's as if, either they are guilty, or this is a massive frame job.

Personally I reject these alternatives. I believe that they are probably guilty, but I still have my doubts, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the motives of the prosecution or judges.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:41 am 
Itchy Brother

"Yeah, but Capone actually did commit tax fraud, they had the evidence, and they successfully convicted him of same. Perhaps they have some credible evidence that AK and/or RS committed theft. If they do, then this does in fact strengthen the murder case."

You are obfuscating my main point. Prosecutors in my country will try and throw everything including the kitchen sink to get a conviction. Capone got committed of tax fraud, but they tried to get him for way more than that.

Back to the theft point...doesn't RG's DNA found in MK's purse lead one to more come to the conclusion that he robbed her?

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
Malcolm
Do you have the entire list of where she was injured to share with us? Seriously. Then we can really figure out where she was hurt. PLEASE send me a link. This is what's so frustrating about this case. I don't trust anyone til they give the goods. No matter what the injuries are, I'm sure she went down fighting. And it wasn't cuz she was held down.
FC


There have been multiple links to the Micheli report on this forum. A few were posted a couple of days ago. It's also found in a separate section of this website. I've been quoting extensively from it, with translation, but I haven't quoted the part of the injuries before because it wasn't relevant to the evidence we were discussing and it's very graphic.

Look through the older posts for the link to the Micheli report. Then do a Google translation to get the idea. If you want more detail translate the relevant Italian sentences word-by-word. It's tedious, I know.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:46 am 
Malcolm

"I've noticed a pattern with people who post on here defending Ak and RS (well, mainly AK). At first the come off as very polite, asking if it would be OK to post in the forum. They just want ask a few innocent questions. Maybe they'll claim not to know too much about the case. But then they become more and more strident, eventually accusing the Italian justice system of perpetuating a vast conspiracy against the defendants. I always wondered, where are all the doubters who just rely on the actual evidence we have?

But then it hit me, they're basically mimicking the defense startegy, and most of the American media. They argue in this fashion because that is the only method that the defense has tried. It's as if, either they are guilty, or this is a massive frame job.

Personally I reject these alternatives. I believe that they are probably guilty, but I still have my doubts, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the motives of the prosecution or judges."

I've defended them both. I came here saying I'd like to debate, true. I think I've been polite. If not point out where I haven't been. My questions aren't innocent....I see them as huge holes for the prosecution. And I've been following this case for awhile. I'm not here expounding on a "massive consipiracy". I do think that some individuals have been unprofessional. Kick my a** on it! Dude, if you believe that they are guilty, and you may have your doubts, debate us. We're the defense?! Its more like we're common sense.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:49 am 
Malcolm

"There have been multiple links to the Micheli report on this forum. A few were posted a couple of days ago. It's also found in a separate section of this website. I've been quoting extensively from it, with translation, but I haven't quoted the part of the injuries before because it wasn't relevant to the evidence we were discussing and it's very graphic.

Look through the older posts for the link to the Micheli report. Then do a Google translation to get the idea. If you want more detail translate the relevant Italian sentences word-by-word. It's tedious, I know."

Please post it. Seriously. I haven't had the time to find it. I can't find it with google.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Frumpycat wrote:
Itchy Brother

"Yeah, but Capone actually did commit tax fraud, they had the evidence, and they successfully convicted him of same. Perhaps they have some credible evidence that AK and/or RS committed theft. If they do, then this does in fact strengthen the murder case."

You are obfuscating my main point. Prosecutors in my country will try and throw everything including the kitchen sink to get a conviction. Capone got committed of tax fraud, but they tried to get him for way more than that.

Back to the theft point...doesn't RG's DNA found in MK's purse lead one to more come to the conclusion that he robbed her?

FC



RG's DNA wasn't found IN Meredith's purse.

It was found on both outsides of her bag near the top as if he'd pinched it shut or picked it up - See Micheli's report


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Posts: 419
Location: California/U.S.A.
Frumpycat wrote:
You are obfuscating my main point. Prosecutors in my country will try and throw everything including the kitchen sink to get a conviction. Capone got committed of tax fraud, but they tried to get him for way more than that.

Back to the theft point...doesn't RG's DNA found in MK's purse lead one to more come to the conclusion that he robbed her?
FC


I understand your point, but it still doesn't make any sense. I suspect the penalty for petty theft is pretty minor; why bother?

As for RG's DNA in the purse, that does count as evidence to me. However, this again suggests that the evidence they have against AK/RS must be even stronger does it not? Otherwise, how could they possible hope for a conviction on this charge?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:58 am 
Brian S.

"RG's DNA wasn't found IN Meredith's purse.

It was found on both outsides of her bag near the top as if he'd pinched it shut or picked it up - See Micheli's report"

and how does this incriminate AK and RS? If she was robbed wouldn't it be by the person who's DNA was on the purse?

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
Dude, if you believe that they are guilty, and you may have your doubts, debate us. We're the defense?! Its more like we're common sense.


Dude, in case you haven't noticed, I have been debating you. But when you attribute the Judge coming down with pneumonia to some kind of conspiracy, well, it becomes hard to keep taking you seriously.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Itchy Brother wrote:
As for RG's DNA in the purse, that does count as evidence to me. However, this again suggests that the evidence they have against AK/RS must be even stronger does it not? Otherwise, how could they possible hope for a conviction on this charge?


Did I miss something? Hasn't the prosecution finished presenting its case? What was the evidence that AK/RS committed theft?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 - Raffaele's pals
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:41 am
Posts: 5
It's true. The are sollecito's lawyers. cl-)
Can you give me the link to that video posted on Candace's blog ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:02 am 
Itchy Brother

"I understand your point, but it still doesn't make any sense. I suspect the penalty for petty theft is pretty minor; why bother?"

Cuz they got to get them behind jail no matter what to keep them from doing worse stuff.

"As for RG's DNA in the purse, that does count as evidence to me. However, this again suggests that the evidence they have against AK/RS must be even stronger does it not? Otherwise, how could they possible hope for a conviction on this charge?"

RG's evidence was taken correctly...it wasn't magnified 50 times and destroyed in the sampling. RG's evidence in the room and on the body was overwhelming. ESPECIALLY when he admitted to being there.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Here's the [urlx=http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750]Micheli report[/urlx], again. :roll:

Don't ask me to translate it for you. It's 106 freakin' pages.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:07 am 
Malcolm

"Dude, in case you haven't noticed, I have been debating you. But when you attribute the Judge coming down with pneumonia to some kind of conspiracy, well, it becomes hard to keep taking you seriously."

Well you ignored all of my other arguments to laser in on this one. And my inference was never that it was a conspiracy, my inference is decent people doing normal work suddenly get ill when they realize they have been making a big mistake, and have also been under enormous international pressure. Imagine the stress they are under. Especially when their evidence is taking a major hit.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:09 am 
Gotta go to bed...

I will catch up with everyone later.

Cheers, I appreciate this. I thought I would get banned on the first post.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Posts: 419
Location: California/U.S.A.
malcolm wrote:
Did I miss something? Hasn't the prosecution finished presenting its case? What was the evidence that AK/RS committed theft?

I was responding to an insinuation from this previous exchange where it was suggested that "additional charges" were leveled against someone other than RG. That implies AK or RS. I personally am not aware of any such charges as I stated below.
Itchy Brother wrote:
Frumpycat wrote:
malcolm wrote:
I agree that Rudy's DNA on MK's bag could be used to argue that he stole from her. Judge Micheli disagreed, for reasons that he explained in his report, when he found him not guilty of theft. I'll dig up the relevant section and translate it later when I get the chance.

Yeah, for me this was a maaaasive stretch by him...my guess is he wanted additional charges to tag on to make this trial even bigger, make it seem the case even stonger. Make the defense work from a ton of more angles.

Frumpycat, I don't see how this makes any sense.

I'm not familiar with the theft charges, but from the exchange above I'm assuming that AK and/or RS was charged with theft. I can't imagine how this would make the prosecution's "case even stronger" unless they had some real evidence that AK/RS actually committed the theft. Making the accusation without any evidence at all would actually weaken their case in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
Well you ignored all of my other arguments to laser in on this one. And my inference was never that it was a conspiracy, my inference is decent people doing normal work suddenly get ill when they realize they have been making a big mistake, and have also been under enormous international pressure. Imagine the stress they are under. Especially when their evidence is taking a major hit.


FC, go back and reread all the responses I have made to you today. I haven't just zeroed in on any one. I haven't responded to everything you say b/c (1) some of that has been directed toward other people, (2) I don't always disagree with you (such as with the RG's fingerprints on the bag), (3) some things you are just repeating over and over again, after I've already disputed them such as the idea that RG left tons of DNA, (4) some of the things you say are so crazy that they're not even worth responding to in detail (such as the nonsense that I quote above that has nothing to do with the evidence), and (5) I'm at work right now and don't have time to respond to everything.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Posts: 419
Location: California/U.S.A.
Frumpycat wrote:
my guess is he wanted additional charges to tag on to make this trial even bigger...

malcolm, I think I must have misinterpreted Frumpycat's use of the phrase "this trial". Now that I read it again I think he meant Rudy's trial in which case my counter argument was moot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
And my inference was never that it was a conspiracy, my inference is decent people doing normal work suddenly get ill when they realize they have been making a big mistake, and have also been under enormous international pressure. Imagine the stress they are under. Especially when their evidence is taking a major hit.


His evidence? He is the presiding judge!! His career doesn't depend at all on whether they're found guilty or not! That's the prosecution's problem. Did Lance Ito get sick b/c Marcia Clark blew the OJ trial (because apparently the jury was filled with people just like you)?

This is what I mean by conspiracy-theory nonsense.


Last edited by malcolm on Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Posts: 419
Location: California/U.S.A.
malcolm wrote:
Frumpycat wrote:
And my inference was never that it was a conspiracy, my inference is decent people doing normal work suddenly get ill when they realize they have been making a big mistake, and have also been under enormous international pressure. Imagine the stress they are under. Especially when their evidence is taking a major hit.


His evidence? He is the presiding judge!! His career doesn't depend at all one whether they're found guilty or not! That's the prosecution's problem. Did Lance Ito get sick b/c Marcia Clark blew the OJ trial (because apparently the jury was filled with people just like you)?

This is what I mean by conspiracy-theory nonsense.

And I don't think the forensics team felt any pressure to alter the evidence to save Mark Furman's career :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
I want to correct something I wrote earlier. I reread the Micheli report and saw that there were bruises on MK's right elbow and forearm, but not the left. This fits the theory that her left arm was pinned while she flailed her right arm to defend herself.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
The lowdown on the money stolen from Meredith:

It wasn't in her bag.

She put her rent money in her bedside drawer under some clothes where she also kept her cards, passport and a few other important bits and pieces.

Rudy was charged with theft but found not guilty by Micheli.

However, Micheli did indict AK and RS on the theft at their pre-trial held at the same time as Rudy's trial.

It's not known exactly what evidence the prosecution has put forward on the theft charge against RS and AK at this trial because it's not been reported as such.

A month or two ago evidence was presented about Meredith withdrawing her money. Laura and Filomena gave evidence that she had already withdrawn it when they spoke the evening before the holiday about everyone having the rent money ready for Filomena to pay the landlord the following Monday.

The suspicion is that Amanda can't explain and can't produce a bank withdrawal record for the E215 she had in her pocket when she was arrested.

But Malcolm will like this because all we have to go on is rumour and assumption.

Maybe there isn't any real evidence on the theft?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
Frumpycat wrote:
Gotta go to bed...

I will catch up with everyone later.

Cheers, I appreciate this. I thought I would get banned on the first post.

FC


Sleep tight!!!!
Shame you've gone off to beddiebyes; I thought your thirst for knowledge would keep you up reading this:


http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750

URL for:
TRIBUNALE DI PERUGIA
UFFICIO DEL G.I.P.
Dott. Paolo Micheli
Sentenza del 28.10.2008 – 26.01.2009


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Hi Kermit,

Micheli's report p 35 second paragraph.
Butterworth testified that Meredith was wearing 'Puma' shoes on the day she was killed.

...La teste riferiva a sua volta dei discorsi fatti dalla KERCHER sul comportamento
di AMANDA per gli uomini che portava in casa, e si soffermava sull’abbigliamento di MEREDITH la sera dell’1, descritto in: una felpa celeste marca “Adidas” con delle strisce blu sulle maniche, una maglia di cotone a maniche lunghe di colore beige e
un’altra o forse altre due magliette sotto, con qualche disegno, oltre a un paio di jeans scoloriti e ad un paio di scarpe “Puma”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
disinterested wrote:
As far as the gory bathroom pictures, this has come up before. This is not a real life photo, but a photo of the bathroom after it was "treated" with some sort of forensic chemical, as I understand it, which creates a pink wash over everything. It's not the luminol, which requires darkness to be revealed, but something else. About which I am not the expert---maybe someone else will further clarify.


It's true that the really gory photo of the bathroom was not what was actually seen on that morning, but there was still more blood there than any normal person would attribute to "menstrual problems" or an infected ear. In addition to the blood on the bathmat, in the bidet, and around and on the fauchet, drain, and Q-tip box, there was also blood on the lightswitch and a 26-cm (10-in) long streak across the door.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/ ... 419&page=1

"Among the final witnesses expected to be called before the summer recess is a neuro-physiologist who has apparently studied Knox's writings before and after her arrest.
He is expected to tell the court whether some of the things Knox wrote -- such as a statement in which she said she had a vision she was in the cottage when her roommate was killed and heard screams -- were genuine or coerced. "

I hadn't seen this before and it's interesting...on the surface this looks to me like the kind of evidence that really can't be proved, but interesting to be heard. Can it tell the difference, really, between being coerced by someone else and hastily contrived lies?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Jools wrote:
Micheli's report p 35 second paragraph.
Butterworth testified that Meredith was wearing 'Puma' shoes on the day she was killed.


Thanks. How did I miss it? Well, that answers the question about whether the print matched MK's shoes.

(BTW, Andrea Vogt responded to my email, but she asked that I not quote her. She has at least confirmed that the "second expert" to testify about the shoeprints was Pietro Boemia. She also stands by her story, and quoted the testimony further, which emphasized that it was a woman's shoe, as well as explaining a little bit of the experts' reason for describing the shoe as a women's Asics 37.5.)


Last edited by malcolm on Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Wouldn't there be a discontinuity of expression for other reasons? Fatigue after staying up all night staging and fear and panic that she was caught?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1029
Brian S. wrote:
A month or two ago evidence was presented about Meredith withdrawing her money. Laura and Filomena gave evidence that she had already withdrawn it when they spoke the evening before the holiday about everyone having the rent money ready for Filomena to pay the landlord the following Monday.


Maybe Knox was there also. Just a kitchen table discussion.

Brian S. wrote:

The suspicion is that Amanda can't explain and can't produce a bank withdrawal record for the E215 she had in her pocket when she was arrested.

But Malcolm will like this because all we have to go on is rumour and assumption.

Maybe there isn't any real evidence on the theft?


Wow - another piece of circumstantial evidence. Soll. also had only E40 left in his account didn't he also? I think they were on a drug binge and just didn't want to stop.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
I just want to put in this defense of the forensics team.

FOAKers such as FC like to endlessly accuse the police forensics of tainting their evidence and testimony to "get" a particular person or persons. But when the investigation started, they didn't have the suspects determined already - it was the forensic evidence (in part) that led the police to them. In particular, PL was exonerated - if they were out to get a conviction by hook or by crook, why didn't his DNA turn up on something? OTOH, Rudy's DNA is what led him to be arrested, and yet he wasn't even a suspect before that. If their work was so flawed, how did they even identify him in the first place?

Ultimately, the forensics people are not responsible for the outcome of the trial. That's not what they are paid or promoted on. Sloppy police work, OTOH, will be damaging to them.

But when we consider the defense experts, they truly are hired guns. They have no obligation to search for the truth, or allow the evidence to suggest the suspects. They are being paid only to provide evidence to help the defense, and if the defendants don't like their results, they are free to use someone else instead. The prosecution is stuck with the forensics team and work they have.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Fashion etc
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Kermit, of course you've heard this much-repeated remark:

Quote:
But none of her jewelery was missing, nor her designer sunglasses and handbags.


I'm not making much of this. Filomena is probably a well-dressed professional Italian girl who cares for and is interested in clothing. Maybe fashion-conscious wasn't exactly the right word (for Laura and the ear-piercing), what I really meant was that girls very often are greatly interested by their appearance and their friends' appearance.

My daughters are not home yet, but I'll certainly show them your shoe pic, Kermit! I am curious...will they be able to guess? I'm not sure whether your point was to know for sure whether they're Asics (I'm sure we can determine that) or to see whether some people can sometimes actually go so far as to identify the make of a pair of sneakers that they never actually even saw on a friend, less important but also telling in its own way.

Here's a point that I would have loved to know more about. In her testimony, Amanda was asked about the 4550 dollars remaining in her Washington bank account, and she said (giggle) "That's after some shopping". Now, I'm risking getting scolded for generalizing the behavior I notice in my daughters and their friends to a wider circle of similar-aged girls, but they very often prefer to go shopping together and they love to discuss and make their choices together. My two older daughters are almost exactly the same ages as Amanda and Deanna...and Amanda certainly took Raffaele along when she wanted to buy her new underwear...and she wasn't likely to have left her sister at the hotel while shopping alone in European towns...

Quote:
I don't remember how she (Amanda) was dressed on the first (of Nov.), but I'm sure that she had changed and had put on the white skirt and her usual black hiking boots."

That doesn't sound too fashion conscious to me. Didn't she have something other than hiking boots to put on with her white skirt? Maybe her normal shoes got misplaced.


Okay, fashion-conscious was the wrong word. What I meant was, many people including many young people including many young Italian people will actually notice what their friends are wearing and recall it. Furthermore, hiking boots is a translation from the Italian. Maybe he meant high-top sneakers like Converses that a lot of girls love wearing. My point was that he remembered and that it's an indication that people often do remember. As for the normal shoes being misplaced, well that is of course a tempting thought, except that if the Asics were her normal shoes, all the more reason to imagine her roommates would have remembered them.

Quote:
There's another option: in the hypothesis that Amanda was in the cottage and involved actively or passively in the murderous events, perhaps her shoes, socks (and clothing?) weren't shed after the murder as part of the clean up activity, but in fact she was already in her birthday suit when things got out of hand:

"I can't remember if my friend Meredith was there or if she came later. We were all separate," she said.
"He (Lumumba) wanted her (Meredith).
"Yes we were in the house. That evening we wanted to have a bit of fun. We were drunk. We asked her to join us.
"Diya wanted her. Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard screams.


Oh my, I had completely forgotten that she ever mentioned Raffaele being there in the famous false confession. Raffaele's presence didn't seem compatible with having her ears covered in the kitchen. And no one asked her about Raffaele's being involved in this in Court at all. It's a weird and terrible thought, Kermit. (Not more weird and terrible than any other version, I'll grant you.)

bucketoftea wrote:
Quote:
I can't stop wondering if Edda knows Amanda is missing a pair of Asics.


With me it's Deanna.


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

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Frumpycat wrote:
I'm not sure what you're referring to. If its Finn's timeline I just don't buy it. Too many variables. And seriously....if that's what you're referring to...the times were soooo close, that anyone who lied, f'd up etc including the police makes this a big, black hole. Absolutes are someones DNA in a body. RG went to rob the place, it was the end of the month when he knew students would have money, got caught, saw a rape of opportunity, and did it.

FC


Sorry to have missed you last night, Frumpycat. If you have time later, I'd appreciate it if you could expand on what you mean here.

I've posted quite extensively on the timeline of that hour between 1200 and 1300 on November 2nd, and especially on the second half hour, because - while I can accept variables in witness testimony, defendant testimony and police testimony - there are actually a lot of fixed points in that half hour, provided by the cellphone records. Between 1235 and 1256, Raffaele is involved in five phone calls, none of which he's prepared to speak about, and Amanda's involved in two, one of which she can't remember making.

But the implication of his silence and her amnesia is that they want us to believe that the following things all happen between 12:55:36 (the end of the second 112 call) and 1300: the police arrive "surprisingly quickly" after the second 112 call; they find Amanda and Raffaele in the garden; Amanda and Raffaele show them round the house and draw their attention to the break-in; a few minutes later, Luca and Marco arrive and talk to the police; a few minutes after that, Filomena and Paola arrive; Paola sees Amanda and Raffaele emerging from Amanda's bedroom; the police make contact with HQ for a conversation during which Meredith's phone is activated at 1300.

My contention is: that can't be true. It is plainly impossible for all those things to happen in four and a half minutes. You say, "I just don't buy it" because there are too many variables.

I'd appreciate it if you can expand on what you mean by not buying it. There's a fixed point at 12:55:36 and another at 1300. What variables are you worried about?

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: So many interesting posts...
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
411 you can have my attention any time! hugz-)

I listened with great interest to that 2007 phone call between Amanda and Filomena. The only time we ever get to hear Filomena's voice.

My feeling is that the quality of the recording made both voices very nasal and sounding like they were both speaking right into our ear. I think that's an artificial effect.

Otherwise, no, I didn't notice anything special about Amanda's voice or tone. I was duly impressed by her Italian after just one month in Italy. She really had been studying and trying to learn, that's clear. It was very slow and hesitant but I really just put that down to the language barrier, not being stoned. I felt I was hearing our same old Amanda, but much less sure of herself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: To all newcomers especially
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
The following set of 12 pictures shows the house on the day of the crime, including the bathroom as it was found, quite clean except for a drop here and there and a stain on the bathmat. Not at all like the pink-swathed luminol photo.

By the way, there's picture of Amanda's room (pic 5). She has the drying rack actually in her room there, I think. Also, no nighttable so she can't have had that lamp as a bedside lamp. Maybe a desk lamp. Wish there were more pictures.

[urlx=http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?5]Pictures of the house on the day of the crime[/urlx]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Malcolm wrote:
Quote:
I've noticed a pattern with people who post on here defending AK and RS (well, mainly AK). At first the come off as very polite, asking if it would be OK to post in the forum. They just want ask a few innocent questions. Maybe they'll claim not to know too much about the case. But then they become more and more strident, eventually accusing the Italian justice system of perpetuating a vast conspiracy against the defendants.


So true, I've noticed it also. But why was willawinda hammered when still at the polite stage whereas Frumpycat has been allowed to give us the full benefit of his increasingly aggressive language?

Quote:
I always wondered, where are all the doubters who just rely on the actual evidence we have?


Me. eek-) eek-) eek-) eek-)

I am not defending the innocence theory. I consider myself a full-fledged doubter. I want to check and test and reason and confirm and argue and examine every single piece of evidence that I can, on both sides. Obviously, there's so much we don't know that our possibilities are frustratingly limited.

Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
You'll have to shell out for the 10,000 pages.


Yes! Just tell me where to send the check!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Candace's blog
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
FC77 wrote:
Quote:
It's true. They are Sollecito's lawyers.
Can you give me the link to that video posted on Candace's blog ?


Certainly.

[urlx=http://video.sky.it/videoportale/index.shtml?videoID=28470121001]Candace video link[/urlx]

You can also go to Candace's blog directly and click on her link while reading her article.

[urlx=http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/172993.asp]Candace's article[/urlx]

To the right of every one of her posts, Candace has placed a column of links to documents that I find very useful. Micheli's report is on there, about 5 things up from the bottom, and lots of other relevant links I've clicked on. (Not that we can't find them on here, Michael! But people keep on asking for links and this one's so easy to remember.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Back to Kermit
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Kermit, so, my daughter just came home and took a look at your shoe. She recognized the label on the tongue as the standard Puma label. You can see the white Puma head in the top part of the black rectangle.

She tried to find out what model the shoes are, but since they date back to 2007 or even 2006, models have changed slightly since then. However, the Puma Cabana Racer looks extremely close. Take a look at the new model of this shoe:

[urlx=http://www.puma.com/fr/fr/product_catalog.jsp]Puma shoes[/urlx] and click on the Cabana Racer II (first shoe in the second row).

The leatherwork pattern is slightly different, but many features are identical to Meredith's shoes. Not just the obvious feature of the darker leather part around the laces and toe, but also the rubber sole coming up in front of the toe (just visible in your top picture of Meredith's shoe), the darker leather part in the back of the shoe, the wings along the sides of the shoe with the lighter color above and below (you can see this in your lower picture, Meredith's shoes had very dark wings with beige above and below them). But I'd say the label on the tongue is the clincher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 49
If Amanda's parents have any inkling that there daughter could be guilty, then they should push for help for their child. And the first step is admission. It boggles the mind. From what I've read, Italy is very big on reform and if you confess, then you are well on your way to better days.

Two years after the crime there are no confessions. It happened. It was brutal. Why is there no remorse for those who committed this unimaginable torture to a young woman? Is our society so primitive and bestial that we condone brutality?

I believe if Rudy had been there alone, and somehow managed to create all this chaos on his own, he would have taken his medicine and hung his head and gone quietly towards some type of restitution.

It's a sad, sad world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Candace's blog
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:41 am
Posts: 5
thoughtful wrote:
FC77 wrote:
Quote:
It's true. They are Sollecito's lawyers.
Can you give me the link to that video posted on Candace's blog ?


Certainly.

[urlx=http://video.sky.it/videoportale/index.shtml?videoID=28470121001]Candace video link[/urlx]

You can also go to Candace's blog directly and click on her link while reading her article.

[urlx=http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/172993.asp]Candace's article[/urlx]

To the right of every one of her posts, Candace has placed a column of links to documents that I find very useful. Micheli's report is on there, about 5 things up from the bottom, and lots of other relevant links I've clicked on. (Not that we can't find them on here, Michael! But people keep on asking for links and this one's so easy to remember.)


Great!!! It's very useful!!! gb-)
I'v seen that in the web there are a lot of information about the perguia murder the people involved, but they're often contraddictory. huh-)
Please, if you find more information about the sollecito's legal team (in particular Daniela Rocchi) point out them. Thanks.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1290
mylady007 wrote:
If Amanda's parents have any inkling that there daughter could be guilty, then they should push for help for their child. And the first step is admission. It boggles the mind. From what I've read, Italy is very big on reform and if you confess, then you are well on your way to better days.

Two years after the crime there are no confessions. It happened. It was brutal. Why is there no remorse for those who committed this unimaginable torture to a young woman? Is our society so primitive and bestial that we condone brutality?

I believe if Rudy had been there alone, and somehow managed to create all this chaos on his own, he would have taken his medicine and hung his head and gone quietly towards some type of restitution.

It's a sad, sad world.

So true but it happens all the time. Killers that never confess just to be able to have some life for themselves later on. They are often sociopaths. For parents I think it has to do with some sort of guilt feeling themselves. They feel they are to blame for their child so the child is innocent. I am not an expert though but it is indeed sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
It must be one of the most excruciating positions to be in. Instinct and emotion so powerful. It is OMO but I believe a contributor to their alarm and confusion is their personal doubt however large or small, that she is not innocent. I can't yet wrap my head around the Knoxes not sending any message of condolence to the Kerchers, and this looks to me as evidence of their ambivalence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
:!: Administrator Note:

I've been coding the board quite a bit lately to give you guys some extra functionality. Now, the first couple of things are really items that memers 'may' like to add into their signatures. The first, is:

Skype. One simply adds the following BBcode into their signature (you can do this in your User Control Panel) and it adds a Skype button which basically tells the viewer if you're online on Skype or not and they can click on it to message or call you. You need a Skype account of course:

Code:
[skype]YOUR SKYPE ID NUMBER HERE[/skype]



The second, which can also go into a sig is for [urlx=http://www.trillianmini.com/]TRILLIAN MINI[/urlx] You would also need to download and install [urlx=http://www.trillian.im/learn/]TRILLIAN ASTRA[/urlx] and create an Trillian Astra account (it's actually rather quick and easy). Trillian is basically a free (although there is a paid for version in Trillian Pro) instant messaging client, like Windows/MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger, ICQ or Aim. The difference with Trillian is that you can add all your contacts from all the afformentioned clients, as well as others, so instead of having to have multiple instant messaging clients for your various formats, you can bind them all in one client. It also does all the things other other clients can do, more if anything.

Trillian Mini is like a little widget you can add to your signature so that other users can see when you're offline and send you messages, or send you offline messages. The BBcode is:

Code:
[trillian]YOUR TRILLIAN ASTRA HANDLE HERE[/trillian]



Now the other thing, is I've built a Chat Room for PMF. This shouldn't be confused with the Chat Box (which is really a shout box). This is a full fledged chat room. Over this, I have full Moderator control, so trouble makers can be removed. Unlike the Chat Box, as this is a proper room, it retains all the chat, not just the last 100 lines or so and chat logs are retained. Users can use smilies and different fonts. It also has a built in Media player, so things like YouTube videos can be played directly in the chat room simply by posting the url in the chat (quite a cool feature actually). I can also actually make the room private instead of public, if needed.

Now, the idea for the chat room, is not idle chit chat or shouts to other members, we have the chat box for that. Instead, I was thinking along the lines of having 'scheduled' once weekly, or maybe twice weekly live chats about the case. This would be for in depth, real-time case debate for the membership and the sessions would be Moderated. Logs of the debates would be retained and posted somewhere in their own thread for members to review.

I would appreciate feedback on whether you all would like this feature.

In the meantime, if any of you would like to have a look and play with the Chat Room software, I've embedded my beta version in a post [urlx=http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/post16195.html#p16195]HERE[/urlx] in 'The Range'. Feel free to have a muck about with it and let me know what you think of it :)

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  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Quote:
I've noticed a pattern with people who post on here defending AK and RS (well, mainly AK). At first the come off as very polite, asking if it would be OK to post in the forum. They just want ask a few innocent questions. Maybe they'll claim not to know too much about the case. But then they become more and more strident, eventually accusing the Italian justice system of perpetuating a vast conspiracy against the defendants.


So true, I've noticed it also. But why was willawinda hammered when still at the polite stage whereas Frumpycat has been allowed to give us the full benefit of his increasingly aggressive language?



I think there are two reasons: One is that Michael appears to have been very busy on some features that will benefit the board. The other is that, during this same period, I have been away from the computer dealing with some personal matters. And I may not be online for most of today.

I will say once again that Michael and I sometimes make calls that are not visible to people on the board, based on a variety of factors. We have been working together here for quite some time now and have developed certain instincts. People like Nowo have been around for just as long and have also developed certain instincts. I won't go into detail on it, but you might be surprised to know that some posters don't stop at making increasingly abusive posts from a polite springboard. They send abusive and impolite private messages or emails, post the replies they receive elsewhere, etc. I banned one such poster recently and spent the better part of a night reading scary and harassing emails. I hoped the person was not based in my city because it sounded like he was capable of coming over to my house.

I have not had a chance to read "Frumpycat" yet and don't know if I will be able to today.

Incidentally, we aren't infallible. Anyone who feels they have been unfairly and/or erroneously tagged as a troublemaker can always send a private message to the moderators. The problem can be worked out without involving posters and readers who come here to discuss the case.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 625
Hi there, Thoughtful! WW came in with guns a-blazing in what seemed an attempt to get 'banned' (oh the horror!) so he or she could go report it elsewhere, whereas most of the older posters remember FC in different incarnations from the Haloscan days. My only thought as to why this charming individual has reappeared is that he's grown weary of talking to himself. Thanks so much for all your translations! Finn, nice work on the timeline. Who knew so much could be accomplished in less than 5 minutes? I need to get my ass in gear! Kermit, remember the old Hobbit blessing, "may the hair on your toes never fall out"! Pink hobbit prints... cl-) Skepperoni (the Seattle treat!) and Michael, thanks as always. Hello, Board!

To go even further off topic, if all goes according to plan, I'll be extracting my first honey this weekend! Not that I haven't tasted some while tending the girls, mind you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Corrina wrote:
Hi there, Thoughtful! WW came in with guns a-blazing in what seemed an attempt to get 'banned' (oh the horror!) so he or she could go report it elsewhere, whereas most of the older posters remember FC in different incarnations from the Haloscan days. My only thought as to why this charming individual has reappeared is that he's grown weary of talking to himself. Thanks so much for all your translations! Finn, nice work on the timeline. Who knew so much could be accomplished in less than 5 minutes? I need to get my ass in gear! Kermit, remember the old Hobbit blessing, "may the hair on your toes never fall out"! Pink hobbit prints... cl-) Skepperoni (the Seattle treat!) and Michael, thanks as always. Hello, Board!

To go even further off topic, if all goes according to plan, I'll be extracting my first honey this weekend! Not that I haven't tasted some while tending the girls, mind you.


Hi Corinna (misspelling your name for old times' sake)! Thanks for the succinct and accurate explanation. Willawanda, or someone who "got" WW's underlying message and decided to usurp her identity, has already "reported" (crowed about?) the exploit elsewhere. And you're right about Goofy (and the Goofettes): they must be really bored now, with no one to talk to and no one to take their insipid bait. It is lonely when your only steady companions are LMT, Turtle Dove and Harry Wilkens. That trio is made up of individuals for whom conversation and discussion are not two-way streets. I suppose the same could be said for Goofy, whose idea of a witty rejoinder (usually to his own anonymous posts) is to call me fat.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
bucketoftea wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/ ... 419&page=1

"Among the final witnesses expected to be called before the summer recess is a neuro-physiologist who has apparently studied Knox's writings before and after her arrest.
He is expected to tell the court whether some of the things Knox wrote -- such as a statement in which she said she had a vision she was in the cottage when her roommate was killed and heard screams -- were genuine or coerced. "

I hadn't seen this before and it's interesting...on the surface this looks to me like the kind of evidence that really can't be proved, but interesting to be heard. Can it tell the difference, really, between being coerced by someone else and hastily contrived lies?


Do you think the expert is a neuro-psychologist rather than a neuro-physiologist? Or is this expert a graphologist (hadnwriting expert)? In any case, he is a paid defense expert so it is fairly easy to guess what his testimony will amount to. I wonder if he will compare the handwriting with other samples from before and after, as well as make a syntactic analysis. I doubt this testimony will carry much weight.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:03 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Itchy Brother wrote:
Frumpycat wrote:
You are obfuscating my main point. Prosecutors in my country will try and throw everything including the kitchen sink to get a conviction. Capone got committed of tax fraud, but they tried to get him for way more than that.

Back to the theft point...doesn't RG's DNA found in MK's purse lead one to more come to the conclusion that he robbed her?
FC


I understand your point, but it still doesn't make any sense. I suspect the penalty for petty theft is pretty minor; why bother?

As for RG's DNA in the purse, that does count as evidence to me. However, this again suggests that the evidence they have against AK/RS must be even stronger does it not? Otherwise, how could they possible hope for a conviction on this charge?

Rudy DNA was NOT in the purse, but OUTSIDE, precisely on top of it.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 625
What?????????????????? You mean you aren't a 345 pound ballerina? I've been misled. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Corrina wrote:
To go even further off topic, if all goes according to plan, I'll be extracting my first honey this weekend! Not that I haven't tasted some while tending the girls, mind you.


Hi Corrina, are you a beekeeper? Do you also produce royal jelly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Quote:
Malcolm wrote:

Quote:
I've noticed a pattern with people who post on here defending AK and RS (well, mainly AK). At first the come off as very polite, asking if it would be OK to post in the forum. They just want ask a few innocent questions. Maybe they'll claim not to know too much about the case. But then they become more and more strident, eventually accusing the Italian justice system of perpetuating a vast conspiracy against the defendants.


So true, I've noticed it also. But why was willawinda hammered when still at the polite stage whereas Frumpycat has been allowed to give us the full benefit of his increasingly aggressive language?


I have now read back far enough to get a sense of Frumpycat. People here are free to "debate" him if they have spare time on their hands and don't know what to do with it. I have met previous iterations of him and so will not waste a second of my time. His main source of truth - or so he says - is Doug Preston and his Monster of Florence novel. And Doug Preston's main and I think only source of truth is Mario Spezi. These people are on a mission and have the zeal of missionaries. They have a peculiar view of the role of the prosecutor and tend to see things in black and white, missing all the gray and all the color. Most of the world has moved on, but they are stuck in a revolving door. They like to come out with both pistols drawn, for a Western style shoot 'em up: Dude! I'm here to debate! Etc.

Again, feel free to talk to Frumpy. I don't intend to, but I can only speak for me. And Frumpy, if you read this, please show your good faith on this board by sticking to the case. If you have anything to say to or about me, do so by private message. Finally, I would appreciate it - if you plan to stick around - that you adopt a more polite and adult tone. Calling people "dude" and so on brings the level of discussion down. And when the level goes down, readers (who are far more numerous than posters) get annoyed.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Corrina wrote:
What?????????????????? You mean you aren't a 345 pound ballerina? I've been misled. :roll:


Well, I was.... you've seen the portrait Botero did of me, of course! And Goofy has revealed to the world at large (no pun intended) that actual photos make people look thinner. But on the day I was outed I stopped eating and upped my daily dance session to six hours, and the results have been stunning. I am now a 90 pound ballerina. I'll see if I can get someone to take a photo, so y'all can see what 90 pounds looks like on a 5'6" frame. I might change my handle to The Hunger Artist. Excuse me, I must run (and I do mean run, it burns more calories) and eat breakfast. I have two cherry pits and a donut hole waiting for me.

I was wondering if you make diet honey. If so, could you send me a case or two? Do you accept major credit cards?

_________________
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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Quote:
Malcolm wrote:

Quote:
I've noticed a pattern with people who post on here defending AK and RS (well, mainly AK). At first the come off as very polite, asking if it would be OK to post in the forum. They just want ask a few innocent questions. Maybe they'll claim not to know too much about the case. But then they become more and more strident, eventually accusing the Italian justice system of perpetuating a vast conspiracy against the defendants.


So true, I've noticed it also. But why was willawinda hammered when still at the polite stage whereas Frumpycat has been allowed to give us the full benefit of his increasingly aggressive language?



I think there are two reasons: One is that Michael appears to have been very busy on some features that will benefit the board. The other is that, during this same period, I have been away from the computer dealing with some personal matters. And I may not be online for most of today.

I will say once again that Michael and I sometimes make calls that are not visible to people on the board, based on a variety of factors. We have been working together here for quite some time now and have developed certain instincts. People like Nowo have been around for just as long and have also developed certain instincts. I won't go into detail on it, but you might be surprised to know that some posters don't stop at making increasingly abusive posts from a polite springboard. They send abusive and impolite private messages or emails, post the replies they receive elsewhere, etc. I banned one such poster recently and spent the better part of a night reading scary and harassing emails. I hoped the person was not based in my city because it sounded like he was capable of coming over to my house.

I have not had a chance to read "Frumpycat" yet and don't know if I will be able to today.

Incidentally, we aren't infallible. Anyone who feels they have been unfairly and/or erroneously tagged as a troublemaker can always send a private message to the moderators. The problem can be worked out without involving posters and readers who come here to discuss the case.


I just want to add a little to what Skep has said. Normally, I won't respond to these sorts of questions on the board, since it distracts from the main discussion, it takes me away from more productive things I could be doing for the board and also it encourages a culture of questioning every move and decision a Moderator may make and a Moderator cannot operate in that kind of environment.

Moderating depends a good deal on experience, being aware of everything that may be going on on the forum at all times and instinct. These skills are built up over a very long time and more often then not, a Moderator has to fall back on these rather then the main 'hard' forum rules. It's very easy to disrupt a forum without actually breaking the letter of the forum rules. Minding the rules is easy, it's minding the spirit of the forum that's difficult, especially when even the hard forum rules contain rules that are not of a nature where they are broken absolutely, but one instead has to 'interpret' if they are being broken or not. A good example is the rule on 'sophistry'. A Moderator has to interpret by observing a range of factors if sophistry is being employed. The same regarding the article on 'good faith'. It therefore comes down to the afformentioned Moderator skill set which can be collectively termed as 'Moderator Discretion'.

A big red flag for me, especially when by a new poster I don't know very well, is when they present a circular argument, one which can never actually go anywhere, while at the same time providing no actual real argument or evidence to support it. Then, persisting on keeping that same circular argument going. A circular argument can go on forever, hence their being in a circle. It does not progress the debate but it does however, require a good deal of time, effort and energy by other posters to debate it. Circular arguments are also intensley boring, because by their very nature, they require endless repetition and no more progress is made after being repeated 1000 times from where it was after the first 10. In my mind, it is the height of bad faith.

I never even liked merry-go-rounds very much as a child. It only took me two or three rides to ask myself, well what's the point?

A good example of a circular argument is: Well, were the other housemates and friends investigated too? Well, how do we know that? How do we know that for sure? And while I have absolutely no evidence or argument they weren't, I am therefore going to imply that if you don't prove to me beyond all doubt they were, we should accept that they actually weren't!!!

It doesn't matter that people on the board provide him/her with honest evidence that the others were also well investigated...the fact their alibi's were all checked, the fact they were interrogated for many hours themselves etc., it doesn't matter that the courts have followed the investigation through every step of the case making sure the investigation has been conducted properly and that the investigation follows all appropriate avenues and this was all done to the courts' satisfaction. That person is only interested in perpetuating their circular argument and forcing upon it and therefore everybody else, their own pre-fabricated conclusion, which is a contradiction since circular arguments can never end in conclusion by definition...and they do so by imposing their own arbitrary rule set on the argument - they were also interrogated? That's not evidence they were also investigated!!! etc,. A term for that is cheating. The more accurate term is 'dishonest argument' or approaching the case 'in bad faith'. It is sophistry. Now those 'are' in the forum rules and Skep and I actually regard those as Golden Rules, since they pertain to the spirit of the forum and the spirit is more important then anything else.

Yes, I'm going to leap on that because it tells me everything I need to know about that person and their intentions here. I also don't require a crystal ball to see where a circular argument's going to go if I let it go on...round and round and round and...

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 217
I owe Dr. Carlo Torre an apology. I questioned his expertise in testifying about a rock thrown through a window--but he didn't testify about that. oop-) sor-) I just visited TJMK and had my memory refreshed: It was Pasquali who testified about rocks and windows. Funny that someone from Italy wouldn't think about shutters.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
malcolm wrote:
I've noticed a pattern with people who post on here defending AK and RS (well, mainly AK). At first the come off as very polite, asking if it would be OK to post in the forum. They just want ask a few innocent questions. Maybe they'll claim not to know too much about the case. But then they become more and more strident, eventually accusing the Italian justice system of perpetuating a vast conspiracy against the defendants. I always wondered, where are all the doubters who just rely on the actual evidence we have?

But then it hit me, they're basically mimicking the defense strategy, and most of the American media. They argue in this fashion because that is the only method that the defense has tried. It's as if, either they are guilty, or this is a massive frame job.
Personally I reject these alternatives. I believe that they are probably guilty, but I still have my doubts, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the motives of the prosecution or judges.



Good point. They have put a lot of effort into misrepresenting the prosecutor and trumping up the charge against him. No evidence or attempt to put this incident into context is accepted. It is like talking to a brick wall of obfuscation. For this reason, they were waiting with bated breath for the Mignini verdict. They pinned their hopes on a guilty verdict somehow proving that Knox and Sollecito had been framed. When the judge asked for an extension, they were beside themselves. Many of them have followed Preston's lead and mentioned a pattern of abuses on the part of Mignini, but not one has responded to a request for details rather than innuendo. Once again, this is all based on articles of faith that cannot be questioned or even articulated. No discussion possible.

_________________
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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 625
Hiya, Beans. I'm a big fan. (of beans, all kinds!) I wonder if they did initially take half-closed shutters into account but didn't get the result desired, so did away with them?

Martin, you might want to ask my bees...I fancy myself a beekeeper, but this is my first year with my own hives. I know for sure my girls are producing royal jelly because one hive has swarmed on me and I had open queen cells and that's what they feed her. This year, though, I'm only going with honey and whatever cappings I am lucky to get for beeswax. Next year, Goddess willing, pollen! Sorry everyone for the O/T, but I'm more than a little bee crazy. We can take it to PM!

Hey wow, there's a chat room on the board now! Now I'm intimidated. Heading back outside for the simple life.

Skep, amazing! I can't wait (weight) to see (or not see) the results. Don't turn sideways, we'll miss you completely. Enjoy that doughnut hole. Tori would approve.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Nicki said
Rudy DNA was NOT in the purse, but OUTSIDE, precisely on top of it.

* * * * *
...and the cash was in the drawer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Another exclusive interview by Edda Mellas to 'Gente' magazine out tomorrow.

Mellas:
"If she wanted to escape, would have done in the early days of the investigation. She wants to leave with her head held high from this story"
"In the autumn when defense of my daughter speaks, we will all be in Perugia including the grandmother Elisabeth, very close to her and who also to help has mortgaged the house"
http://unionesarda.ilsole24ore.com/Arti ... olo/133764

From Ansa:
Todays hearing with a substitute judge was just a formality and postponed to July 17. Knox and Sollecito were not present.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
[quote="Corrina"]
Martin, you might want to ask my bees...I fancy myself a beekeeper, but this is my first year with my own hives. I know for sure my girls are producing royal jelly because one hive has swarmed on me and I had open queen cells and that's what they feed her. This year, though, I'm only going with honey and whatever cappings I am lucky to get for beeswax. Next year, Goddess willing, pollen! Sorry everyone for the O/T, but I'm more than a little bee crazy. We can take it to PM!

Hello again corrina,
I was asking you about royal jelly because we have a pharmaceutical company and one of our
main export products is a supplement containing royal jelly. Here in Europe, problems
with bee products for industrial use occur at almost regular intervals. Couple of years ago, a
bee desease spread out all over europe and destroyed many hives, so we had a shortage
in the supply of royal jelly. The stuff you can obtain in china is often contaminated with
insecticides, fertilizers and antibiotics. Do you also have these problems in America?
Let me know if you need more informations about the current situation in Europe. On tuesday, i will be back in my office and i can talk to my suppliers.
mop-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: HURT AND ASHAMED ....
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
jodyodyo wrote:
I think those shoes in your picture look like the brand Puma. I have a pair of Puma brand sneakers that have the same design on the tongue of the shoe.

Jools wrote:
Micheli's report p 35 second paragraph.
Butterworth testified that Meredith was wearing 'Puma' shoes on the day she was killed.

thoughtful wrote:
Kermit, so, my daughter just came home and took a look at your shoe. She recognized the label on the tongue as the standard Puma label. You can see the white Puma head in the top part of the black rectangle.

Okay, it's three against one and I know when to give up, in order to see another day. Feeling humbled and humiliated, all I can say is: You three win!!!

((Couldn't Charlie say the same thing about the Pink Hobbit print??))
Corrina wrote:
Kermit, remember the old Hobbit blessing, "may the hair on your toes never fall out"! Pink hobbit prints...
Hairy Pink Hobbit Prints !!!!
=====================================

thoughtful wrote:
I'm not sure whether your point was to know for sure whether they're Asics (I'm sure we can determine that) or to see whether some people can sometimes actually go so far as to identify the make of a pair of sneakers that they never actually even saw on a friend

Ah-h-h-h-h, a way out of my humiliation, thank you. Yes, of course. It all started with the Asics-type tread on the pillow. Yes, indeed, we have proven that Meredith - with her Puma running shoes - did not make that tread mark on the pillow.

So, it must have been someone else.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: To all newcomers especially
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
thoughtful wrote:
The following set of 12 pictures shows the house on the day of the crime, including the bathroom as it was found, quite clean except for a drop here and there and a stain on the bathmat. Not at all like the pink-swathed luminol photo.

By the way, there's picture of Amanda's room (pic 5). She has the drying rack actually in her room there, I think. Also, no nighttable so she can't have had that lamp as a bedside lamp. Maybe a desk lamp. Wish there were more pictures.

[urlx=http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?5]Pictures of the house on the day of the crime[/urlx]


Hi Thoughtful,

In fact, this is a picture of Laura's room and not Amanda's. You can see the fridge, kitchen wastebasket and sofa outside her door.

But, zooming in on this picture we get a good look at the cottage's interior door hardware - and Laura's key is in place on the outside lock...a big, bright and shiny key not easily missed!



_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Last edited by Tara on Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: BEDLAM, BEDTABLES AND BEDLAMPS
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
thoughtful wrote:
The following set of 12 pictures shows the house on the day of the crime, including the bathroom as it was found, quite clean except for a drop here and there and a stain on the bathmat. Not at all like the pink-swathed luminol photo.
By the way, there's picture of Amanda's room (pic 5). She has the drying rack actually in her room there, I think. Also, no nighttable so she can't have had that lamp as a bedside lamp. Maybe a desk lamp. Wish there were more pictures.
[urlx=http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?5]Pictures of the house on the day of the crime[/urlx]


Careful of that, Thoughtful. Picture 5 is in fact Laura's room. There are no photos of Amanda's room in that Tgcom set.

Here's Amanda's room before she moved in with her bed-lamp on the bed-table:


I believe this is Amanda's lamp on Meredith's floor (on the upper right):


And if it wasn't that lamp, it's this one behind the door, laying on its side:


And this is Amanda's room, as video-taped by the investigators. It still has its bed-table, but the bed-table no longer has a bed-lamp on it:


Last edited by Kermit on Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: OT!
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
OT OT OT!!!

Corrina Corrina,

Girl, we miss you so don't be such a stranger! I'm glad to hear the bees are doing so well!

hugz-)

Tara

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm
Posts: 236
Location: San Francisco
Michael said:

Now the other thing, is I've built a Chat Room for PMF...I was thinking along the lines of having 'scheduled' once weekly, or maybe twice weekly live chats about the case. This would be for in depth, real-time case debate for the membership and the sessions would be Moderated. Logs of the debates would be retained and posted somewhere in their own thread for members to review.

I would appreciate feedback on whether you all would like this feature.


Hi Michael,

I'm not a techno-savvy type--I'm one of those people who searches out the phone without the camera--so, while new options on PMF do impress me I probably wouldn't use them. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see other people getting into it, as they certainly have in the shout/chat room we have. My only concern is that if people engage in actually meaningful discussion about interesting, informative or, especially, case-changing findings in the Chat Room and that info doesn't find its way to the main forum there is going to be a loss or gap in understanding for those of us who stick to only that format.

Poor me. Does this just sound whiny (AKA whingy)? (WAH--I don't wanna do any chaaaat...but I don't wanna be left ouuuuut either...!)

I'm just a simple girl.

v-)) Mahatma Didi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Didi wrote:
I'm not a techno-savvy type--I'm one of those people who searches out the phone without the camera--so, while new options on PMF do impress me I probably wouldn't use them. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see other people getting into it, as they certainly have in the shout/chat room we have. My only concern is that if people engage in actually meaningful discussion about interesting, informative or, especially, case-changing findings in the Chat Room and that info doesn't find its way to the main forum there is going to be a loss or gap in understanding for those of us who stick to only that format.

Poor me. Does this just sound whiny (AKA whingy)? (WAH--I don't wanna do any chaaaat...but I don't wanna be left ouuuuut either...!)


Hi Didi :) It's not a bad concern at all, indeed I had the same concern....if good points were raised, would they then not be raised in the main discussion thread...would we 'lose' them?

This is exactly why I sought out chat forum software that would allow the retaining of the chat logs. This could then be posted to it's own thread and people could then be inspired by it to further debate, or quote from it, in the main discussion thread. The idea is to enhance the main discussion, not replace it and at the same time ensure nothing is lost. The idea is that it compliments the main discussion.

As for the chat room software itself...you need not be a computer wizz. If you can talk in the Chat Box...you can talk in the Chat Room, it's no more complicated, you click and type :) The Chat Room just has an extra couple of steps...when you click to type for the first time, it asks you to create a name (which would be your forum handle) and check a couple of boxes....then you're all set to go :)

_________________
"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: Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
I'm only a very junior member, but I agree with Didi. When the UK went from having 3 television channels to the bazillion there are now, it saw the disintegration of society as we knew it, lol. I'm afraid I'd miss something good, and not know it because I probably don't have enough time to go to the archive. just sayin' :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 625
hugz-)

Right back at you, Tara!

As for the chat room, er...well, I've never done that sort of thing before. I know I would miss something!

Finally, and not completely off topic, but One Eskimo is opening for Tori Amos in the US. Who is One Eskimo? The band Kristian Leontiou, the singer from the Some Say video, featuring Meredith, is currently in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm
Posts: 314
Location: England
malcolm wrote:
Frumpycat wrote:
I want to see her defense wounds again. They're going to be on her knuckles...and to tell you the truth from martial arts...on her elbows and knees. I bet RG had one hell of a bruise on his instep.


She had multiple cuts on one hand but only 1 tiny one on the other. The explanation given by the police for this was that one hand was being restrained while she was trying to fight off the knife with other. She had no cuts to her elbows or knees, and I don't think the ones to her hands were on her knuckles either. There were bruises on her thighs and near her genitals. There were also bruises on her face and the hyoid bone in her neck was broken. She also had bruises on her neck and of course multiple cuts, too. Hard to see how one person with a knife in one hand could do all that at the same time.

I haven't seen anything about an injury to Rudy, and of course his blood was not found at the scene. OTOH, AK's blood was found in several rooms, and a witness testified that she had been cut.

It's easier to explain a lack of bruises on MK's elbows, knees, or fists if she was fighting multiple attackers than just one.


I won't link directly to the images here as they may be disturbing to some, but on the shock blog there are a number of images showing bruising on Meredith's arms and elbows.

I believe Rudi had lacerations on his fingers when arrested? Can't find the source for that at the moment.

_________________
Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: oops
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Sorry about the mistaken identification of Amanda's room. That was stupid of me. I just unquestioningly accepted the picture caption as correct. I should have paid more attention to the bedside lamp contradiction and what can be seen through the door. Always, always question the evidence! Thanks for pointing out the error. And yes, the key to Laura's door is a big bright key and Meredith's must have looked just the same. Gone forever, no doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Germany
Too bad that they couldn´t recover the data (especially the photos) on AK´s notebook. ham-)

Maybe one of these photos would have shown AK wearing a pair of Asics shoes co-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Monkey see, monkey do...
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Thoughful wrote:
Quote:
And yes, the key to Laura's door is a big bright key and Meredith's must have looked just the same. Gone forever, no doubt.


Although Laura and Filomena hadn't lived in the cottage that much longer than Meredith and Amanda, they may have adopted some habits that passed on to the new girls. One of which; leaving the big, shiny room key on the outside of the bedroom door when home, in town, or out of the house for a bit. The key does not look like one that you would put on your keyring with others as it's big and oddly shapen. If someone was going out of town, maybe it would be easier just to put the bedroom key in one's purse or wallet's side pocket for safekeeping.

Perhaps this was why Filomena was so adament that Meredith never locked her door unless she went home to England - one glance around the house at the four bedroom doors would show 4 big, bright and shiny keys snug in their locks. It has been puzzling to me how Knox could "know" exactly when Meredith locked her door, i.e. during a shower, when she was in her room etc. Maybe by the key "missing" from it's lock on the outside of the door.

Meredith's bedroom key was probably not on a keychain with her other keys (found in Amanda's room?). This big, bright and shiny key was probably tossed all by itself, and as Thoughtful remarked, "gone forever, no doubt".

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Greek to me--or sometimes, Latin
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Hey 411! Long time no talk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ghu-)) Protective custody would generally refer to protecting an at-risk prisoner from other dangerous prisoners or to protecting a witness to a crime from being harmed. I think that the idea of "cautional custody" might be another situation where there is simply no English translation because it's a concept not employed by the U.S./U.K. common-law systems.[/quote]

To Truthee, Howdy!
Ah reckon yew may be raht!
So...how about translating it simply "was taken into custody."
-------------------------------------
Thoughtzee:
Thanks for that cyberhug--right back atcha, mon amie! hugz-) If I ever find my notes, I'll repost that section of the tapes for a second listen, since I was struck at the difference in voice quality. But, at the risk of belaboring the point, HOW do we know for a fact that she WASN'T under the influence at the time of the call?
--------------------------------------
To Mahatma Didi Disinterested:
Please don't feel intimidated by the any chat venues here!
What could we do to make you feel more comfortable in the Chat box...perhaps if we all wrote. . . in Sanskrit?!!!
--------------------------------------
Oh, before I go, just a song before I go, (C,S,Nash)...Yesterday was
was Amanda's 22nd birthday, wasn't it? The song that popped in my mind for the occasion was "Mama Tried" ser-)
I kept singing this old refrain in my head
"And I turned 21 in prison, doin' life without parole.
No one could steer me right but Mama tried, Mama tried.
Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleading, I denied.
That leaves only me to blame 'cause Mama tried."

If it were Amanda singing that song, she would Italianize it into
"Mamma *MIA* Tried"

Anyway, I got thinkin' about this song (originally done by Merle Haggard, but
covered by THE GREATFUL DEAD and sung at WOODSTOCK!!) Look it up on youtube.

And then I started reflecting and had to look it up to confirm, because I couldn't believe this...but yes, this August we'll be marking the 40th Anniversary of WOODSTOCK!! mul-)

Look up all the acts at Woodstock: Mamma Mia! I'm cuttin' a mean rug (bathroom rug shuffle????) here as I sing out some of those great tunes!

Love, Peace, 'n Rock 'n Roll from
The 411


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Frumpycat wrote:
Still, my main question is why wasn't AK's and RS's DNA found all over MK's room?


* * * *
Protective clothing. Wasn't Raff wearing rubber gloves in the axe-murderer photograph? Rudy allegedly said Raff was wearing a swimming cap, I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
bucketoftea wrote:
Protective clothing. Wasn't Raff wearing rubber gloves in the axe-murderer photograph? Rudy allegedly said Raff was wearing a swimming cap, I think.


Yes, he did. And following Rudy giving that evidence(I think he said it had a red stripe down the middle???), a swimming cap fitting that description was alledgedly found in Sollecito's house.

The information on this is all back around March/April 2008 following Rudy's second interview. It's a fact that the police then collected a number of additional things from the cottage and Raffaele's house. Because of the co-incidence in timing this was "assumed" to be connected with what Rudy had said only a day or so earlier.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Greek to me--or sometimes, Latin
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
The 411 wrote:
Hey 411! Long time no talk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ghu-)) Protective custody would generally refer to protecting an at-risk prisoner from other dangerous prisoners or to protecting a witness to a crime from being harmed. I think that the idea of "cautional custody" might be another situation where there is simply no English translation because it's a concept not employed by the U.S./U.K. common-law systems.


To Truthee, Howdy!
Ah reckon yew may be raht!
So...how about translating it simply "was taken into custody."
-------------------------------------
As I posted earlier, "cautional custody" - a literal translation for the Italian custodia cautelare
means remand in custody in English.


Here is a link for a very useful Web Multilingual Dictionary
http://www.wordreference.com/


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Frank has just put up the best pic yet of the "ladies" shoe print on the pillow case.



He makes the argument that this print was made by Rudy here at Perugia Shock


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:03 am
Posts: 19
Hello,

Here is another long time lurker who is now jumping in. In brief, I am a binational person with one foot in the US and one foot in Europe, since I was born and raised in Europe and have long lived in the US (West Coast). I became fascinated with this case as it involves a victim and a defendant of about the same age as my daughter, a transatlantic culture clash, and comparative law. I have been following it very closely for months and months.

What made me jump in was the search for a better English translation for "cautional custody" (or something similar) . I suggest "preventive custody".

Your board is really impressive. Keep up the good work, Michael, Skep and posters !

R.I.P. Meredith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Last question for Yummi
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Yummi, I have one more question before considering that the Friday transcripts are complete. Very near the end of Audio #7, Ghirga says that he has finished questioning, and dalla Vedova begins, introducing himself.

Near the beginning of Audio #11, it is clearly Ghirga questioning again. He refers to himself as "il sottoscritto Ghirga". And at the
beginning of Audio #12, dalla Vedova starts again and introduces himself again.

I cannot figure out exactly where, between the end of Audio #7 and the beginning of Audio #11, dalla Vedova yields his place to Ghirga. There is no formal break or introduction and the questions all written down seem to follow in a practically continuous flow. There are a few changes of topics and perhaps the change occurs at one of these times. Do you think you could find it for me just by listening to their voices? I can guess, but I don't feel certain.

Thanks in advance!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Here's an idea which has been "fermenting" in my brain ever since I sat down to cogitate with a bottle of wine the other day.

Has Guilia Bongiorno played into Walter Biscotti's hands?

First a bit of history:

"Rudy through the window" has been a favourite with FOA since the beginning, and it was being shot down then in just the same ways that it continues to be shot down now.

It's been the case that since March/April time 2008 that Walter Biscotti said Rudy would take the alternate trial route to the other two, whatever may be their decision.

Guilia Bongiorno was recruited to Raffaele's defense April 2008.

Mignini officially laid his charges towards the end of June.The defense teams had 3 weeks to respond before everything became official. Not much happened and then the Italian legal system took it's apparently annual holiday fronm sometime towards the end of July through August.

Two things relevent to my theory happened in early September.

Guilia Bongiorno took her climbing expert out to the cottage to investigate the possibilities of entry through the window. This was the first real indication that "Rudy through the window" was actually going to form a major plank in Raffaele's defense and would be backed up by "expert witness" testimony at trial.

Biscotti and Gentile poured scorn on the idea and announced that Rudy had applied for "a shortened trial".

"Rudy through the window" didn't play any part in Rudy's trial. The prosecution wasn't suggesting it and counsel for AK and RS couldn't give evidence in Rudy's shortened trial which was conducted based on the written evidence in Mignini's 10,00o pages and a written defense given to the court by Rudy's lawyer's. With the judges permission Rudy was allowed to call a couple of character witnesses and Kokomani where Biscotti disputed his evidence placing the three together ouside the cottage. That was it and Micheli went on to find Rudy guilty.


Walter Biscotti's high stakes game:

The spark for my theory comes from the new knowledge and the reasons why Micheli disqualified Christian Tromolo's evidence back at the pretrial of AK and RS. For various reasons he found it unreliable and also said that the description it contained of Rudy's actions suggested Tromolo had read that information from newspaper reports of Rudy's original statement of his confrontation with Raffaele.

In the week immediately preceeding Meredith's murder, Rudy was arrested in the school in Milan and had been found in possession of a laptop which had been stolen by a thief who had thrown a rock through a window and climbed up to it to gain access to the property.

Rudy's problems won't have happened in a vacuum. His friends and aquaintances in Perugia were probably very aware of his "little difficulty". It may well have been a topic of conversation. It may have even warranted a paragraph in the local rag. Rudy himself went to see the lawyers to tell them, "it wasn't me". Rudy was known in the Merlin, Le Chic, Domus, Piazza Grimana and to the boys downstairs and Meredith, not to mention Amanda, by her own admission. Filomena even worked for a firm of lawyers (which firm??}. Maybe even she bought the topic of Rudy, the laptop, the rock and the window back to the cottage.

Fast forward to the last two or three weeks of this trial. Guilia Bongiorno has made "Rudy through the window" almost the entire basis for Raffaele's defense. Witness after witness has been devoted to it.

Meanwhile, Biscotti and Gentile have stood on the sidelines pouring scorn on Bongiorno's theories at every opportunity.

But they've also said two other things during the time this evidence was presented:

They have a "new witness(s)".

Rudy may well ask for his appeal to happen at a full trial - thus risking an increase in his sentence if he is still found guilty.

So what?

If RS and AK are found guilty at this trial, "Rudy through the window" will be a discredited theory and dismissed by this court as an untruth. That the evidence at the cottage was arranged AK and RS to incriminate Rudy.

Armed with this, Biscotti may well have the opportunity to base Rudy's appeal on the discedited "Rudy through the window" crime scene staging, backed up by a new witness(s) who will testify that AK and RS well knew about the story of "Rudy throwing a rock through the lawyer's window" in the days immediately preceeding Meredith's murder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Brian S. wrote:
Frank has just put up the best pic yet of the "ladies" shoe print on the pillow case.



He makes the argument that this print was made by Rudy here at Perugia Shock


Thank you, Brian. This answers a lot of questions. First of all, we can all agree now that it is a shoe print. Second, in the Perugia Shock article it is stated that there were 2 shoe prints on the pillow - one by Rudy and this one! So there is no conflict between Andrea Vogt's article, which states that Rinaldi attributed a print on the pillow to a woman's shoe, and the Italian articles, which say that Rinaldi attributed a print on the pillow to Rudy.

Moreover, Andrea Vogt has told me what the experts said they based in part their determination of the Asics shoe on, and it is not visible in that photograph: The heel.


Last edited by malcolm on Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:33 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:33 am 
From SB

Quote:
Again, feel free to talk to Frumpy. I don't intend to, but I can only speak for me. And Frumpy, if you read this, please show your good faith on this board by sticking to the case. If you have anything to say to or about me, do so by private message. Finally, I would appreciate it - if you plan to stick around - that you adopt a more polite and adult tone. Calling people "dude" and so on brings the level of discussion down. And when the level goes down, readers (who are far more numerous than posters) get annoyed.


SB, I will stick to the case. I used the word "dude" because I'm from California and I am part of that subculture. Rereading my posts I realized that if someone thought that "dude" was a negative connotation it would be insulting. Its just the way I speak when I become animated. I fully intend to stick to the rules of the board, and if I state something that someone finds offensive, please call me on it. Off to catch up.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:42 am 
From Malcolm

Quote:
FC, go back and reread all the responses I have made to you today. I haven't just zeroed in on any one. I haven't responded to everything you say b/c (1) some of that has been directed toward other people, (2) I don't always disagree with you (such as with the RG's fingerprints on the bag), (3) some things you are just repeating over and over again, after I've already disputed them such as the idea that RG left tons of DNA, (4) some of the things you say are so crazy that they're not even worth responding to in detail (such as the nonsense that I quote above that has nothing to do with the evidence), and (5) I'm at work right now and don't have time to respond to everything.


1. fair enough.
2. true
3. I disagree but yet again in your scenario where there is little RG DNA....its still only several examples of his DNA.
4. Okay...I'll concede I'm going into crazy hypothesis land with the prosecution. You know what, we all get sick. And this is crappy luck on Massei's part.
5. You and me both. Finally made it home.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:51 am 
From Brian S.

Quote:
The lowdown on the money stolen from Meredith:

It wasn't in her bag.

She put her rent money in her bedside drawer under some clothes where she also kept her cards, passport and a few other important bits and pieces.

Rudy was charged with theft but found not guilty by Micheli.

However, Micheli did indict AK and RS on the theft at their pre-trial held at the same time as Rudy's trial.

It's not known exactly what evidence the prosecution has put forward on the theft charge against RS and AK at this trial because it's not been reported as such.

A month or two ago evidence was presented about Meredith withdrawing her money. Laura and Filomena gave evidence that she had already withdrawn it when they spoke the evening before the holiday about everyone having the rent money ready for Filomena to pay the landlord the following Monday.

The suspicion is that Amanda can't explain and can't produce a bank withdrawal record for the E215 she had in her pocket when she was arrested.

But Malcolm will like this because all we have to go on is rumour and assumption.

Maybe there isn't any real evidence on the theft?


It wasn't in her bag.

"She put her rent money in her bedside drawer under some clothes where she also kept her cards, passport and a few other important bits and pieces."

Brian, Rudy is a thief. Do you think he would stop at the money on the desk? That he would look at the purse and think "I've already found the money on the desk, I won't check the purse?"

"However, Micheli did indict AK and RS on the theft at their pre-trial held at the same time as Rudy's trial."

Yet one other thing to hold them on. Did it actually come up in the trial?

"The suspicion is that Amanda can't explain and can't produce a bank withdrawal record for the E215 she had in her pocket when she was arrested."

Concerning the ATM withdrawal, wasn't this something that was found to be a timing issue with the bank? And the E215 was never brought up by the prosecution?

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:00 am 
Finn

Quote:
My contention is: that can't be true. It is plainly impossible for all those things to happen in four and a half minutes. You say, "I just don't buy it" because there are too many variables.

I'd appreciate it if you can expand on what you mean by not buying it. There's a fixed point at 12:55:36 and another at 1300. What variables are you worried about?


If the police are off by half an hour on their claims, everything seems to fall correctly. Also, I have not seen the phone records, etc. If you are willing to provide a link to them then I will go off of them. What I'm wondering is if there is weird things going on like conversations being flipped etc.

Also, in a worse case scenario your main hypothesis (and correct me if this is not true) is one phone call was made to AK's mother ot establish and alibi. I kind of find this weak because:

- It all depends on the content of the phone call, someone called at 3 in the morning and someone freaking out at what ends up being a murder scene may not be able to remember correctly what happened.

If she did call, intimating that the police were not there yet, what does that exactly mean? My theory? I think AK started freaking out, called her mom, who at 3am started freaking out, and neither could remember exactly what happened during that time.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:06 am 
Nikki

Quote:
Rudy DNA was NOT in the purse, but OUTSIDE, precisely on top of it.


If you google it, you will find others who say everything from dna to bloody fingerprints of Rudy inside the purse. Unfortunately one of those is that freaky private investigator which makes me go hmmmm.

But lets give the benefit of the doubt, and to what I was arguing. Rudy's DNA was found on her purse. No one elses. Why would he be grabbing her purse? To rob her. Why did the prosecution not go after theft with Rudy, but they did with AK and RS. I'm not holding my breath. The had tons of other lame theories, accusations, that are falling by the wayside.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:10 am 
bucketoftea

Quote:
Protective clothing. Wasn't Raff wearing rubber gloves in the axe-murderer photograph? Rudy allegedly said Raff was wearing a swimming cap, I think.


Just checking...this is sarcasm correct? Thks,

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Frumpycat wrote:
From Brian S.

Quote:
The lowdown on the money stolen from Meredith:

It wasn't in her bag.

She put her rent money in her bedside drawer under some clothes where she also kept her cards, passport and a few other important bits and pieces.

Rudy was charged with theft but found not guilty by Micheli.

However, Micheli did indict AK and RS on the theft at their pre-trial held at the same time as Rudy's trial.

It's not known exactly what evidence the prosecution has put forward on the theft charge against RS and AK at this trial because it's not been reported as such.

A month or two ago evidence was presented about Meredith withdrawing her money. Laura and Filomena gave evidence that she had already withdrawn it when they spoke the evening before the holiday about everyone having the rent money ready for Filomena to pay the landlord the following Monday.

The suspicion is that Amanda can't explain and can't produce a bank withdrawal record for the E215 she had in her pocket when she was arrested.

But Malcolm will like this because all we have to go on is rumour and assumption.

Maybe there isn't any real evidence on the theft?


It wasn't in her bag.

"She put her rent money in her bedside drawer under some clothes where she also kept her cards, passport and a few other important bits and pieces."

Brian, Rudy is a thief. Do you think he would stop at the money on the desk? That he would look at the purse and think "I've already found the money on the desk, I won't check the purse?"

"However, Micheli did indict AK and RS on the theft at their pre-trial held at the same time as Rudy's trial."

Yet one other thing to hold them on. Did it actually come up in the trial?

"The suspicion is that Amanda can't explain and can't produce a bank withdrawal record for the E215 she had in her pocket when she was arrested."

Concerning the ATM withdrawal, wasn't this something that was found to be a timing issue with the bank? And the E215 was never brought up by the prosecution?

FC


Rudy didn't find the money "on" the desk. If he did find it, he found it after looking under the clothes she kept in her bedside drawer. I seem to remember from somewhere that it was her "undie drawer".


The ATM withdrawal you speak of relates to a separate issue. E20 withdrawn from Meredith's account with her card. The date of that transaction was recorded as the 2nd November in the banks records. At the request of the defences a witness from Meredith's UK bank is to attend the trial and give evidence that the recorded date of the transaction in the banks accounts is not always the same date the withdrawal was made. As an English person I can say that this is often the case in the UK. It has it's history back in the software the banks wrote back when most people used "cheques" and not cards. Because of the paper route the cheques took between banks customers always had to allow 3 days for the cheque to clear. The banks have been much criticised for allowing this situation to stand as in more recent years most transactions happen by card.

What you often find with UK banks is that the money disappears from the payors account a day or so before it reappears in the payees account. During the disappeared period the banks have had that money to invest on the money markets. Multiply this by millions of transactions and you can see how the banks make a profit from "free loans" from their customers. Anyway, I digress and I fully expect the UK bank witness to back up the fact that Meredith withdrew that money from her account before the 2nd November. That the withdrawal from a "foreign" ATM in Italy actually happened a day or two before it appeared in the records of the UK bank.

With regard to the E300 stolen from Meredith's bedside drawer:

All four girls were present when Filomena told the girls she needed the rent money for the following Monday:

Laura's response is a moot point but being a working girl I don't suppose she had any problem coming up with the money,

Meredith told her she had already withdrawn it and she could have it at that moment if she wanted. Filomena said "No, give it to me Monday".

Amanda told Filomena "Patrick owes me money" but didn't elaborate beyond that. However, it would seem to indicate she wasn't currently in possession of sufficient money to pay her rent.

Filomena and Laura have both given evidence about this conversation at this trial.

Because many details of "minor" evidence have been missing from newspaper reports from the trial we don't know exactly what the prosection may have said about this money at the time of that questioning or at another stage during the trial. However, we do know that the prosecution has given evidence that Amanda was in possession of E215 when she was arrested and her financial state was obliquely referred to by her defense when she gave evidence in an attempt to prove she wasn't broke. I did note, however, that her defense DID NOT ask her to explain the E215 she had in her pocket when she was arrested. Why's that? :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:39 am 
Malcolm

Quote:
Moreover, Andrea Vogt has told me what the experts said they based their determination of the Asics shoe on, and it is not visible in that photograph: The heel.


Hey Malcolm...can you give us more information on your conversation with Andrea Vogt? Sounds like some cool stuff.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Frumpycat wrote:
Nikki

Quote:
Rudy DNA was NOT in the purse, but OUTSIDE, precisely on top of it.


If you google it, you will find others who say everything from dna to bloody fingerprints of Rudy inside the purse. Unfortunately one of those is that freaky private investigator which makes me go hmmmm.

But lets give the benefit of the doubt, and to what I was arguing. Rudy's DNA was found on her purse. No one elses. Why would he be grabbing her purse? To rob her. Why did the prosecution not go after theft with Rudy, but they did with AK and RS. I'm not holding my breath. The had tons of other lame theories, accusations, that are falling by the wayside.

FC


It was Micheli in his report who stated the exact locations of Rudy's DNA on the outside of Meredith purse. Nobody is relying on newspaper reports for this accurate factual evidence.
It was Micheli who also suggested in his report that it's location indicated that Rudy either sqeezed it shut or picked it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:50 am 
From Brian S.

Quote:
Rudy didn't find the money "on" the desk. If he did find it, he found it after looking under the clothes she kept in her bedside drawer. I seem to remember from somewhere that it was her "undie drawer".


The ATM withdrawal you speak of relates to a separate issue. E20 withdrawn from Meredith's account with her card. The date of that transaction was recorded as the 2nd November in the banks records. At the request of the defences a witness from Meredith's UK bank is to attend the trial and give evidence that the recorded date of the transaction in the banks accounts is not always the same date the withdrawal was made. As an English person I can say that this is often the case in the UK. It has it's history back in the software the banks wrote back when most people used "cheques" and not cards. Because of the paper route the cheques took between banks customers always had to allow 3 days for the cheque to clear. The banks have been much criticised for allowing this situation to stand as in more recent years most transactions happen by card.

What you often find with UK banks is that the money disappears from the payors account a day or so before it reappears in the payees account. During the disappeared period the banks have had that money to invest on the money markets. Multiply this by millions of transactions and you can see how the banks make a profit from "free loans" from their customers. Anyway, I digress and I fully expect the UK bank witness to back up the fact that Meredith withdrew that money from her account before the 2nd November. That the withdrawal from a "foreign" ATM in Italy actually happened a day or two before it appeared in the records of the UK bank.

With regard to the E300 stolen from Meredith's bedside drawer:

All four girls were present when Filomena told the girls she needed the rent money for the following Monday:

Laura's response is a moot point but being a working girl I don't suppose she had any problem coming up with the money,

Meredith told her she had already withdrawn it and she could have it at that moment if she wanted. Filomena said "No, give it to me Monday".

Amanda told Filomena "Patrick owes me money" but didn't elaborate beyond that. However, it would seem to indicate she wasn't currently in possession of sufficient money to pay her rent.

Filomena and Laura have both given evidence about this conversation at this trial.

Because many details of "minor" evidence have been missing from newspaper reports from the trial we don't know exactly what the prosection may have said about this money at the time of that questioning or at another stage during the trial. However, we do know that the prosecution has given evidence that Amanda was in possession of E215 when she was arrested and her financial state was obliquely referred to by her defense when she gave evidence in an attempt to prove she wasn't broke. I did note, however, that her defense DID NOT ask her to explain the E215 she had in her pocket when she was arrested. Why's that? :lol: :lol:


"Rudy didn't find the money "on" the desk. If he did find it, he found it after looking under the clothes she kept in her bedside drawer. I seem to remember from somewhere that it was her "undie drawer"."

My point was if he found money anywhere in the apartment, on top of her desk, on the bed, in her "undie drawer" when presented with a purse he would also check that. He's a thief. As his DNA on the purse attests to.

"Amanda told Filomena "Patrick owes me money" but didn't elaborate beyond that. However, it would seem to indicate she wasn't currently in possession of sufficient money to pay her rent.

Filomena and Laura have both given evidence about this conversation at this trial."

Yet AK and SC had thousands in their accounts. AK came from a background of being poor and I bet she hoards. Coming from a poor background myself I bet she wanted to hold onto her hard earned stash as long as possible without dipping into it. Drag out creditors, its what every major business does. She wasn't intending to not pay them, just wait til she had payment from Patrick to keep from digging into any of her savings.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:56 am 
Brian S.

Quote:
It was Micheli in his report who stated the exact locations of Rudy's DNA on the outside of Meredith purse. Nobody is relying on newspaper reports for this accurate factual evidence.
It was Micheli who also suggested in his report that it's location indicated that Rudy either sqeezed it shut or picked it up.


I agree! RG's DNA was found on the purse. AK and RS was not. Therefore, I am inferring, that by the fact his DNA was found on the purse (I'll go with not inside) that for some reason he was handling her purse.

If a theft occured, and his was the only foreign DNA found on it, this would lead me to believe he was the thief.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: READ MICHELI's REPORT, THAT WILL SAVE YOU BREATH
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Brian S. wrote:
The lowdown on the money stolen from Meredith:
It wasn't in her bag.
She put her rent money in her bedside drawer under some clothes where she also kept her cards, passport and a few other important bits and pieces.

Frumpycat wrote:
Brian, Rudy is a thief. Do you think he would stop at the money on the desk? That he would look at the purse and think "I've already found the money on the desk, I won't check the purse?"


First of all, why do you say that Rudy took money from Meredith's desk? It wasn't there. Read Micheli's report to save yourself breath.

Frumpycat, in your prior posts you were using Rudy's supposed DNA on the inside of the purse (which - as has been pointed out - is on the outside, as per Micheli's report) as proof that he stole the money.

If the money wasn't in the purse, neither non-existent DNA on the inside, nor real DNA on the outside allows you to condemn him for stealing money which was stored in a different location.

Rudy has been found guilty for some very murderous activity, and some other discussion boards want him to take the responsibility for everything which occurred in the cottage on 1 November 2007. There are many indications that he wasn't the only one leaving DNA around there (in spite of your strange theory about university students breaking through the seals of the cottage before the 18 December inspection, having a party, contaminating the bra clasp with Raffaele's DNA - where did they get it from? - and then departing, without leaving a trace of neither the break-in nor the party).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Quote:
...Due to health problems of the President of the Court, Giancarlo Massei, in fact, the hearings set for today and tomorrow have been canceled and will resume the process' in the Classroom July 17 next year [a noted translation Googleism - they really do mean this year - honest :lol:] to continue to hear the text of the defenses.
The likely postponement was already 'been announced in recent days...According to the timetable of those 17 and July 18 should be the last two hearings before the summer break...


Google translation of this story at AGI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: VIVA LA SIESTA ...
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
If a theft occured, and his was the only foreign DNA found on it, this would lead me to believe he was the thief.


As was stated, there was no money which could have been taken from the purse. How do you jump to the legal conclusion that he is guilty of theft?

The purse was an object in a room where a violent crime occurred, where the victim fought for her life. Lots of things were touched by different persons with blood on their hands, both the victim's and their own DNA.

By your logic, since Rudy's palmprint was found on the pillow, it could be deduced that he had a siesta too.

Remind me to exclude you from any jury which may be judging me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 - the window
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
mrsdarcy wrote:
I don't know much about the Italian system, but why would you suggest RS has a legal cause of action against Mignini? What about prosecutorial immunity? Do you think bringing AK and RS to trial was "abuse of power"? Just wondering...


I would think if Patrick got money from the courts/gov (whoever is paying him for his jail time), then Raffaele will get much more if released, due to being in the prison much longer. I don';t think Miugnini pays out of his pocket, but c'mon, if you bring the system down due to your "ways of handling things", its not good for a career at all...but the courts would have to pay Raffaele I would hope! It would be such a huge bill I would be sending the courts, if found innocent. thats obvious. Patrick went for a lot more than the courts agreed to pay him, as I understand it.

Abuse of Power...its just another scenario, imo.
I have changed many scenarios and my "sides" on this case change.

for example, my first 5 minutes reading this case in the media hype and bombardment of crap (that is obvious in hindsight), including the Judges reports (read Matteini first hearing slanderous statements..geeez). I had Raffaele and Amanda guilty for having their phones off, that alone seemed enough to put them away as guilty. The media article was so convincing. be-)
The bleach, the cellphones off! omy....why even have a trial? I thought.
if one reads all the Nov 2007 articles its almost a bad joke, details in articles were waaaaay off.accusations flying.

but one reads and thinks, sometimes "waaay out of the box" or the norm. could this be true?

so yes, its crossed my mind, to recreate a "Abuse of Power" scenario, of Mignini and his crew being pressured to close this case. It's highly doubtful and nearly impossible to prove. I 100% don't think Migning or the courts will go down this path for some average college familys.

As a scenario, hey! Scenarios are FREE!!
Mignini had this motive and pressures to do his job which is close this case. Of course no one knew it would become this global frkn news story.

Dr. Lalli said "multiple people" , not a lone wolfe "most probably"...could be a lone wolf but not likely.

So I assume Mignini, now given the case had to go find "multiple murderers". right?

Mignini then created the scenario and needed people to attach to this case, to find the murderers(plural).
His motive was to do his job and assuming Dr. Lalli was correct. He searched for a knife murder, because Dr. Lalli and crew performed the autopsy and gave his expert opinion, and leaned to a "multiple attacker" scenario.
So yes, this scenario is one of many.

Nov 2, Nov 3 many people were questioned, weren't people released at 5:35am or something! and Amanda had to come back for more questions the next day at 11am, and they went thru the cottage and kicked the door in...etc..etc..
released around 7pm. along day.
Then the infamous Interrogation without defense or films. (supposedly there's an audio tape I'd love to hear that!)

Rudy became clearly evident over time, his DNA, fingerprint, crap. Ooooops!!! Patrick is free.

Raffaele and Amanda became suspects because of the odd behaviors and being at the location. So a lot of work went into putting them at the crime scene, in Merediths Bedroom.

my personal opinion is the Interrogation, smells of bad evidence and slander, under a "abuse of power" scenario.
i would love nothing but to see a film of the interrogation of Amanda and Raffaele. They film courts, they-Stefano crew filmed crime scene....everyone was open except the interrogation. And its this interrogation the most horrific change of Amandas story becomes Media Hollywood Trash. "Railroad Job from Hell." as many put it.
Read Amanda Nov 4th email, before the interrogation......its the same as her testimony on the stand, which was filmed in public.She was home all night...but I digress from the "abuse of power" scenario.

Raffaele could have been a alibi for Amanda at the apartment, and so he was placed at the crime scene. This wouldn't be good for the prosecution, its better if they can create a case against the American and the Dopehead Italian. They seemed suspicious and there was the pressure and public announcements of a "multiple attackers" per the autopsy.

How would you place your suspects at the murder scene?
DNA of course..is the best choice.

After not finding anything on Raffaele in Merediths Bedroom of DNA, only Rudys, a magical 46 day old bra-clasp was found there with loads of Raffaele DNA!! How awesome!!! Its magical detective work almost!! BINGO!

His DNA wasn't found on the rest anywhere else on this bra.....only this magical bra-clasp. buts thats all they needed anyway.

Some people find this really odd-luck evidence for the prosecution and if a "abuse of power" scenario was created this bra-clasp would be there no doubt. could it have been planted?

Mignini has to have multiple murderer's because Dr. Lalli said so. There's his motive, doing his job, closing the case, finding multiple murderers.

other "abuse of power" scenarios for the Hollywood movie sun-) , could be Amandas hardrive being ruined and Judge Matteini showing no interest in it being repaired by Toshiba, so other than Raffaele, her pc hardrive was her only hard-proof she was doing a few emails at the apartment. It'd make a great scene in the Abuse of Power movie!

Raffaele had a 9:46pm activity, defense says that puts him at home, did the prosecution miss that little bleep? If they had known maybe his would have been ruined too. huh-)

Its just one more scenario for the "pile" of scenarios. It's not as colorful as Judge Matteini's first hearing.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: "IF - THEN" STATEMENTS
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
RG's DNA was found on the purse. AK and RS was not. Therefore, I am inferring, that by the fact his DNA was found on the purse (I'll go with not inside) that for some reason he was handling her purse.

Quite true. Hey! We agree! Let's make an equally true observation based on other case DNA evidence, using your same sentence structure:

AK's and Meredith's DNA was found on The Double DNA Knife. RG was not. There, I am inferring, that by the fact their DNA was found on The Double DNA Knife (I'll go without Raffaele's) that for some reason Amanda was handling his knife.

You can't deny that that is quite true too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:18 am 
Kermit,

Quote:
As was stated, there was no money which could have been taken from the purse. How do you jump to the legal conclusion that he is guilty of theft?

The purse was an object in a room where a violent crime occurred, where the victim fought for her life. Lots of things were touched by different persons with blood on their hands, both the victim's and their own DNA.

By your logic, since Rudy's palmprint was found on the pillow, it could be deduced that he had a siesta too.

Remind me to exclude you from any jury which may be judging me.


"As was stated, there was no money which could have been taken from the purse. How do you jump to the legal conclusion that he is guilty of theft?"

Kermit, just b/c he didn't find any money to steal doesn't mean he wouldn't have stolen it if he found it. Your quote above makes it sounds like that the police didn't find any money. So I'm thinking on two scenarios:
1. Police didn't find any money in her purse. My hypothesis is that he stole it.
2. Police found money in the purse. Argh...then my hypothesis starts to stink. He was rushed and only took part? He shook out the purse and only a certain amount fell out? My own theory sounds lame to my ears.

"The purse was an object in a room where a violent crime occurred, where the victim fought for her life. Lots of things were touched by different persons with blood on their hands, both the victim's and their own DNA."

Yet none of AK's and RS's DNA. Lots of touching going on yet no evidence from those two.

Also, stop being so defensive, I haven't said anything negative to you so why say things like " Remind me to exclude you from any jury which may be judging me."

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:24 am 
Sorry, double post...trying to get used to the interface,

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 - the window
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
jfk1191 wrote:
my personal opinion is the Interrogation, smells of bad evidence and slander, under a "abuse of power" scenario.


In life, it's all about keeping the dream alive, jfk - if Lance Armstrong can do it so can you.

jfk1191 wrote:
Raffaele had a 9:46pm activity, defense says that puts him at home, did the prosecution miss that little bleep? If they had known maybe his would have been ruined too. huh-)


That was a non-human data point (i.e. a large download that had been started some time earlier finished downloading). It is my strong impression, jfk, that you need to find a job .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
JFK wrote:
I don';t think Miugnini pays out of his pocket, but c'mon, if you bring the system down due to your "ways of handling things", its not good for a career at all...



Don't let the facts get in the way of your smear.

MIGNINI HAS NEVER BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF AK AND RS BEYOND THE FIRST FOUR DAYS.

It's not his perogative, his decision or within his power to do so.


Judge Matteini authorised their continued detention on the 10th November 2007.

Italy's Supreme Court backed Matteini's decision at RS and AK's appeal in March/April 2008.

Judge Micheli authorised their continued detention following the pre-trial in October 2008.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:30 am 
Kermit

Quote:
Quite true. Hey! We agree! Let's make an equally true observation based on other case DNA evidence, using your same sentence structure:

AK's and Meredith's DNA was found on The Double DNA Knife. RG was not. There, I am inferring, that by the fact their DNA was found on The Double DNA Knife (I'll go without Raffaele's) that for some reason Amanda was handling his knife.

You can't deny that that is quite true too.


No Kermit. You are being disingenuous.

The difference is Rudy's DNA wasn't tested on a machine way above its limits, with a sample so small it not only was destroyed, but couldn't be repeated in total defiance of international standards of a double testing protocol.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: PLEASE THINK
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
jfk1191 wrote:
I would think if Patrick got money from the courts/gov (whoever is paying him for his jail time), then Raffaele will get much more if released, due to being in the prison much longer. I don';t think Miugnini pays out of his pocket, but c'mon, if you bring the system down due to your "ways of handling things", its not good for a career at all...


If Raffaele was indicted on the basis of intentionally false data in the investigation report (I'm not talking about interpretative scenarios, where yours is as good as Mignini's), then Mignini - like any prosecutor in any case - could have a problem.

Did Mignini consciously test incorrectly the bra clasp and either "plant" Raffaele's DNA there, or criminally mishandle the clasp in such a manner that it was contaminated under conditions which he should be sued for? First of all, he didn't do the DNA testing, those are other officials who won't be risking their careers for a prosecutor. Secondly, there is no indication of gross misconduct even on the part of the DNA team. Charlie Wilkes has declared that Stefanoni is competent.

Therefore, just on the basis of DNA on the clasp, (in addition to the manifestly large collection of other evidence, conflicting statements and alibis, etc.), I think that Mignini could only have been grossly and criminally incompetent not to consider Raffaele a potential perpertrator in his report, and it would have been criminally incompetent for Micheli not to indict Raffaele.

No, the Evil Mignini spin talking point is down the drain and has been for some time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Frumpycat wrote:
Kermit

Quote:
Quite true. Hey! We agree! Let's make an equally true observation based on other case DNA evidence, using your same sentence structure:

AK's and Meredith's DNA was found on The Double DNA Knife. RG was not. There, I am inferring, that by the fact their DNA was found on The Double DNA Knife (I'll go without Raffaele's) that for some reason Amanda was handling his knife.

You can't deny that that is quite true too.


No Kermit. You are being disingenuous.

The difference is Rudy's DNA wasn't tested on a machine way above its limits, with a sample so small it not only was destroyed, but couldn't be repeated in total defiance of international standards of a double testing protocol.

FC


And so are you.

MK's DNA wasn't detected by a machine used beyond it's limits.

The machine has a "default" setting which Stefononi switched off.

She then used the machine's controls to selected a different setting.

The machine is not "beyond it's limits" when it's own controls allow a user a choice of alternate settings besides the default.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: SHORT PEOPLE HAVE NO REASON TO LIVE
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
No Kermit. You are being disingenuous.

The difference is Rudy's DNA wasn't tested on a machine way above its limits, with a sample so small it not only was destroyed, but couldn't be repeated in total defiance of international standards of a double testing protocol.

Given a sample which was so small, then, what would your recommendation have been: set it aside and not test it, thereby excluding it from the evidence?

Is Stefanoni guily of going after evidence which is smaller than you think should be acceptable? Did you like the song "Short people got, short people got, short people got no reason to live"???

Keep in mind that in Europe (maybe the US is different) no evidence is "excluded", it just has to be weighted by the judge and jury. It would have been nice to repeat 2 and 3 and 4 times the testing on The Double DNA Knife. If the judge and jury feel that the single testing should reduce slightly (or a lot) the evidential value of the knife, they will do so (Just as they may - or may not - consider Kokomani's testimony as less solid than the tow-truck driver's testimony).

But you can't oblige them to "exclude" evidence.

Whatever your musical tastes may be, I think that you are the one who is being disingenuous.

Amanda's defence team have stated what they have to state about the Meredith's DNA. One talking point which The Entourage beamed out loudly to the world 24/7 over several months is that the match was only "20%" (whatever that means) or it could match "half of Italy" (whatever that means). They're rather silent on that now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ¡¡¡ VIVAN LOS BAJITOS !!!
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Kermit wrote:
Frumpycat wrote:
with a sample so small it not only was destroyed, but couldn't be repeated in total defiance of international standards of a double testing protocol.

Is Stefanoni guily of going after evidence which is smaller than you think should be acceptable? Did you like the song "Short people got, short people got, short people got no reason to live"???


To you Frumpycat, I dedicate this song:



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: WHERE's TOM CRUISE AND HIS MINORITY REPORT??
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
Kermit, just b/c he didn't find any money to steal doesn't mean he wouldn't have stolen it if he found it.


So you think: therefore Rudy is guilty of theft.

This sort of thinking is scary, scary stuff.

Is this your own crop, or is it indicative of FOA talking points?


Last edited by Kermit on Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:12 am 
Brian S.

Quote:
And so are you.

MK's DNA wasn't detected by a machine used beyond it's limits.

The machine has a "default" setting which Stefononi switched off.

She then used the machine's controls to selected a different setting.

The machine is not "beyond it's limits" when it's own controls allow a user a choice of alternate settings besides the default.


This is not in dispute:

- She went over the limits of her machine. Just cuz she was able to overide the regulator on a machine DOES NOT mean the machines manufacturers condone it. Her "selected a different setting." was going over the manufacturers specs.

This is crazy. "Hey, then manufacturer said not to run it into the red in the rpm line, but you know what, I'm gonna do it. Cuz they have the red over the rpm line means its okay with them."

And your bullet points fail to point out the fact that the sample could not be tested again, per international standards.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:19 am 
Quote:
Given a sample which was so small, then, what would your recommendation have been: set it aside and not test it, thereby excluding it from the evidence?

Is Stefanoni guily of going after evidence which is smaller than you think should be acceptable? Did you like the song "Short people got, short people got, short people got no reason to live"???

Keep in mind that in Europe (maybe the US is different) no evidence is "excluded", it just has to be weighted by the judge and jury. It would have been nice to repeat 2 and 3 and 4 times the testing on The Double DNA Knife. If the judge and jury feel that the single testing should reduce slightly (or a lot) the evidential value of the knife, they will do so (Just as they may - or may not - consider Kokomani's testimony as less solid than the tow-truck driver's testimony).

But you can't oblige them to "exclude" evidence.

Whatever your musical tastes may be, I think that you are the one who is being disingenuous.

Amanda's defence team have stated what they have to state about the Meredith's DNA. One talking point which The Entourage beamed out loudly to the world 24/7 over several months is that the match was only "20%" (whatever that means) or it could match "half of Italy" (whatever that means). They're rather silent on that now.


"Given a sample which was so small, then, what would your recommendation have been: set it aside and not test it, thereby excluding it from the evidence?"

YES - it would have never made it into trial anyway!

"Keep in mind that in Europe (maybe the US is different) no evidence is "excluded", it just has to be weighted by the judge and jury. It would have been nice to repeat 2 and 3 and 4 times the testing on The Double DNA Knife. If the judge and jury feel that the single testing should reduce slightly (or a lot) the evidential value of the knife, they will do so (Just as they may - or may not - consider Kokomani's testimony as less solid than the tow-truck driver's testimony)."

Lets just try for being able to repeat the results from twice and work our way up from there.

"Amanda's defence team have stated what they have to state about the Meredith's DNA. One talking point which The Entourage beamed out loudly to the world 24/7 over several months is that the match was only "20%" (whatever that means) or it could match "half of Italy" (whatever that means). They're rather silent on that now."

Yes, cuz they destroyed this evidence, why mention it again? When the actual truth turns out to be more damning than matching "20- whatever of Italy" then why bring it up. A tank hit by an RPG is a dead tank. Why hit it with another one?

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
...Due to health problems of the President of the Court, Giancarlo Massei, ....

Google translation of this story at AGI

Translation of Brian's reference:
AGI PERUGIA 10TH July
The hearing this morning before the Court of the Assise of Perugia trying Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of English student Meredith Kercher lasted only a few minutes.
Indeed, because of the health problems of the President of the Court, Giancarlo Massei, the hearings listed for today and tomorrow were cancelled and the trial will resume in court on July 17th, in order to continue hearing witnesses for the defence.
The possibility of a postponement had been already announced recently, thus the two accused who are on remand in the Capanne prison in Perugia were not present in court.
According to the timetable, the sittings on July 17th & 18th should be the last hearings before the summer break.
Proceedings should therefore resume on September 18th.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
Yet none of AK's and RS's DNA. Lots of touching going on yet no evidence from those two.

I thought we agreed yesterday that Raffaele's DNA was found in abundant quantities on the bra strap (of course, the defence is in its right to suggest that that is due to contamination, but that doesn't exclude Raffaele's DNA evidence). ((what about the university students who you suggested had a wild party in the cottage before the 18 December 2007 inspection? any further news on that?))

The crime scene is not limited by the walls of Meredith's room. She possibly ran to Filomena's room in the fight. There, there is a mixed DNA sample (Meredith/Amanda), as well as the above waist-level mixed blood samples in the bathroom.

As well as all the other evidence.

In any case, are you suggesting that in other cases where there is absolutely no DNA evidence, that trials should not be allowed to proceed with a conviction?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:28 am 
SB,

Could I pleaaaase be able to say "dude" again? I've had to delete it, like five times from my posts. It is not meant to be negative to whom I'm addressing.

Funny enough I'm now shocked how many times I use the word "dude".

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:38 am 
Kermit

Quote:
I thought we agreed yesterday that Raffaele's DNA was found in abundant quantities on the bra strap (of course, the defence is in its right to suggest that that is due to contamination, but that doesn't exclude Raffaele's DNA evidence). ((what about the university students who you suggested had a wild party in the cottage before the 18 December 2007 inspection? any further news on that?))

The crime scene is not limited by the walls of Meredith's room. She possibly ran to Filomena's room in the fight. There, there is a mixed DNA sample (Meredith/Amanda), as well as the above waist-level mixed blood samples in the bathroom.

As well as all the other evidence.

In any case, are you suggesting that in other cases where there is absolutely no DNA evidence, that trials should not be allowed to proceed with a conviction?


- We didn't agree that RS's DNA was found on the strap! And mess with me on the "student party", I was just pointing out that it took 40 days for the prosecution to pick up the evidence, and lord knows what happened in the house. The police - "its sealed..see the tape!" and no guards, c'mon.
- C'mon on MK running into Filomena's room. Here's a counter theory - it was a brutal, nasty infight with MK and RG in a small inclosed space, MK got her hits in, but was done in by a guy literally twice her size, the cowardly bast***.

"As well as all the other evidence.

In any case, are you suggesting that in other cases where there is absolutely no DNA evidence, that trials should not be allowed to proceed with a conviction?"

For these I don't understand what you're leading to. Wha..? concerning the first comment, of course not to the second.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: WHERE's CHARLIE WILKES ???? HE's MORE STRUCTURED
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
Kermit wrote:
Given a sample which was so small, then, what would your recommendation have been: set it aside and not test it, thereby excluding it from the evidence?

YES - it would have never made it into trial anyway!

If The Cook / "Tomb Raider" gets to apply Washington State libel laws on her blog (using it as justification to delete posts even when no person is named), then I guess that Italy's justice system gets to apply their own laws and norms concerning what is and what isn't evidence.

Frumpycat wrote:
Kermit wrote:
Amanda's defence team have stated what they have to state about the Meredith's DNA. One talking point which The Entourage beamed out loudly to the world 24/7 over several months is that the match was only "20%" (whatever that means) or it could match "half of Italy" (whatever that means). They're rather silent on that now.

Yes, cuz they destroyed this evidence, why mention it again? When the actual truth turns out to be more damning than matching "20- whatever of Italy" then why bring it up. A tank hit by an RPG is a dead tank. Why hit it with another one?

Ummmm. Joe the Sleuth, Paul the PI and the whole rag-tag army of The Entourage were talking about 20% and Half-of-Italy and other mind-bending illogical descriptions of DNA matching long after Stefanoni carried out her single test on Meredith's DNA on The Double DNA Knife, not before.

Get your chronology in the right order.

This business about "destroying" the evidence has been brought up by The Entourage as well. Stefanoni carried out a DNA test which gave a certain result. Due to the lack of DNA material, she could not repeat the test.

Luminol testing also "destroys" the evidence. Are you suggesting that that shouldn't be allowed as evidence either? At this rate you'll soon be successful in eliminating all of the evidence against the sacred couple.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Frumpycat wrote:
Brian S.

Quote:
And so are you.

MK's DNA wasn't detected by a machine used beyond it's limits.

The machine has a "default" setting which Stefononi switched off.

She then used the machine's controls to selected a different setting.

The machine is not "beyond it's limits" when it's own controls allow a user a choice of alternate settings besides the default.


This is not in dispute:

- She went over the limits of her machine. Just cuz she was able to overide the regulator on a machine DOES NOT mean the machines manufacturers condone it. Her "selected a different setting." was going over the manufacturers specs.

This is crazy. "Hey, then manufacturer said not to run it into the red in the rpm line, but you know what, I'm gonna do it. Cuz they have the red over the rpm line means its okay with them."

And your bullet points fail to point out the fact that the sample could not be tested again, per international standards.

FC


I think I recognise the words you posted.

But this assertion that the manufacturers don't condone Stefononi's actions begs the question:

Why didn't the defense call a representative of the manufacturers as a witness to counter Stefononi's assertions that her methods were perfectly sound?

There is no such thing as agreed International Standards on DNA testing. As Kermit has noted most of Europe will allow a single test to be produced as evidence. They may "prefer" to have two but they "weight" evidence, they don't exclude it.

It may interest you to know that various bodies in the US are currently looking into the "out of date, court imposed" artificial levels at which they allow DNA to be produced in court. The issue of their discussions is that it's not the "level" of the sample which is important so much as it's quality.

There are worries that "noisy" samples with peaks above 60 have been used to convict innocent people and perfectly clear samples falling below 60 have allowed the guilty to go free.

Meredith's sample may have low peaks, between 30 and 50, but its so clear of noise that no geneticist can be found who will say that's not Meredith's DNA. That's the reason that the defenses have had to argue "contamination". Even their DNA experts recognise that as Meredith's DNA.

Perhaps the US court rules are a little out of date on the subject of DNA. They were drawn up quite a few years ago and things have advanced greatly since then. Perhaps, the current studies will result in a change to their rules on "peak level and noise", although I don't doubt they will stick with the rule on having two tests and rightly so. In a common law setting there is no such concept as "evidence weighting", evidence is either "in" or "out".


Last edited by Brian S. on Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: YOU'RE RIGHT, WELL NO.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
- We didn't agree that RS's DNA was found on the strap!

You're right. I stand corrected. We agreed that RS's DNA was found in abundant quantities on the bra clasp (not the strap). My error.

Frumpycat wrote:
And mess with me on the "student party", I was just pointing out that it took 40 days for the prosecution to pick up the evidence, and lord knows what happened in the house.

Take it easy. If there was any possibility of any one tampering with the house, the defence lawyers would have been the first to know. Literally. (Remember how Raffaele's lawyer found the butter knife in one of the inspections?)

And the defence lawyers would have put up a big fuss.

Frumpycat wrote:
- C'mon on MK running into Filomena's room. Here's a counter theory - it was a brutal, nasty infight with MK and RG in a small inclosed space, MK got her hits in, but was done in by a guy literally twice her size, the cowardly bast***.

Is your "Cowardly bast***" in singular or plural form?

How do you explain the DNA evidence in Filomena's room? And none of it is Rudy's. The "girls living together" argument doesn't go that far.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:58 am 
Kermit

Quote:
If The Cook / "Tomb Raider" gets to apply Washington State libel laws on her blog (using it as justification to delete posts even when no person is named), then I guess that Italy's justice system gets to apply their own laws and norms concerning what is and what isn't evidence.


Can you give me more context? I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about.

Kermit

Quote:
Ummmm. Joe the Sleuth, Paul the PI and the whole rag-tag army of The Entourage were talking about 20% and Half-of-Italy and other mind-bending illogical descriptions of DNA matching long after Stefanoni carried out her single test on Meredith's DNA on The Double DNA Knife, not before.

Get your chronology in the right order.

This business about "destroying" the evidence has been brought up by The Entourage as well. Stefanoni carried out a DNA test which gave a certain result. Due to the lack of DNA material, she could not repeat the test.

Luminol testing also "destroys" the evidence. Are you suggesting that that shouldn't be allowed as evidence either? At this rate you'll soon be successful in eliminating all of the evidence against the sacred couple.


Hey, you're kinda rambling. I addressed some of this above, and I am going to bed. Look, lets start fresh tomorrow.

FC


Top
  
 
 Post subject: CRYSTAL CLEAR
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Brian S. wrote:
The issue of their discussions is that it's not the "level" of the sample which is important so much as it's quality.

There are worries that "noisy" samples with peaks above 60 have been used to convict innocent people and perfectly clear samples falling below 60 have allowed the guilty to go free.

Meredith's sample may have low peaks, between 30 and 50, but its so clear of noise that no geneticist can be found who will say that's not Meredith's DNA.


Months ago, after so much "20%" and "half of Italy", I thought that there may actually be some "fuzziness" in matching the Double DNA Knife sample of Meredith's DNA to the control sample.

I don't know if you posted it Brian, (or Petafly?, or both?) but the "match" is undeniable and amazing. There's no bit of dust on the testing equipment or "red-lining" the process (makes me think of Scotty on Star Trek: "I've giv'n her all she's got captain, an' I canna give her no more.") which could trick the machinery into giving such a good match.

So if the match is crystal clear perfect, then the doubters have to go after the procedure. Did Stefanoni follow procedure? Bongiorno & Co. and Ghirga & Co. fired their poisoned darts at her (as is their obligation) over two days, and didn't seem to come out with much.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: FIGHT OR FLIGHT RESPONSE
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
Frumpycat wrote:
Hey, you're kinda rambling. I addressed some of this above, and I am going to bed. Look, lets start fresh tomorrow.


I think you understand perfectly the posts here.

Sorry to hear you're heading off. I was just getting into it.

Reminds me of Kelly13 at The Cook's place, when things would pick up: Exit stage left.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Frumpycat wrote:
Hey Malcolm...can you give us more information on your conversation with Andrea Vogt? Sounds like some cool stuff.

I exchanged a couple of more emails with her now, so it seems that this issue has been resolved.
First of all, I will not quote her or explain with any more detail what she said, as per her request. I feel bad enough having mentioned the heel of the shoe as it is, since she was so kind to respond so quickly and at length. The issue with Rinaldi's testimony about the shoeprint on the pillow being Rudy's has been explained already by Perugia Shock (and Ms. Vogt confirmed this, too): He discussed multiple shoeprints, including 2 on the pillow. So there is no conflict between her article and that of the Italian press. I won't discuss the contents of our conversation any further.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: CRYSTAL CLEAR
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Germany
Kermit wrote:
So if the match is crystal clear perfect, then the doubters have to go after the procedure. Did Stefanoni follow procedure? Bongiorno & Co. and Ghirga & Co. fired their poisoned darts at her (as is their obligation) over two days, and didn't seem to come out with much.


It reminds me of some positive tested bicycle drivers at the 'tour de france' (positive with doping, not positive with DNA on a knife sun-) ) some years ago. Always the same answers to the reporters: i doubt the procedure...contamination...i never used EPO...and so on. Did anyone in the whole world ever believe that they really never used doping substances??? I guess not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Frumpycat said:
bucketoftea

Quote:
Protective clothing. Wasn't Raff wearing rubber gloves in the axe-murderer photograph? Rudy allegedly said Raff was wearing a swimming cap, I think.


Just checking...this is sarcasm correct? Thks,

FC

* * * * * * *
No. Gloves would help and if you've the foresight to bring a big knife with you, why not gloves? If you wore gloves AND cleaned up, well....good job!



Frumpycat said:
The difference is Rudy's DNA wasn't tested on a machine way above its limits, with a sample so small it not only was destroyed, but couldn't be repeated in total defiance of international standards of a double testing protocol.
* * * *
No defiance. Tiny sample. It happens.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:57 am 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Frumpycat wrote:
Nikki

Quote:
Rudy DNA was NOT in the purse, but OUTSIDE, precisely on top of it.


If you google it, you will find others who say everything from dna to bloody fingerprints of Rudy inside the purse. Unfortunately one of those is that freaky private investigator which makes me go hmmmm.

But lets give the benefit of the doubt, and to what I was arguing. Rudy's DNA was found on her purse. No one elses. Why would he be grabbing her purse? To rob her. Why did the prosecution not go after theft with Rudy, but they did with AK and RS. I'm not holding my breath. The had tons of other lame theories, accusations, that are falling by the wayside.

FC

FC,
I suggest you base your information on official court records and reliable media sources (Italian, or Italy based bilingual reporters), rather that on the Knox PR blogs, whose lies you have been chanting endlessly since you have appeared on this blog.Rudy's DNA was not inside the bag because this is what's written in Judge Micheli report, which any sane people would trust more than any other source.
"he had tons of other lame theories, accusations, that are falling by the wayside":
First, it's two prosecutors, Comodi and Mignini, and Comodi is a she. Second, would you care to explain how their "lame theories and accusations" are falling by the wayside?" Just because defense is arguing the evidence that has been presented by prosecution? It's their job and I wouldn't expect any different from them. Actually, their DNA expert excuses for the knife DNA look pretty lame to me.

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Frumpycat said:

This is not in dispute:

- She went over the limits of her machine. Just cuz she was able to overide the regulator on a machine DOES NOT mean the machines manufacturers condone it. Her "selected a different setting." was going over the manufacturers specs.

This is crazy. "Hey, then manufacturer said not to run it into the red in the rpm line, but you know what, I'm gonna do it. Cuz they have the red over the rpm line means its okay with them."
* * * * * * * *
The manufacturer is responsible for their own QC on their machine. This is the limit they guarantee. It doesn't mean that it will blow up or randomly choose to display MK's DNA if replication is continued past that limit. The results look very clean! As much as some may like to think so, the forensic scientists would not make themselves laughingstocks for the sake of falsely incriminating Amanda and Raff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Brian S. wrote:
Frank has just put up the best pic yet of the "ladies" shoe print on the pillow case.



He makes the argument that this print was made by Rudy here at Perugia Shock


On second thought, first we would need to confirm that this is not the print on the pillow that everyone agrees was from Rudy. Then we could take some measurements and compare to prints from size 11 Nike Outbreak2s and whatever size MK wore Pumas. Seems like a good theme for one of Kermit's powerpoints.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Frumpycat wrote:
Finn

Quote:
My contention is: that can't be true. It is plainly impossible for all those things to happen in four and a half minutes. You say, "I just don't buy it" because there are too many variables.

I'd appreciate it if you can expand on what you mean by not buying it. There's a fixed point at 12:55:36 and another at 1300. What variables are you worried about?


If the police are off by half an hour on their claims, everything seems to fall correctly. Also, I have not seen the phone records, etc. If you are willing to provide a link to them then I will go off of them. What I'm wondering is if there is weird things going on like conversations being flipped etc.

Also, in a worse case scenario your main hypothesis (and correct me if this is not true) is one phone call was made to AK's mother ot establish and alibi. I kind of find this weak because:

- It all depends on the content of the phone call, someone called at 3 in the morning and someone freaking out at what ends up being a murder scene may not be able to remember correctly what happened.

If she did call, intimating that the police were not there yet, what does that exactly mean? My theory? I think AK started freaking out, called her mom, who at 3am started freaking out, and neither could remember exactly what happened during that time.

FC


I'm not sure what you mean by the police being "half an hour off on their claims", because I haven't included the police claims in that timeline. I'm only looking at what Raffaele and Amanda claim, and trying to make it fit into the cellphone records - which gives us four and a half minutes for all those events.

Although, since you raise the question of the police claims, I'd say that if the police happen to be dead on with their claims, then their scenario does fit exactly with the phone records themselves.

I can't give you a link to the phone records, because I've been sent a copy of them separately and confidentially - they're not online. But they're the same records that the FOA are working from, and they're not in dispute.

So far as the 1247 call goes - don't get me wrong, I don't particularly see it as any kind of deal-breaker. The reason I've focused on that (in one post) is because it's one of the few items that we've got a lot of evidence about. (Our ignorance is mostly because Rudy and Raffaele have refused to testify.) But for that call, we've got the cellphone records (it starts at 12:47:23 and lasts for 88 seconds), we've got Edda's account of its contents, and we've got Amanda's insistence that she can't remember making it at all. We've also got a conversation that Edda and Amanda had in prison about that phone call just eight days later.

You say that your theory is that "neither could remember exactly what happened during that time", but actually Edda (and indeed Chris Mellas) have volunteered a lot of information about that phone call into the public domain (via the media, including TV and blogs), and what they've said has been pretty consistent. If anything, some people might argue that Edda got a bit unbelievable in court because she simply added too much detail - Amanda couldn't possibly have said all that stuff in 88 seconds. But I think the broad gist of that phonecall's contents is more or less what Edda and Chris Mellas have both told us for the past year and a half.

Amanda, on the other hand, claims she can't even remember making the call in the first place.

But I don't see that call as all that important, in itself. What looks potentially far more incriminating are the following three calls - Raffaele to his sister, and then Raffaele to 112 (twice). But whereas Amanda at least has stood up in court and claimed she can't remember making her phone call, Raffaele is refusing to make any comment at all about the ones that he made. The two 112 calls were recorded, so we can hear their content.

And we know that, four and a half minutes later, all the events I outlined above had taken place. In the police version, those events would take half an hour. In the defendants' version, they take four and a half minutes.

You say you don't buy the police version. I say okay, that's fine. But can you explain what version you do buy? Can you suggest a timeline that can make the defendants' story work? I've tried, and I can't do it, but maybe you'll have more success. It doesn't need to be accurate, it just needs to be physically possible.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
FinnMacCool wrote:
Can you suggest a timeline that can make the defendants' story work? I've tried, and I can't do it, but maybe you'll have more success. It doesn't need to be accurate, it just needs to be physically possible.


Hi Finn,

I wouldn't hold your breath. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
I just wanted to add that Stefanoni actually did a brilliant job. cl-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
FinnMacCool wrote:
And we know that, four and a half minutes later, all the events I outlined above had taken place. In the police version, those events would take half an hour. In the defendants' version, they take four and a half minutes.

Hi Finn,
good to see you back with the timeline!

I am interested in the 13.00 call.

What do you know about it? Did you see the phone record for this call? When did it start, when did it finish?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Phonecall timeline
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Finn, for the purposes of argument, I can fix your timeline, just by basing it on a combination of phone records and Amanda's testimony. After some reflection over why her lawyers would encourage her to tell a story that seems to conflict with what is possible, I realized that they must be envisioning the scene as I describe below.

Now, I myself do not fully believe the alternative timeline I'm about to propose, but not because it's unrealistic. I think it could have happened this way in terms of time. If I have doubts, it's more because I agree with Yummi's (and Micheli's) assessment that Marsi and Battistelli simply wouldn't have any reason to get their arrival time wrong, either by error or by lying. Also I find the non-flushing of the toilet extremely suspicious, light-bulb moment suspicious. I can't think of anyone whose first gesture wouldn't be to get rid of this mess. And blow-drying your hair next to it???


(Warning: gross image. By the way, note the shape of the bowl in which things do not fall directly into the water. You don't find these in America. Things do leave traces with this system and it really necessitates the systematic use of a toilet brush, which is what gave rise to the problem with Meredith.)

Purely hypothetically, however, let's go timelining.

Your timeline:
Quote:
-Raffaele's 112 ends as 12:54:39
-The postal police arrive later than 12:55
-Amanda and Raffaele give them a tour of the cottage, including the suspected break-in and the bloodstains in the bathroom
-Amanda writes down Meredith’s phone numbers for them, on a post-it note which Luca Altieri notices on the kitchen table when he arrives
-Marco and Luca arrive (and they see the post-it note) and have a conversation with the police about the ownership of the phones
-A few minutes later, Filomena and Paola Grande arrive. Filomena explains to the police about Meredith’s phones (one lent by Filomena, and the other a UK phone)
-The postal police make contact with their HQ
-During this call, Meredith’s phone is activated (at 13:00)
-In addition, at some point, Paola sees Raffaele and Amanda emerging from Amanda’s bedroom – but it’s not clear whether this happened before or after 13:00. It could have been after.

But even if we move this emergence from the bedroom to after 1300, there simply isn’t enough time for all those other activities to take place in a period of less than five minutes.


Alternative timeline following Amanda's testimony:
-Raffaele's 112 call ends at 12:54:39
-Marsi and Battistelli arrive almost instantly, she's literally amazed at the speed. Say 12:55.
-Thinking they are the ones who arrived because of the call, she immediately brings them into the kitchen and starts telling them, in somewhat broken Italian but helped by Raffaele, confused stuff about a broken window and a locked door. But they stop her, show her a phone and say that they are here looking for Filomena Romanelli. 12:57 or 12:58.
-She stops short in her explanations and tells them that Filomena is on her way. They ask her to write down the phone numbers of everyone who lives in the house. She writes them on a post-it. She doesn't say this, but it could very well be the moment where Meredith's phone is activated at HQ. 13:00.
-Friends of Filomena arrive; in her testimony, she mistakenly says that Luca Altieri and Paola Grande arrive. Say 13:02.
-After a minute or two, she says Filomena and Marco arrive. Close enough for her not even to remember which pair arrived first and which pair second. 13:03.
-Everyone immediately starts looking around the house, probably starting in Filomena's room. Battistelli notes her computer on the table, whereas Filomena later remembers picking it up off the floor (she's also off on her timings of the phone calls with Amanda, so let's say her memory is not perfectly accurate. I've tried to spot the computer in the picture below, but I can't see it. Still, purely logically, I'd guess the computer was still on the table, because one has no reason to carefully place a computer on the floor and one would certainly not toss it the way the clothing was tossed.) 13:03-13:15.
-Amanda doesn't say this, but we can imagine that, relieved at Filomena's arriving to take charge, she and Raffaele slip into Amanda's room for a quick cuddle, and then emerge. Say 13:04-13:05.
-Filomena authorizes Luca to break down the door. 13:15.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
And we know that, four and a half minutes later, all the events I outlined above had taken place. In the police version, those events would take half an hour. In the defendants' version, they take four and a half minutes.

Hi Finn,
good to see you back with the timeline!

I am interested in the 13.00 call.

What do you know about it? Did you see the phone record for this call? When did it start, when did it finish?


Hi Lancelotti - that's not so much a call as an activating of Meredith's phone from police HQ - I don't have the police's cellphone records. My information for that one is from Micheli's verdict on Rudy Guede. The way I understand that is that Battistelli radioed his HQ from the cottage after he'd spoken to Filomena Romanelli, who'd just arrived there and had explained that "Meredith's Italian phone" was really her own phone. That's the phone that gets activated from HQ (at a time given by Micheli as "1300") during that walkie-talkie conversation.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonecall timeline
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
thoughtful wrote:
Your timeline:
Quote:
-Raffaele's 112 ends as 12:54:39
-The postal police arrive later than 12:55
-Amanda and Raffaele give them a tour of the cottage, including the suspected break-in and the bloodstains in the bathroom
-Amanda writes down Meredith’s phone numbers for them, on a post-it note which Luca Altieri notices on the kitchen table when he arrives
-Marco and Luca arrive (and they see the post-it note) and have a conversation with the police about the ownership of the phones
-A few minutes later, Filomena and Paola Grande arrive. Filomena explains to the police about Meredith’s phones (one lent by Filomena, and the other a UK phone)
-The postal police make contact with their HQ
-During this call, Meredith’s phone is activated (at 13:00)
-In addition, at some point, Paola sees Raffaele and Amanda emerging from Amanda’s bedroom – but it’s not clear whether this happened before or after 13:00. It could have been after.


Alternative timeline following Amanda's testimony:
-Raffaele's 112 call ends at 12:54:39
-Marsi and Battistelli arrive almost instantly, she's literally amazed at the speed. Say 12:55.
-Thinking they are the ones who arrived because of the call, she immediately brings them into the kitchen and starts telling them, in somewhat broken Italian but helped by Raffaele, confused stuff about a broken window and a locked door. But they stop her, show her a phone and say that they are here looking for Filomena Romanelli. 12:57 or 12:58.
-She stops short in her explanations and tells them that Filomena is on her way. They ask her to write down the phone numbers of everyone who lives in the house. She writes them on a post-it. She doesn't say this, but it could very well be the moment where Meredith's phone is activated at HQ. 13:00.
-Friends of Filomena arrive; in her testimony, she mistakenly says that Luca Altieri and Paola Grande arrive. Say 13:02.
-After a minute or two, she says Filomena and Marco arrive. Close enough for her not even to remember which pair arrived first and which pair second. 13:03.
-Everyone immediately starts looking around the house, probably starting in Filomena's room. Battistelli notes her computer on the table, whereas Filomena later remembers picking it up off the floor (she's also off on her timings of the phone calls with Amanda, so let's say her memory is not perfectly accurate. I've tried to spot the computer in the picture below, but I can't see it. Still, purely logically, I'd guess the computer was still on the table, because one has no reason to carefully place a computer on the floor and one would certainly not toss it the way the clothing was tossed.) 13:03-13:15.
-Amanda doesn't say this, but we can imagine that, relieved at Filomena's arriving to take charge, she and Raffaele slip into Amanda's room for a quick cuddle, and then emerge. Say 13:04-13:05.
-Filomena authorizes Luca to break down the door. 13:15.

Thoughtful, you didn't include the police contacting HQ here. Do you agree that they did it while the phone was turned on? How would that have happened a few minutes before Filomena arrived and told them about Meredith's phones?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Timeline description of events
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
The following passage from Micheli's report makes interesting and relevant reading re the timeline:

Micheli's report:
Quote:
Secondo quanto rappresentato all’Isp. BATTISTELLI, la K. ed il S. avevano dunque rilevato la presenza di macchie di sangue in alcuni dei vani dell’appartamento, in particolare in uno dei bagni, nonché tracce di un apparente furto (anche se nessuno dei due riferiva di aver notato che qualcosa fosse stato effettivamente rubato) proprio nella stanza della R., dove c’era un vetro infranto e un grosso sasso in terra. Nell’altro bagno vi erano delle feci, con lo sciacquone non scaricato.
Inoltre, la porta di una delle camere, quella occupata dalla studentessa inglese K. M., era chiusa, tanto che il S. - non rispondendo la ragazza alle telefonate della K. - sosteneva di aver provato a forzarla senza riuscirvi: sulla maniglia, e comunque in prossimità dell’uscio, vi erano ulteriori tracce ematiche.
Nel frattempo, giungevano sul posto altri due giovani (A. L. e Z. M., quest’ultimo presentandosi come fidanzato della R.): lo Z. spiegava di avere ricevuto una telefonata dalla sua ragazza, avvertita dalla K. in merito allo stato dell’appartamento, sicché ella - che aveva passato la notte con lui in un altro luogo, ma era già uscita con un’amica - si era premurata di mandarlo a dare un’occhiata; a quel punto, lo Z. aveva pregato l’A. di passarlo a prendere. Nel giro di qualche altro minuto, arrivavano anche la stessa R. e G. P., fidanzata dell’A.: ed era la R., dopo aver precisato che il telefono con la scheda a lei intestata apparteneva in effetti alla K. (gliel’aveva regalata proprio lei, perché la quarta ragazza con loro convivente, M. L., aveva fatto analogo dono di una diversa scheda alla K.), ad insistere affinché venisse buttata giù la porta di M..


Translation:
According to the account of Inspector Battistelli, Knox and Sollecito had noticed the presence of bloody stains in various places in the apartment, in particular in one of the bathrooms, as well as traces of an apparent break-in (even if neither of the two stated having noticed that anything was actually stolen) precisely in the room of Romanelli, where there was a broken windowpane and a big rock on the floor. In the other bathroom there were unflushed faeces. Furthermore, the door of one of the rooms, the one occupied by the English student Meredith Kercher, was locked, while Sollecito -- because the girl was not answering Knox's phone calls -- asserted that he had tried to force it without succeeding: on the doorhandle and around the door were further traces of blood. In the meantime, two other young people arrived at the house (Luca Altieri and Marco Zaroli, the latter introducing himself as Romanelli's boyfriend): Zaroli explained that he had received a phone call from his girlfriend, who had been informed by Knox about the state of the apartment, so that she -- who had spent the night in a different place and had now gone out with a friend -- hastened to send him to have a look; at that point, Zaroli had asked Altieri to come by and pick him up. After a few more minutes, the very same Romanelli and Paola Grande, Altieri's girlfriend arrived: and it was Romanelli, after explaining that the telephone with the sim card in her name actually belonged to Kercher (she had given it to her because the fourth girl who lived with them, Laura Mezzetti, had made a similar gift of a different sim card to Knox), who insisted on the door being broken down.


Notice how this sounds like Battistelli is telling what Knox and Sollecito told him when he came in. They had noticed...Sollecito asserted...He doesn't describe going into the rooms or being shown around. This passage could very well be read as Knox and Sollecito telling him also about the faeces, the rock, the windowpane and the blood traces. Of course he saw all these things for himself a few minutes later. It also sounds as though the "few minutes" after which Filomena and Paola arrived were very few; just the time for Zaroli to explain who he was and why he was there. It doesn't sound like they had any time to do anything significant before the girls arrived. The last sentence makes it sound like the first thing Filomena did after telling about the phone was to ask to break the door down, but I'm sure she took a look in her room first. Finally, why should we think that Meredith's phone was activated in HQ only after Filomena came home, rather than at the time when Amanda wrote down the phone numbers on a post-it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonecall timeline
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
thoughtful wrote:
Alternative timeline following Amanda's testimony:
-Raffaele's 112 call ends at 12:54:39
-Marsi and Battistelli arrive almost instantly, she's literally amazed at the speed. Say 12:55.
-Thinking they are the ones who arrived because of the call, she immediately brings them into the kitchen and starts telling them, in somewhat broken Italian but helped by Raffaele, confused stuff about a broken window and a locked door. But they stop her, show her a phone and say that they are here looking for Filomena Romanelli. 12:57 or 12:58.
-She stops short in her explanations and tells them that Filomena is on her way. They ask her to write down the phone numbers of everyone who lives in the house. She writes them on a post-it. She doesn't say this, but it could very well be the moment where Meredith's phone is activated at HQ. 13:00.
-Friends of Filomena arrive; in her testimony, she mistakenly says that Luca Altieri and Paola Grande arrive. Say 13:02.
-After a minute or two, she says Filomena and Marco arrive. Close enough for her not even to remember which pair arrived first and which pair second. 13:03.
-Everyone immediately starts looking around the house, probably starting in Filomena's room. Battistelli notes her computer on the table, whereas Filomena later remembers picking it up off the floor (she's also off on her timings of the phone calls with Amanda, so let's say her memory is not perfectly accurate. I've tried to spot the computer in the picture below, but I can't see it. Still, purely logically, I'd guess the computer was still on the table, because one has no reason to carefully place a computer on the floor and one would certainly not toss it the way the clothing was tossed.) 13:03-13:15.
-Amanda doesn't say this, but we can imagine that, relieved at Filomena's arriving to take charge, she and Raffaele slip into Amanda's room for a quick cuddle, and then emerge. Say 13:04-13:05.
-Filomena authorizes Luca to break down the door. 13:15.


Thanks, Thoughtful. There's a huge problem with the 1300 call, because Battistelli, Filomena and Paola all testified about this occurring after Filomena and Paola arrived - and so did Commissioner Bartolozzi, who received Battistelli's call from the cottage. Battistelli's conversation with HQ follows on from his conversation not with Amanda, but with Filomena.

So to make your timeline work, you need to disbelieve several sets of testimony from police and independent witnesses. Set against that, you've got nothing except your own ingenious attempt to make the timeline work by shifting the impossible amount of activity to after 1300. Because the defense teams haven't argued against any of those testimonies that you need to discard in order to get your timeline to work.

This is where I personally ran into a brick wall following the testimonies of Edda and Amanda. Because it had been quite fun, over the previous months, imagining scenarios that could keep the kite of innocence flying - you know, like they called the carabinieri because they didn't think the communications police were taking it seriously, or whatever. But all that came grinding to a halt when Edda testified that she did in fact tell Amanda to call the police at 1247, and Amanda testified that she had no memory of that call. Because that's what left Amanda and Raffaele with half an hour's worth of activity (attested by various witnesses, police records, cellphone records, CCTV footage, and so on) being required to fit into four and a half minutes, contrary to what was attested by various witnesses, police records, cellphone records, CCTV footage, and so on.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Finn!
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Finn, of course I included it! At 13:00 precisely. Read me again.

Battistelli would have tried Meredith's phone numbers when Amanda wrote them down for him on a post-it. Note that Luca Altieri states that when he entered the house he found everyone in the kitchen, with two phones on the table and a post-it containing numbers. He took the two phones to be Meredith's phones, but in fact one of them must have been Battistelli's own phone with which he dialed the number Amanda had just given him. Don't you think this is at least possible?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Back and forth
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Okay, now we're crossing.

Your assertions about Battistelli's contacting HQ after Filomena came home are not present in Micheli's report. Are they supposed to be in Battistelli's court testimony? Do you know where we can find that?

I've read everything I can find in the online newspapers about Filomena's testimony and I've never come across anything precise there, either. Do you have a better source for her testimony?

Finally, a really technical question. What did Battistelli actually do? What is meant by "activating her phone"? What do you mean the phone had to be turned on? I presume all the phones were turned on, why shouldn't they be? One of them got a prank call, didn't it? What I was assuming, and this seems very natural to me, is that Amanda either recognized the phone as Meredith's before Filomena came back and said it, or else when she gave Meredith's two numbers to Battistelli, he realized one of them was the phone he was holding. And he then used either his own phone or that phone to call Meredith's other phone. Was this "activating the phone" thing anything other than this?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Timeline description of events
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
thoughtful wrote:
Notice how this sounds like Battistelli is telling what Knox and Sollecito told him when he came in. They had noticed...Sollecito asserted...He doesn't describe going into the rooms or being shown around. This passage could very well be read as Knox and Sollecito telling him also about the faeces, the rock, the windowpane and the blood traces. Of course he saw all these things for himself a few minutes later. It also sounds as though the "few minutes" after which Filomena and Paola arrived were very few; just the time for Zaroli to explain who he was and why he was there. It doesn't sound like they had any time to do anything significant before the girls arrived. The last sentence makes it sound like the first thing Filomena did after telling about the phone was to ask to break the door down, but I'm sure she took a look in her room first. Finally, why should we think that Meredith's phone was activated in HQ only after Filomena came home, rather than at the time when Amanda wrote down the phone numbers on a post-it?


Thanks, Thoughtful. We've learned quite a lot since Micheli's report was published, even if it's a very thorough account of the state of play before this trial began.

You also need to look at what was testified in the present trial. Battistelli, for example, testified that he took a look at Filomena's bedroom after being directed to it by Knox and Sollecito. He testified that it appeared to him to be a faked break-in, which he also testified that he pointed out to Knox and Sollecito by way of reply, and they said nothing.

You also need to look at the testimonies of Marco, Luca, Paola and Filomena. Luca in particular spoke at some length of the conversation he had with the police after he arrived, and before Filomena and Paola arrived.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Indeed
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
I ask for nothing better, Finn! So point me to those testimonies!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Phonecall timeline
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
thoughtful wrote:

Alternative timeline following Amanda's testimony:
-Raffaele's 112 call ends at 12:54:39
-Marsi and Battistelli arrive almost instantly, she's literally amazed at the speed. Say 12:55


Hi thoughtful,

Are you expecting anyone to believe that Amanda Knox thought it was possible that the police could have arrived at the cottage within the space of 11 seconds. It would have been physically impossible even if the police had a Star Trek teleporter.

Besides, the postal police arrived at the cottage at approximately 12.25pm. I have a real probelm believing that it took them 30 minutes to walk from the gate of the cottage to the front door.

If you want people to take your timelines seriously, it would help if you remained in the realms of reality rather than fantasy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Well, Machine, one could give the police say one minute to get there. You know, this has actually happened to me myself. The thing was that there happened to be a patrol car right in the vicinity of where I was when I called, so they didn't have to send one from HQ. It isn't a miracle.

Anyway, listen. I am not alone in trying to waltz in fantasyland with this story. AMANDA'S LAWYERS ARE DOING IT TOO. And I am interested in figuring out what their strategy is. To me, that is part of this trial, and part of the Italian justice system in general, and it interests me a lot, and that is my right.

You are interested in only one question: guilt.

I am interested in THE FUNCTIONING OF THE TRIAL. Both sides. Does that clarify my approach?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Indeed
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
thoughtful wrote:
I ask for nothing better, Finn! So point me to those testimonies!


They're all in the threads on this page marked "Main Discussion" - the testimonies were discussed on a daily basis as they came out in court.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
thoughtful wrote:
Anyway, listen. I am not alone in trying to waltz in fantasyland with this story.


I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that you had waltzed into fantasy land. :D

thoughtful wrote:
You are interested in only one question: guilt.


I am? That's news to me. I'd actually like to know what happened and why.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Where the trial testimony starts
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
The trial starts on this page, and the communications police were among the first to testify, so you can follow it all from here.

By the way, to correct what I said above - it was Meredith's English phone that was activated at 1300, not the Italian.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Quote:
I am? That's news to me. I'd actually like to know what happened and why.


Oh, and that would be totally independent of anybody's GUILT?

What I'm trying to say here is that while of course I deeply wish that everyone would be able to know the full truth -- and I wish this more for Merediith's family than for us here, let alone myself personally -- I don't think we ever will, and that is not the main element of fascination for me in this trial. I am interested by the trial itself, and the manner the evidence emerges from the witnesses and is used by the lawyers on both sides. More deeply, I am interested in the manner in which human beings have tried to codify a system for something as basic as searching for the truth.

If I frequently try to shore up the defense positions, it is because they are the weaker ones, and therefore the greater challenge. I am more interested in guessing what is going on in Ghirga's mind than in Mignini's, because I suspect that much of what is going on in Mignini's mind is fairly obvious. And pretty clearly expressed by your posts, I would guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A case of mistaken identity
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
I wrote:
Quote:
Finn, of course I included it! At 13:00 precisely. Read me again.


My apologies, Finn! I was expecting a response from you and didn't realize it was Malcolm and not you who thought I missed out the 13:00 call. Sorry Malcolm, also.

Okay, so now that I have discovered the incredible benefits of the "search" option at the top of this page, I'm exploring all results obtained by entering "Battistelli". I shall see what I shall see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
jfk1191 wrote:
other "abuse of power" scenarios for the Hollywood movie could be Amandas hardrive being ruined and Judge Matteini showing no interest in it being repaired by Toshiba, so other than Raffaele, her pc hardrive was her only hard-proof she was doing a few emails at the apartment. It'd make a great scene in the Abuse of Power movie!


I would be very interested indeed if you could produce even very indirect information referring to Amanda writing emails on her PC (and hence, evidenced technically by her hard drive) on the night of the crime. Are you a friend of hers? Did you receive an email from Amanda on the afternoon (US time) of 1 November 2007? Are you aware of any of her other friends receiving any form of communication from her late on that day?

Ixnay, Ixnay JFK1191!!!!! On this board I think that Michael increased the time allowed to edit one's posts to 24 hours, so you may want to take that part (and others) out of your post ..... why? Gather around and listen:

1) Amanda's PC was in the cottage, as per the police video of her room which is posted above on this page

2) If there was evidence on Amanda's own PC of email activity, then that would be additional evidence which would place her squarely in the cottage on the night of the murder.

Maybe the Italian state should spend the extra euros to get that hard disk repaired after all ....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 158
I am a frequent lurker and I can say that much of the endless "tail chasing" has been getting quite dreary. I am also in agreement with another American poster that stated apart from the Pacific Northwest and the lone banner on yahoo, we have had no information about this case from day one. Our news stations love to capitalize on the latest sensational item (i.e. Michael Jackson) so, I try to read the majority on the internet. Many here are closely aligned with the professions and I appreciate the insights and discussions along with the use of the evidence available to back up their theories. Yes, they are still only theories, but I do believe the truth will eventually come out. I, too, believe that AK & RS are deeply involved. I have read a lot of the Micheli report (my 4 years of high school spanish helped significantly) and they seem to have done a very thorough investigation looking at all possible angles and suspects. It it my opinion that we need to have respect for Italy's justice system and allow the due process of law. After all, this was an American student in a foreign country implicated in a most heinous crime. I would not expect and, I would be greatly disappointed in our country if they were to come to her assistance without weighing the sheer amount of evidence in this case. We would not allow it here and neither should the Italians. I take offense to the statement made that we should look amongst ourselves to determine how someone like this could have been borne of our society. It is not just America, it is everywhere. As a mother, I understand it perfectly. Amanda came from moderate means, yet her parents put her into private schools where maybe she was not equal to her peers. Yet, she constantly strove to be better than her peers. From what I have read of Meredith, she was an excellent student, well liked, beautiful, everything came to her so easily. We have all had friends like this. Hard not to have a little jealousy, correct? There have been hundreds, if not thousands of stories where we see this time and again. Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty but, there is a lot more evidence than that knife. Perhaps there was more than one knife, this seems to keep coming up. We know for a fact that in many cases the murder weapon disappears, that does not stop the courts from being able to convict with all other evidence. And in this case, there is a lot of evidence. I don't profess to knowing a lot about this case, but i have read a lot of the unbiased reporting.....just the facts ma'am.........I also have to confess, my shoe size is also between a 36 and 38 which could make me a suspect also.......By the way FC, I was born and raised in California and I do not use "dude"....ever.....it sort of deteriorates the conversation.....


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A case of mistaken identity
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
thoughtful wrote:
My apologies, Finn! I was expecting a response from you and didn't realize it was Malcolm and not you who thought I missed out the 13:00 call. Sorry Malcolm, also.


thoughtful, this is what you wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Alternative timeline following Amanda's testimony:
-Raffaele's 112 call ends at 12:54:39
-Marsi and Battistelli arrive almost instantly, she's literally amazed at the speed. Say 12:55.
-Thinking they are the ones who arrived because of the call, she immediately brings them into the kitchen and starts telling them, in somewhat broken Italian but helped by Raffaele, confused stuff about a broken window and a locked door. But they stop her, show her a phone and say that they are here looking for Filomena Romanelli. 12:57 or 12:58.
-She stops short in her explanations and tells them that Filomena is on her way. They ask her to write down the phone numbers of everyone who lives in the house. She writes them on a post-it. She doesn't say this, but it could very well be the moment where Meredith's phone is activated at HQ. 13:00.
-Friends of Filomena arrive; in her testimony, she mistakenly says that Luca Altieri and Paola Grande arrive. Say 13:02.
-After a minute or two, she says Filomena and Marco arrive. Close enough for her not even to remember which pair arrived first and which pair second. 13:03.
-Everyone immediately starts looking around the house, probably starting in Filomena's room. Battistelli notes her computer on the table, whereas Filomena later remembers picking it up off the floor (she's also off on her timings of the phone calls with Amanda, so let's say her memory is not perfectly accurate. I've tried to spot the computer in the picture below, but I can't see it. Still, purely logically, I'd guess the computer was still on the table, because one has no reason to carefully place a computer on the floor and one would certainly not toss it the way the clothing was tossed.) 13:03-13:15.
-Amanda doesn't say this, but we can imagine that, relieved at Filomena's arriving to take charge, she and Raffaele slip into Amanda's room for a quick cuddle, and then emerge. Say 13:04-13:05.
-Filomena authorizes Luca to break down the door. 13:15.


Where do you mention the call at 13:00? Do you mean this?
"She doesn't say this, but it could very well be the moment where Meredith's phone is activated at HQ. 13:00."
Just b/c MK's phone was activated at 13:00 doesn't automatically imply that is when the police contacted HQ. My point was that you never actually stated in your timeline that the police contacted HQ and I just wanted to confirm that you agreed that this was at 13:00. If not then perhaps you were disputing the time that the police contacted HQ, too. I had no way of knowing whether this is what you intended, so I asked.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
FinnMacCool wrote:
Hi Lancelotti - that's not so much a call as an activating of Meredith's phone from police HQ - I don't have the police's cellphone records. My information for that one is from Micheli's verdict on Rudy Guede. The way I understand that is that Battistelli radioed his HQ from the cottage after he'd spoken to Filomena Romanelli, who'd just arrived there and had explained that "Meredith's Italian phone" was really her own phone. That's the phone that gets activated from HQ (at a time given by Micheli as "1300") during that walkie-talkie conversation.


Thank you, Finn!
I have the same question as Thoughtful then.
She asked: "What did Battistelli actually do? What is meant by "activating her phone"? What do you mean the phone had to be turned on? I presume all the phones were turned on, why shouldn't they be?"

Do you know that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: pillow shoeprints
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:26 am
Posts: 239
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Kermit et al.,
Look at these 2 images again:

Image#1:


Image#2 (scroll down a little for it):
[urlx=http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/post5682.html#p5682]http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/post5682.html#p5682[/urlx]

The second has been rotated 180 degrees relative to the first. The shoeprints identified in the 2 images are actually 2 different shoeprints! (And we know that one of them was Rudy's and the other is in dispute.) The one that is identified with a yellow arrow is a little more distinct and is probably Rudy's. The other print, which is identified with the words "Impronta di scarpa", looks like a collection of dots and is probably the one that is claimed to be from an Asics. If you look closely in the upper right quadrant of Image #1 you can see the dots that form the print in Image#2.

Now compare these 2 images to the one on Perugia Shock:



It doesn't really look like either of the 2 previous ones, but if I had to choose I'd go with the one identified with a yellow arrow in Image#1. But that doesn't seem to be the one that is claimed to come from an Asics.


Last edited by malcolm on Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Could I pleaaaase be able to say "dude" again? I've had to delete it, like five times from my posts. It is not meant to be negative to whom I'm addressing.

Funny enough I'm now shocked how many times I use the word "dude".

FC


Well, like, you'll just have to keep, like, deleting it then. There's nothing wrong with rereading posts and editing them before hitting, like, send. I truly believe you can do it if you try.

_________________
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: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
Tigger is exactly right there is a REASON why our government (US) has not been called in to assistant the damsel in distress. Our embassy in Italy has been informed of the facts and they know full well Amanda is guilty and being treated fairly. Her parents don't seem to be complaining about the fact that our government has not intervened on their daughter's behalf. It seems to me once the decision is rendered, perhaps the US govt. could help with transferring Amanda to an American prison or something on that order to help the Knox family. But, I am betting Bambi would want to stay in Italy. She is receiving star treatment and becoming fluent in Italian. She'd be a nobody in a Washington state prison mopping floors like the rest of them. mop-) And we all know she is the greatest mopper of all time!!! tt-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
Kermit wrote:
Ixnay, Ixnay JFK1191!!!!! On this board I think that Michael increased the time allowed to edit one's posts to 24 hours, so you may want to take that part (and others) out of your post ..... why? Gather around and listen:

1) Amanda's PC was in the cottage, as per the police video of her room which is posted above on this page

2) If there was evidence on Amanda's own PC of email activity, then that would be additional evidence which would place her squarely in the cottage on the night of the murder.

Maybe the Italian state should spend the extra euros to get that hard disk repaired after all ....


There could have been no Internet activity at Raffaele Sollecito's apartment on the night of the murder because there was no activity on his landline from 12.02pm on 31 October to 14.16pm on 3 November.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Kermit wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
other "abuse of power" scenarios for the Hollywood movie could be Amandas hardrive being ruined and Judge Matteini showing no interest in it being repaired by Toshiba, so other than Raffaele, her pc hardrive was her only hard-proof she was doing a few emails at the apartment. It'd make a great scene in the Abuse of Power movie!


I would be very interested indeed if you could produce even very indirect information referring to Amanda writing emails on her PC (and hence, evidenced technically by her hard drive) on the night of the crime. Are you a friend of hers? Did you receive an email from Amanda on the afternoon (US time) of 1 November 2007? Are you aware of any of her other friends receiving any form of communication from her late on that day?

Ixnay, Ixnay JFK1191!!!!! On this board I think that Michael increased the time allowed to edit one's posts to 24 hours, so you may want to take that part (and others) out of your post ..... why? Gather around and listen:

1) Amanda's PC was in the cottage, as per the police video of her room which is posted above on this page

2) If there was evidence on Amanda's own PC of email activity, then that would be additional evidence which would place her squarely in the cottage on the night of the murder.

Maybe the Italian state should spend the extra euros to get that hard disk repaired after all ....


my bad, I got the Amanda "email activity" comment from the Nov. 6., In Their Own Words section here. She could have been using Raffaeles "perhaps". I was thinking she had her pc at Raffaeles too. Most likely not per the pics.


AMANDA snip NOv 6>
After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.
<end>


Yes fixing the hardrive, a filmed interrogation........we'll never get that info.


btw, no I am not a friend of anyone. the Mignini thing is just a scenario. Like Judge Matteini colorfully creating Particks motives, and Raffaele 3inch blade...only a "what if".

As of today my interest, if your curious, is on "rewinding" the case from the 10:13pm cell phone call made form the area of the bushes.
IMO, this was the murderer and the murder was over.
So rewinding the walk back to the cottage, rewinding through Rudys Bloody Towel clean up, Rewinding the timeline back to Meredith last call to her mom at 9:30pm. (currently searching for timeframes on this call??????)...

anyway, not closed minded at all. Amanda could have been at the cottage, with Rudy? or who knows who else.

But I still don't like the interrogation, its so frustrating its not filmed or at least let Judge MAssei hear the interrogation audio? will he or has he?

and I think the Drug planned sex orgy murder is too weak to mention at this point.
1) raffaele had offered a ride for that person Nov 1
2) Amanad was to be at work

ok, if they planned this Drug Satanic Sex orgy in 30 minutes or so? right....

From Merediths last phone call, to the 10:13pm call, subtract the walk from the cottage to the bushes, 9:35pm to 9:55pm? Rudy was washing blood of himself by 10:20-10:30pm to go dancing.

Rudy did the "towel scene", so subtract some 10minutes more...9:32, 9:33, 9:34, 9:35 to 9:45pm the crime occurred?

Thats my perspective. more like a burglary murder, not a planned Sex Drug Orgy with people getting warmed up and having mushroom parties (which I thought too at first).

I personally don't as have much interest in the Nov 2 cleanup and cartwheels, as some do.

yes, Amanda and Raffaele could have been there, by all means. Raffaele 9:46 pc activity is proof for some he wasn't.
yet Rudy and Judge Matteini have Raffaele as the one with the knife making the fatal blow.
Mignini has Amanda and the Double-DNA knife.

The bloody bedsheet knife pattern picture show yet another knife? (Rudys I tend to think).


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: A case of mistaken identity
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
malcolm wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
My apologies, Finn! I was expecting a response from you and didn't realize it was Malcolm and not you who thought I missed out the 13:00 call. Sorry Malcolm, also.


thoughtful, this is what you wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Alternative timeline following Amanda's testimony:
-Raffaele's 112 call ends at 12:54:39
-Marsi and Battistelli arrive almost instantly, she's literally amazed at the speed. Say 12:55.
-Thinking they are the ones who arrived because of the call, she immediately brings them into the kitchen and starts telling them, in somewhat broken Italian but helped by Raffaele, confused stuff about a broken window and a locked door. But they stop her, show her a phone and say that they are here looking for Filomena Romanelli. 12:57 or 12:58.
-She stops short in her explanations and tells them that Filomena is on her way. They ask her to write down the phone numbers of everyone who lives in the house. She writes them on a post-it. She doesn't say this, but it could very well be the moment where Meredith's phone is activated at HQ. 13:00.
-Friends of Filomena arrive; in her testimony, she mistakenly says that Luca Altieri and Paola Grande arrive. Say 13:02.
-After a minute or two, she says Filomena and Marco arrive. Close enough for her not even to remember which pair arrived first and which pair second. 13:03.
-Everyone immediately starts looking around the house, probably starting in Filomena's room. Battistelli notes her computer on the table, whereas Filomena later remembers picking it up off the floor (she's also off on her timings of the phone calls with Amanda, so let's say her memory is not perfectly accurate. I've tried to spot the computer in the picture below, but I can't see it. Still, purely logically, I'd guess the computer was still on the table, because one has no reason to carefully place a computer on the floor and one would certainly not toss it the way the clothing was tossed.) 13:03-13:15.
-Amanda doesn't say this, but we can imagine that, relieved at Filomena's arriving to take charge, she and Raffaele slip into Amanda's room for a quick cuddle, and then emerge. Say 13:04-13:05.
-Filomena authorizes Luca to break down the door. 13:15.


Where do you mention the call at 13:00? Do you mean this?
"She doesn't say this, but it could very well be the moment where Meredith's phone is activated at HQ. 13:00."
Just b/c MK's phone was activated at 13:00 doesn't automatically imply that is when the police contacted HQ. My point was that you never actually stated in your timeline that the police contacted HQ and I just wanted to confirm that you agreed that this was at 13:00. If not then perhaps you were disputing the time that the police contacted HQ, too. I had no way of knowing whether this is what you intended, so I asked.


Having just read the comments at Frank's, it looks to me as if the main family and friend posters (C Mellas, Goofy, etc.) have pretty much conceded the police phone call issue. They focus on the fact that AK and RS alerted Filomena as proof that they acted in good faith and that the rest doesn't matter. Specifically, it doesn't matter that they called well after the arrival of the police; it doesn't matter that they were seen emerging from Knox's room at shortly before 1 pm, etc.

I'll have to read Thoughtful's Benny Hill scenario more carefully, but prima facie it requires too much action in too short a space of time and leaves me wondering why official police times and CCTV footage, which are independent but empirical items, are at odds with this scenario. In other words, it seems to rely on discarding the only objective data we have. Or am I missing something?

_________________
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: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm
Posts: 208
Location: Southern USA
Regarding the Blood on the Bathroom Sink:

Thoughtful, Thank You for posting those 12 pictures of the actual crime scene. You have helped solve a controversy.

Like Disintererested, I was also initially fooled by the pictures of the bathroom scene. I thought the bathroom was covered with blood, but the actual crime scene showed far less blood, and makes Ak47's shaky shower scene story seem slightly more plausible. Now having seen pictures of the bathroom after the crime, I realize that the copious pink color is probably due to the usage of phenolphthalein as a blood detection reagent, as DLW also reported, and not over-ambitious PhotoShop tweaking by a gruesome digital photographer in an attempt to increase newspaper sales. Since luminol's introduction, the usage of phenolphthalein as a detection reagent has fallen sharply in the USA. My old lab group stopped using it in the early 90s as a detection reagent for biochemical assays. It is a thousand times less sensitive than luminol and here is the kicker: everything turns pink in about 15 minutes so you better have a camera ready if you want to see the specific reaction which appears almost immediately. If bleach has been used on a crime scene, and the police apply their luminol reagents, they will observe under fluorescent light a gorgeous blue blanket in the area. I have read reports that state you have to wait for the bleach to evaporate over a day or so to see specific blood reactions again. Perhaps the police started using luminol as a blood detection reagent at the MK crime scene, observed a fluorescent blue blanket effect denoting a clean up attempt, and switched to phenolphthalein as a detection reagent. If they observed the blue blanket effect, they should have presented that evidence during the trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
jfk1191 wrote:
yes, Amanda and Raffaele could have been there, by all means. Raffaele 9:46 pc activity is proof for some he wasn't.


Marco Trotta, a police computer expert, testified at the trial that the last human interaction on Raffaele Sollecito's computer on the night of the murder was at 9.10pm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
yes, Amanda and Raffaele could have been there, by all means. Raffaele 9:46 pc activity is proof for some he wasn't.


Marco Trotta, a police computer expert, testified at the trial that the last human interaction on Raffaele Sollecito's computer on the night of the murder was at 9.10pm

Hi Machine,
I remember that ak showed no visible reaction to mr. quintavalle's testimony (he saw
her at 7.45am waiting in front of his grocery store to open, then heading for the shelves with
the detergents). Has his testimony ever been contested or conradicted by her defence team?
If his testimony is correct and the jury believes him, her credibility (sleeping until noon
in rs's bedroom) will be completely destroyed
band-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: To all newcomers especially
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
thoughtful wrote:
The following set of 12 pictures shows the house on the day of the crime, including the bathroom as it was found, quite clean except for a drop here and there and a stain on the bathmat. Not at all like the pink-swathed luminol photo.


I disagree that the bathroom was "quite clean". Your comment that there was "a drop here and there" is wide off the mark; there were 13 traces of blood, including the bloody footprint in the bathroom.

Judge Paolo Micheli didn’t believe Amanda Knox’s account of what happened on 2 November and noted that she was “mucking about in the house and taking a shower with all that blood [from the murder] around”.

According to the forensic experts’ report, the tap of the wash basin was “notably stained”.

This report by Nick Squires sheds light on just how much blood there actually was in the bathroom:

Miss Romanelli told the court how Miss Knox had telephoned her on the morning after the murder – before Meredith’s body had been found – to say that she had just taken a shower and that she had noticed blood stains in the bathroom.

Miss Romanelli was away from the cottage at the time, having spent the night with her boyfriend.

“She told me ‘It’s very odd. I’ve just come back to the house and the door is open. I had a shower but there’s blood everywhere. I’m going to get Raff. Meredith is nowhere to be seen. Oh God, maybe something’s happened to her, something tragic.’”

It struck Miss Romanelli as strange that Miss Knox would choose to take a shower when the bathroom was spattered with blood.

Police forensic experts later found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom, including a 10-inch-long smear on the floor and numerous droplets.

I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place,” she told chief prosecutor Giuliano Mignini during cross-examination. “I really don’t think that’s normal.” (The Daily Telegraph, 8 February, 2009).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
martin wrote:
Hi Machine,
I remember that ak showed no visible reaction to mr. quintavalle's testimony (he saw
her at 7.45am waiting in front of his grocery store to open, then heading for the shelves with
the detergents). Has his testimony ever been contested or conradicted by her defence team?
If his testimony is correct and the jury believes him, her credibility (sleeping until noon
in rs's bedroom) will be completely destroyed
band-)


Hi Martin,

I don't think Amanda Knox contested Marc Quintaville's testimony. For me, Antonio Curatolo's and Nara Capezalli's testimony is the most significant of the civilian witnesses called by the prosecution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
The Machine wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Machine,


Hi Martin,

I don't think Amanda Knox contested Marc Quintaville's testimony. For me, Antonio Curatolo's and Nara Capezalli's testimony is the most significant of the civilian witnesses called by the prosecution.


But if she doesn't contest his testimony, she will be at least convicted for the clean-up
(tampering with evidence of a crime scene) and the staging of the burglary, am i right?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
martin wrote:
I remember that ak showed no visible reaction to mr. quintavalle's testimony (he saw
her at 7.45am waiting in front of his grocery store to open, then heading for the shelves with
the detergents). Has his testimony ever been contested or conradicted by her defence team?
If his testimony is correct and the jury believes him, her credibility (sleeping until noon
in rs's bedroom) will be completely destroyed
band-)


look for Marina Chiriboga's testimony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I challenge you to a duel
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
All right Finn -- and Malcolm-- I am officially ready to duel with you now. fen-)

ARGUMENT NUMBER 1 AGAIN MY TIMELINE: Battistelli logged his arrival at the house at around 12:35.

I concede this point (touché -- ouch!) and I do regard it as a major problem as I don't believe Battistelli is lying.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 2: Battistelli contacted HQ at 13:00 only after talking to Filomena.

After researching the 10 posts on this forum concerning Bartolozzi and the 73 posts concerning Battistelli, and all the articles they link to, after googling Battistelli's testimony, and doing a search on Battistelli in Micheli's report, I am going to assert that there is no evidence that the Battistelli/Bartolozzi contact took place at 13:00 or was related in any way to the 13:00 event concerning Meredith's phone. I contend that the only recorded happening at 13:00 was that Meredith's English phone was activated and pinged in the vicinity of the police station, and no evidence shows that the two events happened at the same time. I do note that I missed the existence of the contact between Bartolozzi and Battistelli, and I will include it in the corrected timeline.

In my timeline, I expressed the fact that the 13:00 event consisted merely in Battistelli phoning Meredith's English phone (but even this is not testified to; it could just be that someone at HQ turned the phone on.) Malcolm and Finn both responded to me on this:

Finn wrote:
Quote:
There's a huge problem with the 1300 call, because Battistelli, Filomena and Paola all testified about this occurring after Filomena and Paola arrived - and so did Commissioner Bartolozzi, who received Battistelli's call from the cottage. Battistelli's conversation with HQ follows on from his conversation not with Amanda, but with Filomena.


Malcolm wrote:
Quote:
Just b/c MK's phone was activated at 13:00 doesn't automatically imply that is when the police contacted HQ. My point was that you never actually stated in your timeline that the police contacted HQ and I just wanted to confirm that you agreed that this was at 13:00. If not then perhaps you were disputing the time that the police contacted HQ, too. I had no way of knowing whether this is what you intended, so I asked.


However, the only references I found on the Battistelli/HQ contacts are the following:

Virgilie Notizie February 6

Quote:
Director Bartolozzi confirmed to the the magistrates of having given the authorisation to break down the door to Meredith’s room, after various room-mates had expressed concern over the disappearance of the mobile phones and over the fact that Meredith’s room was locked with a key.



The Times (Richard Owen)

Quote:
Mr Bartolozzi said that he had despatched a team of officers to the cottage, where they had found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito already there. The officers had phoned him to report that Ms Kercher's bedroom door was locked and he authorised the officers to break it down.


Apr 9 7:56 pm Finn wrote:

Quote:
1300: Filippo Bartolozzi speaks with the policemen at the cottage. This conversation is to check on progress and to tell them that this second phone has now been handed in. Filomena is now definitely at the cottage, since she confirms that she had lent Meredith the Italian phone, and that the other phone has a UK sim card. However, the only confirmation of this timing is the cell phone connection time, combined with the testimonies of Bartolozzi, Battistelli and Filomena.


In a slightly revised timeline posted at 9:55 pm the same evening, Finn has this as:
Quote:
1303 - Battistelli contacts HQ and reports what's happened in the last eight minutes. Police Commissioner incorrectly logs this time as 1300.


Now, I have not researched the testimonies of Paola, Luca, Marco and Filomena yet, but if that contact between Battistelli and Bartolozzi happened, I would have expected to find it in their testimonies. Since I found absolutely no trace of any such, I contend that there is no actual evidence that we have linking the 13:00 ping event with the Battistelli/Bartolozzi contact.

Here are my arguments:

Micheli has given a complete timeline of phone-related events on the morning of November 2nd. I quote:

Quote:
13:00 - vi è attivazione della cella corrispondente al Comando di Poliziaa Postale (Strada Borghetto di Prepo) da parte dell'utenza inglese della K.


That's it for 13:00. Nothing else, and no mention of any Battistelli/HQ contact.

Bolint responded to Finn's timeline assertion by claiming he might have been misunderstanding the Micheli excerpt above, and translating it and commenting as follows:

Apr 10 11:38 am bolint wrote:
Quote:
I think that you misinterpret the 13:00 call mentioned in the Micheli report.It reads: "13:00 - vi è attivazione della cella corrispondente al Comando di Polizia Postale (Strada Borghetto di Prepo) da parte dell'utenza inglese della KERCHER"

It means that at 13:00 Meredith's English phone contacted the cell tower usually servicing the Postal Police Headquarters at the opposite side of the town. So there is no known call from the headquarters to Meredith's phone. (Not sure at all, anyway, that the contact was a call, I think that the postals simply turned it on).


Finn replied to bolint on the same day:

Apr 10 3:48 pm Finn wrote:
Quote:
I haven't been able to track down why everyone's so sure about the 1300 time, except that there seems to be no arguing about it. (I mean, no arguing by the lawyers, or anyone actually connected with the case - people in cyberspace will argue about anything.) Since it's that cellphone ping is confirmed at 1300, I'd imagine that the switching on of that phone probably coincides with the conversation with the policemen at the cottage, in which they confirm that they've spoken to Filomena and she's explained that it's a UK phone. Maybe someone at HQ turns it on during that conversation? I don't know, it must be something along those lines, but I can't find anywhere that it's made explicit.



And today, answering Lancelotti, Finn wrote:

Quote:
Hi Lancelotti - that's not so much a call as an activating of Meredith's phone from police HQ - I don't have the police's cellphone records. My information for that one is from Micheli's verdict on Rudy Guede. The way I understand that is that Battistelli radioed his HQ from the cottage after he'd spoken to Filomena Romanelli, who'd just arrived there and had explained that "Meredith's Italian phone" was really her own phone. That's the phone that gets activated from HQ (at a time given by Micheli as "1300") during that walkie-talkie conversation.


I rest my case. I'll assume that my timeline is not in contradiction with the Battistelli/HQ phone contact, which happened a bit later. And I will include it in my timeline.

My next post will address:

ARGUMENT NUMBER 3 AGAINST MY TIMELINE: How much time really passed between the arrival of Luca and Marco, and the arrival of Filomena and Paola? Micheli's report says "some minutes". I give it 2-3 minutes. Finn points me to the testimonies. I will read them with attention and give an honest assessment of what I find.

EDITED to correct serious error in previous version.


Last edited by thoughtful on Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Machine, Machine, Machine!
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Quote:
I disagree that the bathroom was "quite clean".


You take me out of context! I was comparing the picture of the bathroom as found by police with the picture that was disturbing our newcomers of the bathroom dripping in pinkish-red luminol traces! The words "quite clean" were comparative. There's no need to detail the number of bloody traces in the bathroom to me. I know them perfectly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
Hi Lancelotti - that's not so much a call as an activating of Meredith's phone from police HQ - I don't have the police's cellphone records. My information for that one is from Micheli's verdict on Rudy Guede. The way I understand that is that Battistelli radioed his HQ from the cottage after he'd spoken to Filomena Romanelli, who'd just arrived there and had explained that "Meredith's Italian phone" was really her own phone. That's the phone that gets activated from HQ (at a time given by Micheli as "1300") during that walkie-talkie conversation.


Thank you, Finn!
I have the same question as Thoughtful then.
She asked: "What did Battistelli actually do? What is meant by "activating her phone"? What do you mean the phone had to be turned on? I presume all the phones were turned on, why shouldn't they be?"

Do you know that?


What's written in Micheli's report is this:

"13:00 - vi è l’attivazione della cella corrispondente al Comando di Polizia Postale (Strada Borghetto di Prepo) da parte dell’utenza inglese della KERCHER "

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Forgot confirmation
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
I omitted to quote the Battistelli testimony excerpts obtained from newspapers on the day of the testimony:

The Times:
Quote:
Bartolozzi said that he had despatched a team of officers to the cottage, where they had found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito already there. The officers had phoned him to report that Ms Kercher's bedroom door was locked and he authorised the officers to break it down. Inside they found Ms Kercher's body.

Michele Battistelli, one of the officers, said that he reached the cottage "after midday, at around half past twelve". He found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito at the house, and they appeared "surprised and embarrassed" at the arrival of the police. They are accused of breaking a window to fake a break in. Mr Sollecito claims that he had already telephoned the Carabinieri, but the prosecution says that he only did so after the postal police turned up.

Mr Battistelli said that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito told him they feared there had been a break in and that they had phoned the police. However, nothing appeared to have been taken and a digital camera and computer were untouched. There was a large rock beneath the broken window.

He said that Ms Romanelli had arrived at the cottage with Paola Grande, a friend, and their respective boyfriends. They had tried the door to Ms Kercher's bedroom but found it locked. Because of the alarm over the smashed window and blood in the bathroom, Ms Romanelli's boyfriend, Luca Altieri, had broken down the door.


Daily Mail

Quote:
Inspector Michele Battistelli told the court that he was one of the first police officers at the house after being sent their by colleagues following the discovery of Meredith's mobile phone in a nearby garden.'They seemed embarrassed and surprised. They were whispering to each other and told me they were waiting for the carabinieri (paramilitary police). They didn't say when they called them, just that they were waiting for them.'They told me that they had come back to the house and found the front door open and the window of one of the flatmates, Filomena Romanelli, smashed.'He went inside with the pair and they showed him the broken window, and the ransacked room with clothes on the floor.But, he added, he was immediately struck by the fact that the glass lay on top of the clothes - as though the window had been broken after the clothes were scattered on the floor.'I immediately thought that this had been an attempt to make it look like a break-in,' he said.

'I told the two accused this but they didn't answer me. I also noticed that there was a lap top on the bedroom table and a camera in the kitchen - all items that would have been taken in a break in.'The officer decided it was time to break Meredith's locked door down.'At this time Knox and Sollecito were not here. They were away from the scene. Romanelli's boyfriend (Luca Altieri) gave the door three kicks and it opened - I was behind him and heard a scream.


Corriere dell'Umbria (Google translation):

Quote:
Differences remain. Although the lack of transcripts of the first oral hearing was not allowed to go deeper, like the parties, all would have liked. The Chief Inspector Michael Battistelli has continued to support, "the greatest", that they entered the bedroom of Meredith Kercher, the day of the discovery of the corpse; Luca Altieri - a group of friends to Filomena Romanelli, the flatmate of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher (will suffer if you define "friend of Amanda") - has remained firm in his statements and that that day has seen with his eyes, the inspector Polpost enter the room of Meredith and lower for lifting, at the head of the victim, the corner of the duvet, Paola Grande explained that fails to place time of exit from farmhouse, after the killing of the door, dell'Altieri and Battistelli, if not generically that the two were to be behind her. It 'lasted just under an hour to compare thethree witnesses to the first day of hearing, whose statements were different and appeared in sharp contrast with one another. The three yesterday morning, they arrived early and have remained together in the waiting room until, by this fact (the simultaneous presence in a room), entirely subject to irrituale expected by comparison, had not noticed, by chance, the public prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. The magistrate had ordered to move immediately, in other spaces of Palazzaccio. A whole morning to brood over, to reflect, to think in those minutes between 12 and 16, 2 November 2007. The first comparison was, face to face, and Battistelli Altieri, seated facing each other, sull'emiciclo. Altieri: "I have seen the entry into Battistelli room.. As was sinking and was preparing to lift the duvet, I crashed out ... No, No, I have seen and raised the duvet, I saw only when it leans to do so. No, I'm not entered. I broke down the door to kick it, yes. . When the door is wide open, I was slightly unbalanced, but I withdrew immediately behind the foot. Battistelli: "I'm not entered in the most absolute. I confirm what I said yesterday: I have not crossed the threshold of the room. I was always outside. I observed from the threshold, for about thirty seconds, the scene I was in front and then I left myself. Altieri: "Why then did not speak an ambulance, but doctors?. As he is, if not entered, that the girl was dead? "(Observation, this is supported by the defenses of the accused). Battistelli: "I have no reason to say something different from what I did.I repeat: I have not entered. I looked at the duvet was moving, I noticed the color of cyanotic foot checked out from under the duvet, I saw the stripes of blood on the floor and the wall and I left. I have enough to do my deductions. Altieri: "Not even I have no reason to say one thing for another. I saw that Battistelli entered. Another theme of the comparison of the phones. Altieri had claimed to have seen the phones found in the garden of Villa Sperandio on the table of the kitchen-living room of the farmhouse. Battistelli (the testimony of the Chief Commissioner Philip Bartolozzi and other documents showed that the equipment had remained in command of Polpost) said no, that was not possible. Altieri, yesterday, made a condition precedent to conclude that, in court on Friday, it was wrong. Indeed Battistelli were carrying a piece of paper with phone numbers. Probably a post-it. Remains uncertain, as importantly, if there were one or number two (because the phones were recovered in two: one Motorola and Ericsson)."I was confused on mobile phones - Altieri stated - but the fact that he had seen enter the room of Battistelli Meredith I am not mistaken: I have seen." Soon after we moved to the comparison Battistelli-Large. Grande: "I have not seen the entry.I have heard that said it was entered, who had noticed that the girl was dead, which had lost much blood, he had noticed on the walls Manatee.I have seen only the foot. La stanza era nella penombra. The room was in gloom. I chased a scream and I ran the race to the exit. " Battistelli: "I think that I have said those things talking on the phone with the 113 and with my education. An analysis of what I had seen, while remaining out of the room, I had concluded that there was a struggle, there ... "Finally the comparison between the two boyfriends, the Great el'Altieri. The first said that he could not determine how much time had passed since its exit from the house until he had seen the Altieri.The face of her boyfriend, however, is what I remembered. "Tempus relaxing animae," stated St. Augustine. The girl explained that in those minutes had an empty head and that was only in pictures.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 16
Are these shoes in the 4th photo down the same type as the Asics shoes? I am not saying that these are them of course:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/amanda.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Machine, Machine, Machine!
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2249
thoughtful wrote:
There's no need to detail the number of bloody traces in the bathroom to me. I know them perfectly.


You said there was a "drop here and there" which is misleading because there were twelve other blood traces.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I challenge you to a duel
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Posts: 378
thoughtful wrote:
ARGUMENT NUMBER 1 AGAIN MY TIMELINE: Battistelli logged his arrival at the house at around 12:35.

I concede this point (touché -- ouch!) and I do regard it as a major problem as I don't believe Battistelli is lying.


Well, Luca surely thought Battistelli was lying when he said he didn't go into the room, when he had actually seen Battistelli going in and lifting the duvet. Battistelli might be charged with perjury for that. Just saying.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
I remember that ak showed no visible reaction to mr. quintavalle's testimony (he saw
her at 7.45am waiting in front of his grocery store to open, then heading for the shelves with
the detergents). Has his testimony ever been contested or conradicted by her defence team?
If his testimony is correct and the jury believes him, her credibility (sleeping until noon
in rs's bedroom) will be completely destroyed
band-)


look for Marina Chiriboga's testimony


Only, I don't really see her testimony as being very valuable in contesting Quintaville's, it hardly overules his testomony.

_________________
"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: Duelling with Thoughtful
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Thoughtful, I'm not going to take you up on that duel.

The main reason is that it took me days - literally - going through the testimonies to knock that timeline into shape. I've documented most of what I turned up as well as I can, and I'm quite happy to own up where I've had to make a guess. I'm afraid there will be parts where you might have to chase up some details for yourself, but for the most part you'll find the waters are quite well charted.

Also, you know, I'm not in court, and I've got no point to prove. My reason for working out the timeline was just that I wanted to work out what had happened, for my own benefit. It doesn't matter whether I think anyone is innocent or guilty, and I wouldn't have any interest in persuading anyone else about that either.

So far as your 1300 time goes - from memory, I think it was Bartolozzi who talked about the conversation he had with Battistelli. Can't remember why I narrowed that down to a radio conversation, except I'm pretty sure it was something I realized after following those testimonies. (Before then, I'd been wrongly assuming they used cell phones.) And also from memory, I'm pretty sure it was Paola Grande who testified to arriving just before 1300. It was either her or Filomena, but I think it was Paola.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I challenge you to a duel
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Quote:
ARGUMENT NUMBER 1 AGAIN MY TIMELINE: Battistelli logged his arrival at the house at around 12:35.

I concede this point (touché -- ouch!) and I do regard it as a major problem as I don't believe Battistelli is lying.


Since you are interested in shoring up the defensive arguments, Thoughtful -- and this comment is addressed to everyone -- there is another point that has been bothering me. Filomena, Raffaele and Amanda all seem to agree on one thing, which is that Amanda called Filomena first on the morning of Nov 2. But in fact, according to phone records, her first call was to Meredith at 12:07, just a minute before she called Filomena. I am wondering, in light of Filomena's testimony and AK's email account (excerpt below), what to make of the dual omission. By dual omission, I mean: Why did AK not tell Filomena she had just tried Meredith's number? And why did AK forget this attempted phone call four days later?

the next morning i woke up around 1030 and after grabbing my few things i left raffael's appartment and walked the five minute walk back to my house to once
again take a shower and grab a chane of clothes. i also needed to grab a mop because after dinner raffael had spilled a lot of water on the floor of his kitchen by accident and didnt have a mop to clean it up.
so i arrived home and the first abnormal thing i noticed was the door was wide open. here's the thingabout the door to our house: its broken, in such a way that you have to use the keys to keep it closed.
if we dont have the door locked, it is really easy for the wond to blow the door open, and so, my roommates and i always have the door locked unless we are running really quickley to bring the garbage out or to get something from the neighbors who live below us. (another
important piece of imformation: for those who dont know, i inhabit a house of two stories, of which my three roommates and i share the second story appartment. there are four italian guys of our age between 22 and 26 who live below us. we are all wuite good friends and we talk often. giacomo is especially welcome because he plays guitar with me and laura, one of my roommates, and is, or was dating meredith. the other three are marco, stefano, and ricardo.) anyway, so the door was wide open. strange, yes, but not so strange that i really
thought anything about it. i assumed someone in the house was doing
exactly what i just said, taking out the trash or talking really
uickley to the neighbors downstairs. so i closed the door behind me
but i didnt lock it, assuming that the person who left the door open
would like to come back in. when i entered i called out if anyone was
there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there,
they were still asleep. lauras door was open which meant she wasnt
home, and filomenas door was also closed. my door was open like always
and meredith door was closed, which to me weant she was sleeping. i
undressed in my room and took a quick shower in one of the two
bathrooms in my house, the one that is right next to meredith and my
bedrooms (situated right next to one another). it was after i stepped
out of the shower and onto the mat that i noticed the blood in the
bathroom. it was on the mat i was using to dry my feet and there were
drops of blood in the sink. at first i thought the blood might have
come from my ears which i had pierced extrensively not too long ago,
but then immediately i know it wasnt mine becaus the stains on the mat
were too big for just droplets form my ear, and when i touched the
blood in the sink it was caked on already. there was also blood
smeered on the faucet. again, however, i thought it was strange,
because my roommates and i are very clean and we wouldnt leave blood
int he bathroom, but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having
menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry
about. i left the bathroom and got dressed in my room. after i got
dressed i went to the other bathroom in my house, the one that
filomena dn laura use, and used their hairdryer to obviously dry my
hair and it was after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the
shit that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in
out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i
grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking
the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower,
and i returned to raffael's place. after we had used the mop to clean
up the kitchen i told raffael about what i had seen in the house over
breakfast. the strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the
shit left in the toilet. he suggested i call one of my roommates, so i
called filomena. filomena had been at a party the night before with
her boyfriend marco (not the same marco who lives downstairs but we'll
call him marco-f as in filomena and the other can be marco-n as in
neighbor). she also told me that laura wasnt at home and hadnt been
because she was on business in rome. which meant the only one who had
spent the night at our house last night was meredith, and she was as
of yet unaccounted for. filomena seemed really worried, so i told her
id call meredith and then call her back. i called both of merediths
phones the english one first and last and the italian one between. the
first time i called the english phone is rang and then sounded as of
there was disturbance, but no one answered. i then calle the italian
phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. i called her english phone
again and this time an english voice told me her phone was out of
service. raffael and i gathered our things and went back to my house.

I started highlighting the relevant passages but am having problems doing so. So please just read the whole thing. Basically, AK says she told RS, he suggested she call her roommates, she called Filomena, Filomena was wirried, AK told Filomena she would try Meredith and get back to her.

Why the omission (about having tried Meredith once)?
Also, does anyone have any ideas about how long these things might have taken. AK leaves RS's at 10:30 and it takes five minutes to walk to the cottage. A quick shower and blowdry, then five minutes back to RS's. A mop clean-up and breakfast, then she tells RS about the blood and open door. Total time elapsed between departure for shower and arrival of postal police: about two hours. Does this seem reasonable? What about the fact that it took 90 minutes for AK to contact Filomena from the time she got home? I'm just wondering aloud.

_________________
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: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm
Posts: 208
Location: Southern USA
Regarding the Detection of MK's DNA on the Knife

A considerable amount of discussion recently has centered on how the DNA polymerase chain reaction instrument (PCR; also called thermal cycler) was used to detect Mk's DNA on the knife found in RS apartment. Like many debates, both sides on this issue make valid points.

I think it is helpful to point out that some of the ideas that have been presented concerning a PCR instrument are fanciful. In brief, it is a simple instrument that raises the temperature up and down on a tiny tube containing a solution of DNA reactants in a highly controlled manner. Each time the temperature goes up and then down, more specific DNA is made (amplification). It has buttons you can push on its keypad that allow you to develop programs/protocols to raise and lower the temperature in either a precise stepwise or gradient manner, set the number of cycles, etc. It doesn't have dangerous over-ride functions, a red zone, or will blow-up in your face. It is a simple and flexible lab instrument. Scientists develop experimental PCR protocols to optimally amplify DNA and identify it. After a PCR protocol has been published, tested many time, and approved, it is used routinely by police technicians to amplify DNA and reliably identify it in criminal cases.

In this case, the Italian police scientists developed and used an unpublished, unapproved protocol to detect an incredibly minute amount of MK's DNA on the blade of the knife. You can't create DNA in a PCR instrument; you can only amplify what is already there. I thoroughly applaud the ingenuity of the scientists who developed and used this protocol to identify an exceedingly trace amount of DNA. I have seen some of the data and it strongly indicates that MK had some sort of contact with the blade of the knife. An alternative interpretation could be that someone else carrying MK's DNA touched the knife but left no DNA of themselves, though their DNA should have been found on the knife's edge in far greater amounts. I have concluded that the knife had contact with MK. But two thorny issues remain: (1) they used a novel unapproved protocol to detect MK's DNA, and; (2) there was not enough of the sample left for the Prosecution Scientists, or even better the Defense Scientists, to confirm the results. These two issues, a lack of published reliability and no reproducibility, are not good for the Prosecution's case concerning this piece of DNA evidence. Science, like a lover, derives much of its value and charm from fidelity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 6
budapesti wrote:
Are these shoes in the 4th photo down the same type as the Asics shoes? I am not saying that these are them of course:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/amanda.html


Hi Budapesti - they are Vans.

Or at least I think so - attack of self doubt


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skep wrote:
Also, does anyone have any ideas about how long these things might have taken. AK leaves RS's at 10:30 and it takes five minutes to walk to the cottage.


Well, she claims she 'woke up' at about 10:30, not left RS's at 10:30. She would have had to do some things like get dressed (I'm presuming she didn't go out naked), get the things she was taking, maybe visit the bathroom...so, it Amanda's timeline, it would have been some time 'after' 10:30 that she left the cottage.

_________________
"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: Aw, Finn
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Believe me, I know how long it takes! But you know, puzzling over what you could have read, I suddenly had a finger-snapping aha moment! I got it! I got it! I know what you saw!

Virgilie Notizie February 6
Quote:
Director Bartolozzi confirmed to the the magistrates of having given the authorisation to break down the door to Meredith’s room, after various room-mates had expressed concern over the disappearance of the mobile phones and over the fact that Meredith’s room was locked with a key.


The Times (Richard Owen)
Quote:
Mr Bartolozzi said that he had despatched a team of officers to the cottage, where they had found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito already there. The officers had phoned him to report that Ms Kercher's bedroom door was locked and he authorised the officers to break it down.


SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!! is-) sor-)

(Actually I find this a bit strange. I thought it was Filomena who gave the authorization.) But ANYWAY it looks like this contact really did happen, but also that it may have been completely independent of the 13:00 English phone pinging.

I've never edited a post but I'd like to edit my other one. Hm...don't see any "edit" button...urgh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
:!: Administrator Note:

I've been working on coding the forum and have added a feature some may like to use, for those posting Italian/foreign texts.

You can now also embed a Google Reverso Translate widget within those posts you post foreign text. The BB code is simple:

Code:
[reverso]english[/reverso]


or simply use the 'reverso' button in the Post Box (just ensure you type 'english' between the tags). You then get this:



Members need only then to click on the drop down box to select the language to be translated from and to, paste in the text and they can then translate the text right there within your post.

Reverso Home

Enjoy :)

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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Machine, Machine, Machine!
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Machine wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
There's no need to detail the number of bloody traces in the bathroom to me. I know them perfectly.


You said there was a "drop here and there" which is misleading because there were twelve other blood traces.


At least one, a smear, was measured at 10 cm, I believe.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Correction to previous
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Finn, Malcolm, I did go back and edit my post on the revised timeline. (Found that edit button.) I still assert there's nothing in the testimony to actually link the contact between Batistelli and HQ with the 13:00 ping, so I'm still moving with my Amanda-version timeline. Skep, I'll see what I remember about your question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Correction to previous
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
thoughtful wrote:
Finn, Malcolm, I did go back and edit my post on the revised timeline. (Found that edit button.) I still assert there's nothing in the testimony to actually link the contact between Batistelli and HQ with the 13:00 ping, so I'm still moving with my Amanda-version timeline. Skep, I'll see what I remember about your question.


No hurry, thoughtful. I'll be away most of the day. The questions are addressed to anyone who has any thoughts about them. They are open questions, and I have no purpose in mind in posing them. Incidentally, the first call to Meredith -- the one that was made prior to the call to Filomena -- was the longest one AK made to Meredith. It lasted 16 seconds, versus 4 and 3 seconds for the other two.

It is also interesting to note that: 1) AK did not call Filomena back after failing to reach Meredith, though she said she would; 2) RS does not mention the attempt to call Meredith in his recollection either, though presumably they were together, since AK and RS agree that the call to Filomena was made from his place at his suggestion. As a reminder, the first, unacknowledged call to Meredith was one minute before the call to Filomena and after AK and RS had had breakfast and mopped up. Therefore, it is unlikely that AK made this call while alone or without RS knowing about it.

I am most intrigued about why AK didn't tell Filomena she had already tried to reach Meredith -- and note that this is a point they both agree on.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Correction to previous
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
thoughtful wrote:
Finn, Malcolm, I did go back and edit my post on the revised timeline. (Found that edit button.) I still assert there's nothing in the testimony to actually link the contact between Batistelli and HQ with the 13:00 ping, so I'm still moving with my Amanda-version timeline. Skep, I'll see what I remember about your question.


Thoughtful, here is one more thing for your consideration. In her email, AK writes:


Quote:
he first called his sister for advice and then called
the carbanieri. i then called filomna who said she would be on her way
home immediately.


We know that RS called his sister at 12:50 and 112 at 12:51 and 12:54:39. The second call ended at 12:55:36 (it lasted 57 seconds). We also know that AK did not call Filomena (per phone records, AK called her mother at 12:47 and again at 13:24, but made no calls in between. You may want to fit this information into your scenario.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
I remember that ak showed no visible reaction to mr. quintavalle's testimony (he saw
her at 7.45am waiting in front of his grocery store to open, then heading for the shelves with
the detergents). Has his testimony ever been contested or conradicted by her defence team?
If his testimony is correct and the jury believes him, her credibility (sleeping until noon
in rs's bedroom) will be completely destroyed
band-)


look for Marina Chiriboga's testimony


Only, I don't really see her testimony as being very valuable in contesting Quintaville's, it hardly overules his testomony.


Hi Michael,
Who is Marina Chiriboga? I think i missed that woman. To me, Quintavalle's testimony is
very crucial. I don't see any logical reason why he should have lied to the jury. He had nothing to gain or to loose from his testimony.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Amanda timeline
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Skep, the answer to your question from Amanda's point of view is that the correct sequence of events is given in the testimony, whereas the e-mail suffered from errors due to stress, long hours at police station etc. Ignoring Filomena's testimony which I have not yet had time to read over completely, here is the Court-official version of her activities that morning:

She left Raffaele's place around 10:30, strolled home carrying a plastic bag (I've always wondered what for), got home, called out to see if anyone was there, then undressed, went into the bathroom, took out her earrings and disinfected her ears. At this point she says that it must be around 11:00. She then showers, shuffles, dries, dresses and blow-dries her hair, collects the mop and walks home, bringing her maybe to 11:30 or 11:40, though she says she didn't look at the time. She then mops up the puddle in Raffaele's kitchen, makes coffee and they had breakfast while talking over the strange events. During all this time, Amanda never thought of calling her roommates. "I didn't know what to think." But Raffaele tells her to do it (duh) and so she does. Her account now matches telephone records.

Quote:
So I took the mop and quickly cleaned up what was on the floor. Then while we were preparing a little coffee, I told him about the things I had seen. And while we were eating biscuits, I think, he said to me "You should call your roommates." So first I called Meredith, then Filomena, and Filomena explained to me that Laura was in Rome, and that I should go, or rather I should have gone to
see how things were. So I said "Fine, I'll finish breakfast," which took a couple of minutes, and I left with Raffaele.


The more I look into these details, the more I understand the job facing Ghirga and dalla Vedova as they try to match up true facts with her testimony while simultaneously trying to minimize flagrant story changes. It's no mean task!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
martin wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
martin wrote:
I remember that ak showed no visible reaction to mr. quintavalle's testimony (he saw
her at 7.45am waiting in front of his grocery store to open, then heading for the shelves with
the detergents). Has his testimony ever been contested or conradicted by her defence team?
If his testimony is correct and the jury believes him, her credibility (sleeping until noon
in rs's bedroom) will be completely destroyed
band-)


look for Marina Chiriboga's testimony


Only, I don't really see her testimony as being very valuable in contesting Quintaville's, it hardly overules his testomony.


Hi Michael,
Who is Marina Chiriboga? I think i missed that woman. To me, Quintavalle's testimony is
very crucial. I don't see any logical reason why he should have lied to the jury. He had nothing to gain or to loose from his testimony.


A woman who used to work as Sollecito's maid but finished working for him before he met Amanda. She worked in the Conad store and was working the morning the owner claims to have seen Amanda. Her testimony was that she was present most of the time that morning but she doesn't recall seeing Amanda.

_________________
"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: Where did Raffaele advise Amanda to make the calls?
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
Raffaele Sollecito wrote:
After that I cleaned up the floor and perhaps I made breakfast around 11:30-12:00 I changed clothes and we went out. She meanwhile had spoken to me about the fact that she had found something strange at her house. That is that she had found the front door opened, feces in the bathroom of the Italian girls and blood in their bathroom. While we came down from Corso Garibaldi she expressively demanded that I go to see in her house what had happened. The investigators have asked me if she had said to report something but (unfortunately I now say) it's not like that: all of which I have said I have made of my spontaneous will.

As soon as we arrived in the house I put aside the mop in the entrance and I directed myself towards the other rooms in order to see what the devil had happened. Those moments I remember well because I was shaken and alarmed. I seem to have seen that Amanda had taken the mop bucket and it carried it in to another room (from the text not shown, but
evidently the mop had been brought back to house of Meredith and Amanda). The first thing I noticed was that the room of Filomena (called Molli) had the door wide open. Ah, I forgot, Amanda had opened the house with the keys (that I have repeatedly asked myself inasmuch as she had said to me that she had found the entrance door wide open
when she entered before). We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in completely disorder: broken glass on the floor and the room upside down, it was an absurd mess. The window was broken on the left side and was open. Going forward, I noticed that Meredith's room was closed and locked and that in the bathroom there were stains of blood on the
sink and the floormat and the rest of the bathroom was clean. The stains on the mat were diluted by water. Turning around I thought to access Meredith's room by window and tried to find where, after I discovered that the only access to the window was unthinkable heights, and therefore I had to rethink. Meanwhile Amanda was trying to enter the window bypassing the railing and I stopped, since her climbing wanting to try to do something that according to me is absurd. She then tried to knock on the door repeatedly shouting Meredith's name (the door of the room, of course) because she thought that Meredith was sleeping.

Meanwhile loitering at the house and counseling Amanda to call friends Filomena, Laura, Meredith.

And so, after that she did, she told me that Laura was in Viterbo, Filomena was with her boyfriend and would come later and finally Meredith did not respond. 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.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: urk
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
It's only a matter of time before the contradictions between the two of them explode. They're making a brave show of hanging in there together, but it's just a show. I don't know what will happen when the prosecutors start spelling out these contradictions, but I guess the sparks will fly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:56 am
Posts: 63
rexfelis wrote:
I'm new here, so hello to everyone.

I have been following the case for quite some time and originally fell into the boat that Knox couldn't possibly be guilty because she looks so innocent nor did there seem to be a motive since the reports were that Kercher and Knox were friends. Eventually after studying the evidence it became apparent that Knox along with Sollecito are liars.

You may or may not have seen the following two photos before, but I will warn you they are graphic and extremely disturbing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orror.html

Are these photographs real? If so, this truly cements it for me because if you look at the amount of blood in the bathroom on the sink and ground there is no way any female would ever attribute this due to a girl with a "period problem".

Also I had read somewhere that Knox lost her job at the bar the day prior to the murder and Kercher was to replace her. Is this true?


Anyone can freely correct me if I am wrong, but to answer your questions. The photos are real, but are not correct as described in the article. The picture on the right is of Meredith's bedroom and the blood located in it. The picture on the left is of the bathroom, but the red you see all over the room is not blood. I would say it is most likely the powder used to collect fingerprints. It is not however blood. There was blood present in the bathroom but it was not covered as you may think by seeing the red powder.

I do not believe Amanad ever lost her job she was just moved from one job within the bar to another. As far as I know Kercher was never to replace her.

In my personal opinion nobody should be deeming AK, RS, or RG as not guilty because they look so innocent. They also shouldn't be deeming them guilty because they do not look very innocent. The naked eye or first impressions of how someone looks has nothing to do with them actually being guilty or innocent.

I hope this cleared up your questions


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15804
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Per Ardua Ad Altiora wrote:
rexfelis wrote:
I'm new here, so hello to everyone.

I have been following the case for quite some time and originally fell into the boat that Knox couldn't possibly be guilty because she looks so innocent nor did there seem to be a motive since the reports were that Kercher and Knox were friends. Eventually after studying the evidence it became apparent that Knox along with Sollecito are liars.

You may or may not have seen the following two photos before, but I will warn you they are graphic and extremely disturbing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orror.html

Are these photographs real? If so, this truly cements it for me because if you look at the amount of blood in the bathroom on the sink and ground there is no way any female would ever attribute this due to a girl with a "period problem".

Also I had read somewhere that Knox lost her job at the bar the day prior to the murder and Kercher was to replace her. Is this true?


Anyone can freely correct me if I am wrong, but to answer your questions. The photos are real, but are not correct as described in the article. The picture on the right is of Meredith's bedroom and the blood located in it. The picture on the left is of the bathroom, but the red you see all over the room is not blood. I would say it is most likely the powder used to collect fingerprints. It is not however blood. There was blood present in the bathroom but it was not covered as you may think by seeing the red powder.

I do not believe Amanad ever lost her job she was just moved from one job within the bar to another. As far as I know Kercher was never to replace her.

In my personal opinion nobody should be deeming AK, RS, or RG as not guilty because they look so innocent. They also shouldn't be deeming them guilty because they do not look very innocent. The naked eye or first impressions of how someone looks has nothing to do with them actually being guilty or innocent.

I hope this cleared up your questions


No, that isn't correct. That isn't any 'powder' used to dust for fingerprints you see in the bathroom. The forensics didn't use any powder to collect fingerprints from the bathroom, they used another method entirely. In the little bathroom and Meredith's bedroom they used super glue to detect fingerprints. Here's a Super Glue Fuming Kit

Using Super Glue to Detect FingerprintsWhat is cyanoacrylate? Perhaps you know this item by its trade name, Super Glue. It is this same Super Glue that you can purchase at any Home Depot or Walmart. Cyanoacrylate is the active ingredient that makes up 98% of Super Glue. This item has become a very practical and innovative forensic tool. When cyanoacrylate is heated or mixed with sodium hydroxide (NaOH), it releases fumes that interact with the amino acids that are found in the fingerprint residues found on an object, thus making a white print.

After exposure to cyanoacrylate, the fingerprints can then be captured on film as is or treated with a fluorescent pigment that sticks to the fingerprint. The fingerprint then fluoresces, or glows, under a laser or ultraviolet light source.


Forensic Chemistry - Using Laboratory Chemicals to Reveal Fingerprints


What you see in the bathroom is blood highlighted by Phenolphthalein

See also Kastle-Meyer test

_________________
"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: Amanda timeline
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
thoughtful wrote:
Skep, the answer to your question from Amanda's point of view is that the correct sequence of events is given in the testimony, whereas the e-mail suffered from errors due to stress, long hours at police station etc. Ignoring Filomena's testimony which I have not yet had time to read over completely, here is the Court-official version of her activities that morning:

She left Raffaele's place around 10:30, strolled home carrying a plastic bag (I've always wondered what for), got home, called out to see if anyone was there, then undressed, went into the bathroom, took out her earrings and disinfected her ears. At this point she says that it must be around 11:00. She then showers, shuffles, dries, dresses and blow-dries her hair, collects the mop and walks home, bringing her maybe to 11:30 or 11:40, though she says she didn't look at the time. She then mops up the puddle in Raffaele's kitchen, makes coffee and they had breakfast while talking over the strange events. During all this time, Amanda never thought of calling her roommates. "I didn't know what to think." But Raffaele tells her to do it (duh) and so she does. Her account now matches telephone records.

Quote:
So I took the mop and quickly cleaned up what was on the floor. Then while we were preparing a little coffee, I told him about the things I had seen. And while we were eating biscuits, I think, he said to me "You should call your roommates." So first I called Meredith, then Filomena, and Filomena explained to me that Laura was in Rome, and that I should go, or rather I should have gone to
see how things were. So I said "Fine, I'll finish breakfast," which took a couple of minutes, and I left with Raffaele.


The more I look into these details, the more I understand the job facing Ghirga and dalla Vedova as they try to match up true facts with her testimony while simultaneously trying to minimize flagrant story changes. It's no mean task!


Thanks, Thoughtful. So the story told in court, with the benefit of hindsight and the cellphone records (part of the file), now matches the cellphone records in this respect.

It would be very useful to review Filomena's testimony about the phone call(s).

Incidentally, I have never understood the plastic bag either. Something about gathering dirty clothes to do a load of wash. But from where? And to do a load of wash where? AK "told" Frank in a recent prison interview that she never used the cottage machine because it was always broken. Did she takes clothes to the cottage or from the cottage?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: urk
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am
Posts: 299
Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann
thoughtful wrote:
It's only a matter of time before the contradictions between the two of them explode. They're making a brave show of hanging in there together, but it's just a show. I don't know what will happen when the prosecutors start spelling out these contradictions, but I guess the sparks will fly.


I think Amanda's putting on a brave show, but Raffaele hasn't said anything - spontaneous statements in court apart - since November 2007. That leaves all the contradictions in place, and they just have to hope that the panel of judges will decide to resolve all these contradictions (somehow) in their own favor.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...


Top
 Profile  
 
 [ 2441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

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


24,366,398 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group