Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Countdown To Final Appeal     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 

Last visit was: Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:28 am It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:28 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 2410 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Kercher 'Murder Weapon' Shown To Court
2:35pm UK, Saturday September 19, 2009

Nick Pisa In Italy

A kitchen knife believed to be the weapon used to murder British student Meredith Kercher has been shown to an Italian court


Prosecutors claim DNA from Meredith was found on the 30cm blade while DNA from her alleged killer Amanda Knox was found on the black handle.

Police discovered the knife - which has not been proved to be the murder weapon - during a search in the kitchen of Knox's co-accused and former boyfriend, 25-year-old Raffaele Sollecito, 25.

Defence lawyers have argued the amount of DNA on the handle is minuscule and has also possibly contaminated and therefore is not evidence enough to convict Knox of the brutal sex murder.




A court official held up a white box marked 'Evidence Handle With Care' and showed it to the judge as well as prosecutors and defence.

However the knife - exhibit 36 - was kept in the box wrapped in cellophane despite a request from 22-year-old Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga to have it removed so it could be examined more closely.


Mr Ghirga had wanted forensic biologist Professor Giancarlo Umani Ronchi to be shown the knife so he could see if scratches which are said to be on it are visible to the naked eye.

However, prosecutor Manuela Comodi opposed the request as did Francesco Maresca, the Kercher family's lawyer, saying it would have ''no value'' as Professor Ronchi had only seen the knife at distance in a forensic lab.

Judge Giancarlo Massei agreed with the request and the box was closed and taken to the back of the court.

During the hearing Knox, dressed in a red Beatles hooded sweatshirt, listened intently.

When she had been led into court she was asked if her trial was going well and she simply shrugged her shoulders.



Professor Ronchi had told the court how he had carried out an examination of the contents of Meredith's stomach and concluded her last meal had been pizza, ice cream and apple pie.

Prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi have told the court Meredith was killed after she refused to take part in a drug fuelled sex game.



The last few defence witnesses are due to be heard over the next two weekends but a verdict is not expected until November at the earliest.



SKY NEWS

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:48 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Dr Ronchi's today's deposition fromAGI news (dr Ronchi is one of the GIP medical examiners)

"Dalla visione delle immagini relative al corpo di Meredith Kercher si ha "l'impressione che ci sia stata una escalation di aggressione" nei confronti della vittima "con una evoluzione da lesioni di modesta entita', superficiali, fino a delle lesioni piu' importanti che poi sono quelle che hanno determinato il decesso". E' il parere espresso in aula dal medico legale Giancarlo Umani Ronchi, consulente del gip nell'incidente probatorio sulle cause della morte di Meredith Kercher e oggi sentito davanti alla Corte d'Assise di Perugia nel processo a Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox."
"Guardando le immagini - ha detto il consulente - ho avuto l'impressione che ci fosse stata una escalation di aggressione". In merito al coltello ritenuto dall'accusa l'arma del delitto Umani Ronchi ha parlato di "generica compatibilita"' o "non incompatibilita"' di questo ultimo con le ferite riportate dalla vittima. L'esperto ha spiegato come, in sede di incidente probatorio, il coltello "era quasi inavvicinabile". "L'ho visto da lontano - ha spiegato Umani Ronchi - e non l'ho potuto toccare. E' stato portato in laboratorio quasi come fosse una reliquia".


Brief translation: the impression is that an escalation of violence took place, starting with modest, superficial lesions to the most important wounds that caused the death of the victim...relatively to the knife -dr Ronchi said -" it was almost unapproachable". I saw the knife from far away and couldn't touch it. It was brought to the lab almost as if it were a relic"

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


Last edited by nicki on Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
I remember having read that Raffaele Sollecito actually admitted Meredith's DNA could be on the knife, because he "pricked her accidentally with the knife while they were cooking". As far as I read - and please correct me if I am wrong - Meredith's DNA has been found very close to the handle, where the blade and the handle are actually joint. How can it be there if he just pricked her with the tip of the blade? If the DNA was found so close to the handle, I would suppose that this knife had a fair amount of blood on it. Can there be any doubt this knife was used in the attack?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
It must be embarrassing for the defense to be discussing this bare footprint, since the bare footprint on the mat is blatant evidence of a cleanup. The footprint is partial, lacking the imprint of the heal. And that healprint should be on the bathroom floor, but it is missing. Or are we to suppose that the blood on the sole of the foot was only partial, too, and happened to be ---by sheer coincidence!--- on exactly that part of the sole which came in contact with the mat and not on the part which came in contact with the floor? Extremely unlikely.


But it's just this extremely unlikely event that the Amanda Friends say we should believe...

"Was there a cleanup after the murder? No." http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cleanup.html

In response to your reconstruction of events, Michael, I believe that Amanda and Raffaele avoided any phone contact out of fear that the phone company might retain a copy of their conversations.

/////////


Last edited by fine on Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Nell wrote:
I remember having read that Raffaele Sollecito actually admitted Meredith's DNA could be on the knife, because he "pricked her accidentally with the knife while they were cooking". As far as I read - and please correct me if I am wrong - Meredith's DNA has been found very close to the handle, where the blade and the handle are actually joint. How can it be there if he just pricked her with the tip of the blade? If the DNA was found so close to the handle, I would suppose that this knife had a fair amount of blood on it. Can there be any doubt this knife was used in the attack?


Yes, it's true Raffaele told this story (it's in his diary). However, Meredith's DNA was found in a scratch 'close' to the tip. But yes, unless it was actually on the tip Meredith's DNA couldn't have got there by a mere 'prick'. But in any case, the whole story by Raffaele is a lie (yet another). Amanda herself told police that Meredith had never once been around Raffaele's apartment, least of all gone round there for dinner.

What is also interesting is the location of Amanda's DNA on the knife. It's in the handle side 'nub' of the handle, where the handle meets the the blade. Stefanoni said this was significant because it signifies that the DNA was left by the knife being used in a 'stabbing' motion, rather then a cutting motion. And who 'stabs' food? One 'cuts' food. The positiong of the DNA is therefore consistant with it having been used to stab someone...Meredith.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Fine wrote:
In response to your reconstruction of events, Michael, I believe that Amanda and Raffaele avoided any phone contact for fear the the phone company might have a copy of their conversation(s).


Hmm....but if she had of phoned Raffaele to call him over, wouldn't a record of that call have reinforced their story? What I mean is, Amanda claims to have been concerned and wanted to get Raffaele. If she therefore called him and told him to come over, that then would have reinforced that claim. It certainly wouldn't have done any damage. Why use the phone to call Meredith to create a record of concern, but not do the same to Raffaele? It doesn't make sense not to have called Raffaele on the phone. It only makes sense if she "needed" to walk 'somewhere' or back to Raffaele's for some reason.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
Michael wrote:
Fine wrote:
In response to your reconstruction of events, Michael, I believe that Amanda and Raffaele avoided any phone contact for fear the the phone company might have a copy of their conversation(s).


Hmm....but if she had of phoned Raffaele to call him over, wouldn't a record of that call have reinforced their story? What I mean is, Amanda claims to have been concerned and wanted to get Raffaele. If she therefore called him and told him to come over, that then would have reinforced that claim. It certainly wouldn't have done any damage. Why use the phone to call Meredith to create a record of concern, but not do the same to Raffaele? It doesn't make sense not to have called Raffaele on the phone. It only makes sense if she "needed" to walk 'somewhere' or back to Raffaele's for some reason.


It also makes sense if you really not need to 'phone' the person, because... the person is already with you....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Zopi wrote:
Michael wrote:
Fine wrote:
In response to your reconstruction of events, Michael, I believe that Amanda and Raffaele avoided any phone contact for fear the the phone company might have a copy of their conversation(s).


Hmm....but if she had of phoned Raffaele to call him over, wouldn't a record of that call have reinforced their story? What I mean is, Amanda claims to have been concerned and wanted to get Raffaele. If she therefore called him and told him to come over, that then would have reinforced that claim. It certainly wouldn't have done any damage. Why use the phone to call Meredith to create a record of concern, but not do the same to Raffaele? It doesn't make sense not to have called Raffaele on the phone. It only makes sense if she "needed" to walk 'somewhere' or back to Raffaele's for some reason.


It also makes sense if you really not need to 'phone' the person, because... the person is already with you....



That''s possible, although at odds with Quintaville's testimony where he claims she left his shop and headed towards the cottage 'alone' on the early morning of the 2nd. Of course, there was nothing stoppong Raffaele joining her later. But in that case, why not leave with her when she went? While I think it's possible Raffaele was there earlier, I think it was unlikely. I think there was a specific reason he didn't leave with Amanda when she went and that reason also required he not go until much later in the morning. This is the fact that Amanda's reason for going to the cottage required only she go (why would Raffaele need to accompany Amanda having a shower, getting changed, doing/collecting washing?). It gives a believable excuse for Amanda to go, but not Raffaele. And if he had gone, it was broad daylight and people would have been up and about, making it likely that some passerby would have seen him, or one of the housemates may have returned home early or one of their friends may have called round and found him there. That would give him some serious explaining to do and would therefore be too dangerous.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Video from yesterday's hearing:



_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
iff they were involved I would imagine there were many pending tasks, e.g. shopping, getting rid of incriminatory elements, telephones, etc, once they agreed to a plan there was no need to call.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Posts: 252
Michael wrote:
That''s possible, although at odds with Quintaville's testimony where he claims she left his shop and headed towards the cottage 'alone' on the early morning of the 2nd. Of course, there was nothing stoppong Raffaele joining her later. But in that case, why not leave with her when she went? While I think it's possible Raffaele was there earlier, I think it was unlikely. I think there was a specific reason he didn't leave with Amanda when she went and that reason also required he not go until much later in the morning. This is the fact that Amanda's reason for going to the cottage required only she go (why would Raffaele need to accompany Amanda having a shower, getting changed, doing/collecting washing?). It gives a believable excuse for Amanda to go, but not Raffaele. And if he had gone, it was broad daylight and people would have been up and about, making it likely that some passerby would have seen him, or one of the housemates may have returned home early or one of their friends may have called round and found him there. That would give him some serious explaining to do and would therefore be too dangerous.
Isn't it possible that they left Raffaele's apartment together, but then Amanda took a detour to buy bleach, while he went on to cottage? Nobody would have thought twice seeing them together, whether at the cottage or anywhere else, so I don't think it's necessary to assume any deep laid plan. I think they were at the cottage together that morning doing some more clean-up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Quote:
"Isn't it possible that they left Raffaele's apartment together, but then Amanda took a detour to buy bleach, while he went on to cottage?"


His father called him at 8:30am and the cell was the one that usually serves his home.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Posts: 252
bolint wrote:
Quote:
"Isn't it possible that they left Raffaele's apartment together, but then Amanda took a detour to buy bleach, while he went on to cottage?"

His father called him at 8:30am and the cell was the one that usually serves his home.

Do we know that he actually spoke to his father, i.e. that it wasn't a missed call?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Quote:
"Do we know that he actually spoke to his father, i.e. that it wasn't a missed call?"


I don't know.
In the call list it is given as a 41 second call. Seems too long for unanswered ringing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Posts: 252
bolint wrote:
Quote:
"Do we know that he actually spoke to his father, i.e. that it wasn't a missed call?"

I don't know.
In the call list it is given as a 41 second call. Seems too long for unanswered ringing.

..but about the right length for leaving a voice message?

It's certainly too short for an actual conversation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
..."I really don't want to talk...."

Michael,

Amanda and Raffaele are bad liars, and both KNOW it. Remember what Amanda said in her Nov 4/ 2007 email:

"After that, I guess I'll go back to class on
monday, although im not sure what im going to do about people asking
me questions, because i really dont want to talk again about what
happened. Ive been talking an awful lot lately and im pretty tired of
it." http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -knox.html

The translation is that she doesn't want to have to reconcile any more of her statements, the proverbial tangled web. On the morning after the murder audio records of any phone conversations would have meant more statements needing reconciliation. Besides, as she says in the same email, the suspicious circumstances she initially found at the cottage didn't disturb her much, so she could talk to Raffaele later about the matter. (And so also postpone calling the police.) And as it happened AK and RS have convicted themselves by their lies. If they'd both kept their mouths shut they wouldn't be in such a dangerous situation.

//////////

///////////////


Last edited by fine on Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
"It's certainly too short for an actual conversation."

Maybe. We'll probably never know unless we accept Francesco Sollecito's version. :DD

But it could still be an unanswered call.
E.g. Filemena called Amanda three times, for 36, 85. 48 seconds respectively, and one of them was unanswered.
So the 41 seconds Sollecito call may also be an unanswered call.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Ah! So it's not certain that THE knife can be ruled out as the weapon that caused the other 2 wounds. Interesting!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Posts: 252
bolint wrote:
"It's certainly too short for an actual conversation."

Maybe. We'll probably never know unless we accept Francesco Sollecito's version. :DD

But it could still be an unanswered call.
E.g. Filemena called Amanda three times, for 36, 85. 48 seconds respectively, and one of them was unanswered.
So the 41 seconds Sollecito call may also be an unanswered call.

This actually supports the idea that Raff wasn't at his apartment at the time. If he was, he would surely have answered and spoken to his father, since that would place him away from the cottage, and help his alibi.

Since the 41 second call was carried by the cell near the apartment, it seems to show that he was away from the apartment, but had left his phone there.

I also can't see him leaving the cleanup to Amanda while he sat around doing nothing - he certainly wouldn't trust her not to make a mistake, and she wouldn't tolerate him not helping. Anyway the two lovebirds did everything together.

My guess is that they were at the cottage together for most of the morning, even if one or the other went on an errand or two.


Last edited by GreenWyvern on Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
from the bathmat picture:
Did you notice there is a second print of a right foot? in the central area of the carpet, with a different orientation (horizontal), always the same right foot and always in diluted blood but this time very very faint, seems much more diluted and wet maybe after the foot had been washed in the bidet. The print has a fuzzy and expanded outline, but still the toe is clearly visible and the original shape and size are recognizable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
"This actually supports the idea that Raff wasn't at his apartment at the time."

His father seems to be a terrific control freak. I think if they hadn't talked, he would have called again within an hour.
So it may also be that they talked and Raffaele said that he was still sleeping, so the father called the next time at 12:40 (maybe triggered by Raffaele's bank transaction two minutes before).


Last edited by bolint on Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
"I also can't see him leaving the cleanup to Amanda while he sat around doing nothing - he certainly wouldn't trust her not to make a mistake, and she wouldn't tolerate him not helping. Anyway the two lovebirds did everything together."

If they were involved in the murder together.
But I'm still not convinced if Raffaele was there at the time of the murder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:56 pm 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3663
THE KNIFE


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ASK YOUR FISH SELLER
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
guermantes wrote:
THE KNIFE


Thanks Guermantes, that's the first view we have of the knife with a human hand next to it.

We buy fresh fish once or twice a week from the local fish market (they say that Madrid is the best port in all of Spain, it comes in overnight in refrigerated trucks, direct from the fishing boats on the different coasts).

The fish seller cleans everything for us before we take it away. I've never seen any quantity of fish blood on our hands in our kitchen. Now, if we wanted to, we could clean the fish at home, but why? The fish seller does it better than us, depending on the fish, yes, there can be some blood, but above all, it's just more smelly fish garbage the next day.

While our fish seller does use butcher-like knifes on the fish with great ability, at home if we were to clean fish, we would use smaller, "normal" sized knifes more than anything else in order to not do any harm to ourselves.

The prosecution could have asked Amanda who cleaned the fish they supposedly ate on Nov.1. I assume she would say: "Raffaele", as she also supposedly (or, very really) saw blood on his hands that night. The prosecution could then ask which knife or knives they used to prepare that last supper.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Cyber Waffles
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Brogan wrote:
...I actually think that the prosecution have presented enough evidence to convict. I’ve grown tired of the motive debate as it does not really matter to me why they did it the evidence shows to me that they did, I have my own theory as to why but it would make no difference to the case as I’m not part of the prosecution. The problem with some of the posters on the shlock blog and Italian FoAK at the table is that they think they are part of the defence, when in fact they are just so much cyber waffle.


An excellent post, Brogan - especially your final point. And Mr. Knox is wrong - I don't think the jury will have a difficult job reaching a fair and reasonable verdict at all. This case, like many others, only becomes complicated when you factor-in unreasonable considerations, of which there are many, and the job of the Jury is to simply throw out the unreasonable and then see what you are left with. It seems obvious to me that both defense teams already know what the verdict for this trial is going to be and are now primarily focused on setting the stage for their arguments in the appeal process.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
" and are now primarily focused on setting the stage for their arguments in the appeal process."

I think they are primarily focused on the billing. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 - Knife shown in court
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:35 pm 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3663
Nick Squires for The Telegraph

Miss Knox, of Seattle, who was wearing blue jeans and a red sweatshirt with a Beatles design, appeared impassive as the purported murder weapon was shown during the testimony of a forensic expert, Prof Giancarlo Umani-Ronchi. She looked away when police photographs of Miss Kercher's bloodied body were projected onto a giant screen in the courtroom.

Mr Sollecito, in a white jacket and rimless glasses, bit his fingernails as the alleged use of the knife in the killing was discussed by experts and lawyers.

The former lovers, who could be sentenced to life in prison if found guilty, looked tired and nervous.

Journalists were told to leave the medieval, stone-walled courtroom at one point during the hearing because of the violent and sexually explicit nature of the evidence.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
guermantes wrote:
THE KNIFE


Wow!! The Knife actually showed up in court? When, exactly, did Knox/Mellas/Huff/FoAK stop screaming that the knife was "thrown out"? Perhaps they still are, just like they still claim that the "false confession" was "thrown out".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm
Posts: 225
KOMO relies on AP

Knife unveiled at Amanda Knox murder trial

<snip> In Saturday's session, forensic expert Mariano Cingolani cast some doubt on the knife's "compatibility" with a wound to Kercher's neck, which is not considered to be the fatal one.

"Many other knives in general are more compatible with that kind of wound," said Cingolani, who was appointed by a Perugia judge before indictments for Knox and Sollecito were handed down.

Cingolani said one of three cuts on the victim's neck would have been bigger if that knife was used, given the wound's depth. However, the expert also cautioned that no firm conclusion could be drawn without knowing the position of Kercher's neck during the attack or the elasticity of her tissues.

According to Cingolani, whose team did not carry out an autopsy on Kercher's body but examined photos and videos of the procedure, the 21-year-old died of combined loss of blood and suffocation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ASK YOUR FISH SELLER
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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


Thanks Guermantes, that's the first view we have of the knife with a human hand next to it.

We buy fresh fish once or twice a week from the local fish market (they say that Madrid is the best port in all of Spain, it comes in overnight in refrigerated trucks, direct from the fishing boats on the different coasts).

The fish seller cleans everything for us before we take it away. I've never seen any quantity of fish blood on our hands in our kitchen. Now, if we wanted to, we could clean the fish at home, but why? The fish seller does it better than us, depending on the fish, yes, there can be some blood, but above all, it's just more smelly fish garbage the next day.

While our fish seller does use butcher-like knifes on the fish with great ability, at home if we were to clean fish, we would use smaller, "normal" sized knifes more than anything else in order to not do any harm to ourselves.

The prosecution could have asked Amanda who cleaned the fish they supposedly ate on Nov.1. I assume she would say: "Raffaele", as she also supposedly (or, very really) saw blood on his hands that night. The prosecution could then ask which knife or knives they used to prepare that last supper.


In my 20 years of buying fish in France, I don't know if I ever saw anyone walk away with a whole fish to clean at home. Not even in La Rochelle, which has a thriving market with freshly caught fish. Incidentally, I did buy a special knife for filleting fish from my local fishmonger in Paris. He was very reluctant at first, but ordered it for me when I told him I wanted to use it sparingly, if I decided after purchasing a gutted fish that I wanted to cut it into smaller pieces. I had found that the knives I owned did not do a good job, and I also did not like the fish smell on the knife, which can be hard to remove.

But gutting fish on a regular or even one-off in a Parisian apartment - never!

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
bolint wrote: "But I'm still not convinced if Raffaele was there at the time of the murder."


And I'm still not convinced there there were only three culprits. Two suspicious cars stopped in front of the cottage that night,... a light one and, later on, a dark one. And there was found still unidentified DNA on the bra. Two years after the crime Rudy's lawyers have recently hired investigators looking for more "witnesses". Huh? When one of these three sings, will more persons be charged with the murder?

///////


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 - Signs of Deception
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:00 pm 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3663
Nick Squires wrote:

Miss Knox, of Seattle … appeared impassive as the purported murder weapon was shown during the testimony of a forensic expert, Prof Giancarlo Umani-Ronchi.
She looked away when police photographs of Miss Kercher's bloodied body were projected onto a giant screen in the courtroom.

Mr Sollecito … bit his fingernails as the alleged use of the knife in the killing was discussed by experts and lawyers.

Feigned lack of interest and hand-to-face gestures are strong markers of deception!

Feigned unconcern. Deceptive persons will often appear casual and unconcerned and may adopt an unnatural slouching posture.

Reaction to evidence. Deceptive persons tend to be casual about observing possibly incriminating documents/evidence presented to them during an interview/a court hearing, and then shove them away, as if wanting nothing to do with the evidence. Honest persons, on the other hand, tend to take a keen interest in the documents as if searching for information, which might exonerate them.

Increased discomfort and anxiety. Psychological stress increases anxiety so much that we cannot store it internally anymore. This leads to an external overflow, explaining the fidgeting, hand rubbing, sweating, lip licking, leg bouncing etc. When you see ’stress overflow’ try asking yourself what it may mean …

How to Detect Lies


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 - Signs of Deception
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 247
Location: Seattle. WA
guermantes wrote:
Increased discomfort and anxiety. Psychological stress increases anxiety so much that we cannot store it internally anymore. This leads to an external overflow, explaining the fidgeting, hand rubbing, sweating, lip licking, leg bouncing etc. When you see ’stress overflow’ try asking yourself what it may mean …

...say, like, nail-biting?


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

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
Article from Andrea Vogt:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/410331_knox19.html

Also article from Ann Wise from ABC news.:

http://tinyurl.com/mdh425

Also from Meo Ponte, a critic of this investigation who has a few things to say.

http://tinyurl.com/m2nnl4


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Curt Knox on CBS:



_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Thanks DLW for those links.


Hmm, Ann Wise says that the knife 'was' removed from box and bag and allowed to be examined in court:


Ann Wise wrote:
The alleged murder weapon was shown today for the first time in court at the trial of American student Amanda Knox in Perugia, Italy. A large kitchen knife found in the apartment of Knox's co-defendant and former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, was removed briefly from the white box and plastic evidence bag and was examined in court by forensic experts wearing gloves and surgical masks.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 - Signs of Deception
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:47 pm 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3663
Professor Snape wrote:
guermantes wrote:
Increased discomfort and anxiety. Psychological stress increases anxiety so much that we cannot store it internally anymore. This leads to an external overflow, explaining the fidgeting, hand rubbing, sweating, lip licking, leg bouncing etc. When you see ’stress overflow’ try asking yourself what it may mean …

...say, like, nail-biting?

:lol: :lol:
Disclaimer: The evaluation of deception is an imprecise art, not an exact science. Accordingly, no one cue should be taken as proof positive that the person is not being truthful. All cues must be taken together as a whole to make a judgment about the person’s truthfulness. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Il Messaggero
By LUIGI FOGLIETTI.

Saturday, September 19, 2009
"Against Mignini only pretexts"

Accusations from America to the prosecutor of the investigation "is to advertise the books that are coming out"


Accused stand up. This time though the accused is not a criminal, but a magistrate, Giuliano Mignini, currently public prosecutor in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito trial. To have put Mignini there under the accused, is a part of the American press and publishing that do not consider the magistrate adequate to fulfill its role because of his current position that keeps him busy defending himself in another trial process at the Tribunal of Florence, together with police officer Giuttari in relation to the case known as that of the "Monster of Florence".

The best informed think the mounted controversy has a strong interest linked to publishers, a book that come out about the events in Florence, as is a film that seems would even be produced by Tom Cruise, whose subject would be taken from the book itself. Someone then wanting notoriety to gain figures and profit would not stop for the sake of false accusation before launching own product in the media.

However, what do American journalist who are following the hearings all the time at the various stages of the trial have to say of their colleagues and attack for which Giuliano Mignini is the victim?

"The so-called American controversy launched against PM Mignini and officer Giuttari (says Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek journalist) is artfully constructed. It’s used as an excuse in the US where someone in the publishing world having not had professional access to the evidence that saw the two in action, is trying now to enter it to win a position, a little fame, in short is the catch an opportunity.”

Also Andrea Vogt, a freelance working for the U.S. Seattle Post Intelligencer and some English newspapers, who says: “The two things, trial of Amanda and Raffaele and Monster of Florence, are not related, none, those who want to weave them together have more ulterior personal motives concerning the case of the "monster". They are using some elements of that case to influence the process under way here just to muddy the waters. All is not just”.

"Two completely unrelated cases - added Sabina Castelfranco CBS- except that Dr. Mignini here is the prosecutor, and for the case of the monster of Florence is under investigation. I think the thing would be relevant only if it were to be condemned: I imagine that there would be repercussions on his current position.”

What does PM Mignini say? "Either one speaks of these facts properly or should not speak, because you should also say that there is a process started upon my complaint against two magistrates, one from the Florence prosecutor’s and one from the Genoa, which hearing will be in October 21st. For which they will have to explain to me why they accused me. Sequesters related to these processes which so much has been said, had been nullified by the Court of Review by default of the "prima" of the offense, the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court and Giuttari has cited the court in Strasbourg.”
http://tinyurl.com/nb26e7


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Michael wrote:
Curt Knox on CBS:


There they go with that "thrown out" stuff again. According to Mr. Knox, the footprint evidence was "thrown out" of court on Friday. OK, I'm starting to get the picture now. Every time the defense presents an opinion contrary to the prosecution the Knox/Mellas/Huff/FoAK contingent actually believes that the defense wins! Apparently we've been giving them way too much credit - I suppose this is why Knox believes his daughter will be home for Thanksgiving. You know, a typical 3rd grader knows better; perhaps we should all chip in and send them the DVD Box Sets of Perry Mason and Law and Order?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
DLW wrote:
Also from Meo Ponte, a critic of this investigation who has a few things to say.

http://tinyurl.com/m2nnl4


So why, exactly, did they bring in a bomb expert to say that the knife was not the murder weapon?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Jools -

Thank's for that Jools. I've added that to the 'In Their Own Words' forum in the Mignini thread for future reference :)

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Michael wrote:
Curt Knox on CBS:


And because court appointed forensics expert Cingolani said he did not believe the large knife was compatible with one of the smaller knife wounds on the left side of Meredith's neck, Mr. Knox seems to believe that the large knife has also been "thrown out".

Is he really unaware that it has long been speculated that more than one knife was involved - one to intimidate and one to kill. It is becoming pathetic to see Mr. Knox attempt to shore himself up with such hollow statements of faith as he continues to paint his simple, cartoon-like picture of what everyone knows is a complex case. Sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3663
Barbie Nadeau in The Daily Beast:

Zero Hour for Amanda Knox

Does this sound as déjà vu all over again? Meredith’s blood alcohol level(s) are still being discussed :shock:.

The first witness, Giancarlo Umani Ronchi, testified that there were traces of alcohol in Kercher’s blood. A second witness, Mariano Cingolani, also testified to the presence of alcohol in her system. Alcohol changes not only the potential dynamic of the crime, but it could affect calculations about the time of death, because alcohol slows the digestive process. The time of death is crucial for the alibis of both Knox and Sollecito.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
Curt Knox on CBS:


There they go with that "thrown out" stuff again. According to Mr. Knox, the footprint evidence was "thrown out" of court on Friday. OK, I'm starting to get the picture now. Every time the defense presents an opinion contrary to the prosecution the Knox/Mellas/Huff/FoAK contingent actually believes that the defense wins! Apparently we've been giving them way too much credit - I suppose this is why Knox believes his daughter will be home for Thanksgiving. You know, a typical 3rd grader knows better; perhaps we should all chip in and send them the DVD Box Sets of Perry Mason and Law and Order?



Hi FBN. I note also that Curt was given the opportunity once again to get in the part that poor Amanda had to go through the summer without air conditioning, like 'most' Italians. I'd like to know in any case, what prison in the world has air conditioning installed for its inmates. It's a prison, not the Ritz! Perhaps, if the FOA hadn't been so aggressive in its public attacks on the Italians, Amanda may have long been allowed out on house arrest.

What annoys me most is that Curt Knox, father of the accused standing trial, (or some other Knox family member, whichever one is around at the time) has become the de facto official court correspondent for the major US networks! Is that what they consider to be 'fair and balanced' reporting? Would that be allowed to stand in a trial in the US?

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Il Messaggero.
Rudy: "Why was not I in that camera"

PERUGIA - First the allegations, launched by a weekly magazine, (OGGI) that show him as the man with the windbreaker jacket and sneakers in the San Antonio parking lot around 21.00 hours the night of the murder.
Then, afterwards arrived those in writing, those even increasingly more stringent during the hearing process. Also yesterday, Francesco Vinci expert consultant for Raffaele Sollecito, juxtaposed the print of the bloody foot that remained on the bathmat with that of the foot of Rudy to indicate that those footprints are not of Raffaele and the culprit is another.
“The process has restarted but the logic is always the same, that of making me to be the only culprit -says Rudy, from prison to his defense lawyers Valter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile-. It seeks, therefore to mystify the reality with the help of journalists friends whom to reward the logic are ready to published false reconstructions, truly and proper utter hoax.”

Rudy did not go down with the article “published by the weekly magazine which states that the person photographed by the CCTV cameras inside the parking lot of St. Antonio on the first November around 21 hours with the jacket is me.” According to Rudy all explanations given in the article are false: “My presence in the parking lot supposedly confirmed by the fact that the photographed man was wearing Nike shoes and a jacket that is identical to the one I had in my hand when I arrived at Rome airport from Germany.”
But Rudy has a precise explanation that exonerates him: "That jacket it was brought to me in jail in Germany by my father when it came to visit me: he had just bought it. This is also confirmed by the list of clothes I had the day I entered prison. It’s obvious that it is false. It’s shameful that these falsehoods can be written. It’s a hoax. Furthermore if you look properly at the images, you can see that the person passing under the camera is white and has glasses”. Lawyer Gentile reinforcing adds: “The Sollecito defense instead of bringing technical evidence, continues with magic games. In fact, only a magician can match the imprint left by a person who wears size 43 with that of a person who wears, however, the size 46. This is the usual reconstruction soundly rejected, we must never forget, by the gup Paolo Micheli who indicted them and sent them to trial.
http://tinyurl.com/ll69t9


Last edited by Jools on Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 24
Hi Michael and everyone here. I have to commend your tenacity and absolute determination to get to the truth. I sincerely hope that justice will be served and that Meredith can rest in peace. My deepest condolences go out to her family and all who knew her and I admire the Italian Judicial system and its quest for the truth to be revealed. What more could the family ask now other than for the truth?
I became aware of this case through a friend whose young relative was studying in Perugia doing a Doctorate I believe and they were by chance in Patrick Lumumba’s bar on the night of the murder. When they heard about the case and he being accused they immediately contacted the police and I have no further details other than they were obviously important witnesses because they provided an alibi for an innocent man.
When I heard this I was immediately drawn to looking into the case and the more I’ve discovered the more shocking it all becomes but it also makes me more determined, like you, for the truth to emerge.
The thing which I find most damming, besides of course the afore-mentioned attempt to accuse an innocent man, is the fact that Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito’s phones were both switched off in advance of the crime and switched back on in the early hours of the morning when they were both supposedly asleep. Who switched them on then? The ghost? This reeks of pre-meditation. Why don’t they ask them about the phones in the trial– this I don’t get? Add to this the amount of times they have changed their stories and you begin to feel that sickening feeling in the pit of your stomach. Is Amanda Knox a wolf in lambs clothing? We still haven’t even touched upon forensics and guilt is stamped all over the pair of them... the blood in the bathroom and she claims to have taken a shower not even remotely perturbed by it. I consider that impossible. When you look at the photos, there’s blood all round the sink. I don’t know any girl whose blood is splashed all over the bathroom because she is having her monthly cycle. I’ve never seen it. When anyone sees blood anywhere they become a bit alarmed. The front door is open to the house, there’s blood on the floor and all around the sink and she claims to have taken a shower... It just gets worse and worse really.
The thing that’s freaking me out though and I really would appreciate a response to this is, I am convinced that there’s a possibility that Rudy is innocent. Please hear me out because I am sure we are all agreed that what matters is the truth being arrived at and surely all that anyone wants here is justice. First of all, everything that Rudy has said so far adds up. I haven’t seen where his account contradicts any of the evidence, unlike Amanda and Raffaelle.
Rudy said he was on the toliet listening to his music loud on earphones. I think this is plausible and as we know it ties into his faeces being found in the toilet. I cannot for the life of me imagine a guy who murdered someone leaving such evidence at the scene of a crime. This to me suggests innocence as does all his subsequent actions, even running away.
He say he heard a scream and ran into the room, encountered the Intruder who told him “black man – guilty man” or something to that effect. I worry terribly that if this is true then of course he thought “I’m screwed here”. I don’t care what anyone says but racism is a fact. It does exist and many people have been exposed to it including most probably Rudy. He says he tried to help her with the towels. All of this adds up and is there in the evidence. The towels are there. His footprints etc. We know there was a clean-up so why didn’t he clean up after himself if they were all involved?
In comparison, everything Amanda and Raffaelle said is contradicted by the evidence. It possible that Rudy is innocent and has been framed? Is there any way that they planned this but they planned for Rudy to get the blame? Is it likely that the reason both of their phones were switched off simultaneously was to go off and do their business. I think that in all of their plans they forgot about one thing – blood. They forgot that it would end up everywhere and thus incriminate themselves as well as him. Did they invite him there? Did they somehow set him up because they were intent on murder? I find it very difficult to reconcile his relationship to Amanda and Raffaelle otherwise. It just doesn’t make sense. If he was there to give them drugs then how could he end up wrapped up in a bloody murder? I really fear that there was only two involved in this diabolical act but three will go down for it? Long may Justice be served!
R.I.P. Meredith.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Thanks again Jools, I've filed that too :)

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am
Posts: 305
Fly by Night wrote:
DLW wrote:
Also from Meo Ponte, a critic of this investigation who has a few things to say.

http://tinyurl.com/m2nnl4


So why, exactly, did they bring in a bomb expert to say that the knife was not the murder weapon?


Who else could produce that explosive new evidence weve been waiting for.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:56 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
From Meo Ponte REPUBBLICA

"...Nonostante i dubbi e l'assenza di prove certe (non c'è traccia di rapporti tra Rudy, Amanda e Raffaele, movente e dinamica sono tutt'ora avvolti nel mistero) l'esito del processo appare scontato e la condanna all'ergastolo di Amanda e Raffaele sembra essere inevitabile. E' probabile che per dissipare i dubbi il presidente della Corte d'Assise Giancarlo Massei sia costretto a commissionare una perizia (almeno sul coltello e sul dna trovato sul gancetto del reggiseno di Meredith repetertato con quaranta giorni di ritardi rispetto alla scoperta del cadavere) come d'altronde aveva suggerito il gup Paolo Micheli quando aveva rinviato a giudizio Amanda e Raffaele. Perizia che comunque sarà chiesta dalle difese degli imputati".

"Notwithstanding the doubts and the absence of sound evidence (there is no trace of a relationship between Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele, motive and dynamics are still a mystery), the outcome of the trial seems discounted and a life sentence for Amanda and Raffaele appears to be inevitable. It is probable that in order to clear doubts the President of the Court of Assise Giancarlo Massei will be obliged to order further testing (at least for the knife and the DNA found on Meredith's bra clasp, found 40 days after the discovery of the body) as the GUP Micheli had suggested when he charged Amanda and Raffaele. However, the further tests will have to be requested by the defense" .

Any comments?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Hello Esperanza and welcome to PMF!! :)


That's most interesting that your friends were some of those that gave Patrick Lumumba an alibi. They were instrumental in remedying what could have transpired to be a major miscarriage of justice caused by Amanda Knox. Of course, Patrick's reputation has been ruined to some extent, and he lost his buisness as a result. However, things could have been far worse had witnesses not come forward to lend him an alibi. I've no doubt that due to lack of evidence tying him to the crime scene he'd have been released 'eventually', but that eventually would have been a lot longer then two weeks I fear.

Phones - yes, both were switched off around the same time before the crime. However, they weren't switched back on at the same time. Raffaele's was switched on again just before 7 am on the morning of 2nd Nov, while Amanda's wasn't switched back on until just after midday. It is very difficult to prove premeditation in this case, however, as you indicate, it's difficult to erase that nagging fear that 'something' was preplanned in light of their phones being switched off more or less together, especially considering that the phone records of Amanda and Raffaele over the previous month show that their turning off of their phones was an anomoly. It is of course possible that it's just 'coincidence', only coincidences seem to follow this pair in rather large amounts and alarm bells start to ring rather too frequently. Whatever, the phones leave a bad taste in the mouth.

In regard to Rudy perhaps telling the truth...we did go through this stage and agonised about it long and hard for a period back when we were on Steve Huff's True Crime, on Haloscan. There are many factors that make it worthy of some consideration. However, we came to the conclusion, for various reasons, that Rudy was indeed directly involved and he was less then truthful. I would need a lot of space here to lay it all out, so I'll simply give an example. Rudy claims that on emerging from the toilet he was confronted by a man (which he later revealed to be Sollecito) standing with knife in hand over a prone Meredith, having just immediately stabbed her. After a tussle and an exchange of a few words, the attacker then fled with the knife. Unfortunately for Rudy, the crime scene 'proves' this to be a lie, or at least, not the whole truth. This is the blood stain of the outline of a knife (now revealed to be two such stains) on Meredith's bedsheet. These show that at some point after stabbing Meredith, the attacker either reclined on the bed touching the blade of the knife onto the sheet, or placed the knife down onto the bed to free the hands for something else. This proves Rudy's version to be false, therefore a lie.

What 'is' possible, is that Rudy started taking part in something he didn't fully understand where it was going to go. When things got nasty, perhaps after he touched Meredith where he shouldn't have and due to her reaction to that, reality hit him and went to his guts, causing a sudden need for him to vacate the room to go to the toilet, perhaps picking the further toilet so he could no longer hear what was happening. Then, during that time, due to things escalating in Meredith's room and Meredith becoming uncontrollably agitated, one of the attackers struck the fatal blow out of panic. Then, Rudy emerges from the toilet to be confronted with a situation out of control and a dying Meredith. Horrified, he lambasts the knife wielder and then attempts to staunch the flow of blood from Meredith's neck while his accomplices stand back doing nothing but watch. When he realises it's useless he decides to leave, but not before being warned to keep his mouth shut and perhaps also to get out of town.

The above scenario 'could' work and is not contradicted by any of the evidence at the crime scene. However, I'm afraid that's the best workable scenario that can be put in place for Rudy.

They may have been willing to clean Rudy's mess as well as their own afterwards, only in his panic he'd left so much, unthinkingly stepping in and putting his hands in blood. I think the decision was therefore taken to look after their own traces only, arrange the crime scene to make it look like a bungled burglary turned into a bungled rape and let Rudy take his own chances.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
In my 20 years of buying fish in France, I don't know if I ever saw anyone walk away with a whole fish to clean at home. Not even in La Rochelle, which has a thriving market with freshly caught fish.


I have to disagree with this argument. Giovinazzo is not La Rochelle nor a city market, it is a southern fishermen village, the context is completely different, the concept of 'fresh fish' is different (I say this being of Calabrian origin). A person who is used to live with fishermen or was used to go sailing and fishing himself, might well feel ok with a whole fish to clean. But probably in this case Raffaele meant just 'cleaning' in a very general meaning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Michael wrote:
Thanks again Jools, I've filed that too :)


Ok, Michael.
Would it be much too honest and professional for Candace Dempsey to check the official investigation file, that she often claims to have access to, whether if in the list of Guede’s clothes when he entered prison in Germany, if he owned a jacket like she claims -‘Taking aim at Rudy’- is the same one the guy in the cctv parking-lot camera is wearing?

At least this is what would be expected of an investigative “award-wining journalist” instead of relying on second hand information seen and lifted from a weekly gossip magazine that, strangely she praises and salivates over it’s ‘exclusive’ articles together with her crazy contact h. wilkens and enables her to produce those inaccurate posts full of lies in her blog.

Then if she were a professional journalist, at her age, she would’ve had more of a journalistic trail than the food blogging. m-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
In my 20 years of buying fish in France, I don't know if I ever saw anyone walk away with a whole fish to clean at home. Not even in La Rochelle, which has a thriving market with freshly caught fish.


I have to disagree with this argument. Giovinazzo is not La Rochelle nor a city market, it is a southern fishermen village, the context is completely different, the concept of 'fresh fish' is different (I say this being of Calabrian origin). A person who is used to live with fishermen or was used to go sailing and fishing himself, might well feel ok with a whole fish to clean. But probably in this case Raffaele meant just 'cleaning' in a very general meaning.



Hi Yummi, That profile certainly doesn't fit Raffaele. But it sure as hell fits Amanda, her step father Chris Mellas is a keen, passionate fisherman. I've no doubt that's where she got her inspiration for that little story. The reality of what actually happened that evening was not her point of reference for her fishy story, but rather Chris Mellas who's she watched in his treatment of fish in the past, leading her to believe that's how 'all' people treat their fish. In short, like much else of what she claims happened that evening and the next day, Amanda made it up...IMHO.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:57 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Yummi,
Perugia is no Rochelle but neither is Giovinazzo.I don't know if they have a fresh fish market up there in the hillside of Umbria-perhaps they have. Nevertheless I am willing to bet that any fish that RS may have bought, came from Esselunga or similar, where fish is sold gutted, and packed up in plastic wraps. And should RS have bought fresh fish at an hypothetical Perugia fish market, I don't really see why he would have given up the opportunity to have it gutted and wrapped it up, ready-to cook, since it is included in the price.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
nicki wrote:
Yummi,
Perugia is no Rochelle but neither is Giovinazzo.I don't know if they have a fresh fish market up there in the hillside of Umbria-perhaps they have. Nevertheless I am willing to bet that any fish that RS may have bought, came from Esselunga or similar, where fish is sold gutted, and packed up in plastic wraps. And should RS have bought fresh fish at an hypothetical Perugia fish market, I don't really see why he would have given up the opportunity to have it gutted and wrapped it up, ready-to cook, since it is included in the price.



It was also a national Italian holiday that day. Would fresh fish even have been available in Perugia, late in the afternoon, that day?

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
In this photo RS defense, Luca Maori and Francesco Vinci.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:21 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Jools wrote:
Michael wrote:
Thanks again Jools, I've filed that too :)


Ok, Michael.
Would it be much too honest and professional for Candace Dempsey to check the official investigation file, that she often claims to have access to, whether if in the list of Guede’s clothes when he entered prison in Germany, if he owned a jacket like she claims -‘Taking aim at Rudy’- is the same one the guy in the cctv parking-lot camera is wearing?

At least this is what would be expected of an investigative “award-wining journalist” instead of relying on second hand information seen and lifted from a weekly gossip magazine that, strangely she praises and salivates over it’s ‘exclusive’ articles together with her crazy contact h. wilkens and enables her to produce those inaccurate posts full of lies in her blog.

Then if she were a professional journalist, at her age, she would’ve had more of a journalistic trail than the food blogging. m-))


Well, Candace is posting the story now over on the Smog, but she's putting her spin on it. Rudy says the guy in the video is white (Candace claims you can't see in the video if the guy is white or not). However, Rudy also states the man in the video is wearing glasses, Candace doesn't even mention that point (maybe she thinks nobody will notice the glasses or Rudy's observation of them if she doesn't say anything). Then, with jaw dropping hypocrisy to a point that's actually amusing, she then demands the POLICE clear up who is actually in the video...this when she has refused to believe a bloody thing the police have ever said for the past two years! So I ask you, how 'can' the police clear it up to Candace's satisfaction? I'll tell you...if they turn round and say it's Rudy Candace will be quite happy and accept it without question, declaring it to the world as an established fact. If they say it isn't, Candace will declare them to be dishonest (in so many words). Yuk.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:22 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
Yummi,
Perugia is no Rochelle but neither is Giovinazzo.I don't know if they have a fresh fish market up there in the hillside of Umbria-perhaps they have. Nevertheless I am willing to bet that any fish that RS may have bought, came from Esselunga or similar, where fish is sold gutted, and packed up in plastic wraps. And should RS have bought fresh fish at an hypothetical Perugia fish market, I don't really see why he would have given up the opportunity to have it gutted and wrapped it up, ready-to cook, since it is included in the price.



It was also a national Italian holiday that day. Would fresh fish even have been available in Perugia, late in the afternoon, that day?

On national holidays some supermarket chains may have been open-I believe I posted last year which supermarkets in the area were opened on that day. They may have been offering fresh fish, but you bet they would have been all shelved and wrapped up in plastic wraps ready to be consumed.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
What is going on here?


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:27 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Amanda Knox in court today, feeling the strain:


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

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

"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
Yummi,
Perugia is no Rochelle but neither is Giovinazzo.I don't know if they have a fresh fish market up there in the hillside of Umbria-perhaps they have. Nevertheless I am willing to bet that any fish that RS may have bought, came from Esselunga or similar, where fish is sold gutted, and packed up in plastic wraps. And should RS have bought fresh fish at an hypothetical Perugia fish market, I don't really see why he would have given up the opportunity to have it gutted and wrapped it up, ready-to cook, since it is included in the price.



It was also a national Italian holiday that day. Would fresh fish even have been available in Perugia, late in the afternoon, that day?

On national holidays some supermarket chains may have been open-I believe I posted last year which supermarkets in the area were opened on that day. They may have been offering fresh fish, but you bet they would have been all shelved and wrapped up in plastic wraps ready to be consumed.


Yes, Nicki. I for one will never forget that pointless discussion with dishonest O8 about buying fresh whole fish on a holiday.:)

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:35 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
Yummi,
Perugia is no Rochelle but neither is Giovinazzo.I don't know if they have a fresh fish market up there in the hillside of Umbria-perhaps they have. Nevertheless I am willing to bet that any fish that RS may have bought, came from Esselunga or similar, where fish is sold gutted, and packed up in plastic wraps. And should RS have bought fresh fish at an hypothetical Perugia fish market, I don't really see why he would have given up the opportunity to have it gutted and wrapped it up, ready-to cook, since it is included in the price.



It was also a national Italian holiday that day. Would fresh fish even have been available in Perugia, late in the afternoon, that day?

On national holidays some supermarket chains may have been open-I believe I posted last year which supermarkets in the area were opened on that day. They may have been offering fresh fish, but you bet they would have been all shelved and wrapped up in plastic wraps ready to be consumed.


Yes, Nicki. I for one will never forget that pointless discussion with dishonest O8 about buying fresh whole fish on a holiday.:)

You bet I won't forget it either! Mua-)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
Yummi,
Perugia is no Rochelle but neither is Giovinazzo.I don't know if they have a fresh fish market up there in the hillside of Umbria-perhaps they have. Nevertheless I am willing to bet that any fish that RS may have bought, came from Esselunga or similar, where fish is sold gutted, and packed up in plastic wraps. And should RS have bought fresh fish at an hypothetical Perugia fish market, I don't really see why he would have given up the opportunity to have it gutted and wrapped it up, ready-to cook, since it is included in the price.



It was also a national Italian holiday that day. Would fresh fish even have been available in Perugia, late in the afternoon, that day?

On national holidays some supermarket chains may have been open-I believe I posted last year which supermarkets in the area were opened on that day. They may have been offering fresh fish, but you bet they would have been all shelved and wrapped up in plastic wraps ready to be consumed.



Thanks Nikki. One would also think that if Raffaele had gone to the trouble of buying fresh fish and then gutting it for dinner, a rather nasty operation, he'd at least remember. But in his own diary he writes (paraphrase) 'I suppose we then went shopping in Perugia and I must have bought something for dinner. I then went home and cooked some dinner', yet he can't remember what he bought and what he cooked (he hadn't even started smoking pot at this point). You'd think he'd remember having to go through all the trouble of gutting a fish and then cooking it for his new 'sex bomb' (bombs seem to be topical right now) girlfriend wouldn't you? Instead, he gives the impression he just threw something together without much effort (one gets visions of slinging a tv dinner in the microwave without even taking it out of the box...I know that's very un-Italian, but one sees at least the Italian equvilent of doing that anyway).

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Michael wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
In my 20 years of buying fish in France, I don't know if I ever saw anyone walk away with a whole fish to clean at home. Not even in La Rochelle, which has a thriving market with freshly caught fish.


I have to disagree with this argument. Giovinazzo is not La Rochelle nor a city market, it is a southern fishermen village, the context is completely different, the concept of 'fresh fish' is different (I say this being of Calabrian origin). A person who is used to live with fishermen or was used to go sailing and fishing himself, might well feel ok with a whole fish to clean. But probably in this case Raffaele meant just 'cleaning' in a very general meaning.



Hi Yummi, That profile certainly doesn't fit Raffaele. But it sure as hell fits Amanda, her step father Chris Mellas is a keen, passionate fisherman. I've no doubt that's where she got her inspiration for that little story. The reality of what actually happened that evening was not her point of reference for her fishy story, but rather Chris Mellas who's she watched in his treatment of fish in the past, leading her to believe that's how 'all' people treat their fish. In short, like much else of what she claims happened that evening and the next day, Amanda made it up...IMHO.


La Rochelle is hardly a fishing village. It is one of France's major ports. So I don't think the comparison holds. But what I really meant is that urbanites in France don't really go in for buying whole, non-gutted fish. One reason has to do with their respect for the expertise of various trades. Just as they would not go to the local boucherie and ask for a whole veal to cut up themselves at home, they would not go to the local poissonerie and buy a whole fish without having it prepared by the expert. This doesn't mean whole fish are not displayed and sold. But when they are, if you want the whole fish you pay for the whole fish, including its subsequent gutting, which is done while you watch.

It may be that Raffaele Sollecito liked to use his knife so much that he bought whole fish and gutted it at home. But on November 1, a holiday, at 8 pm? In his diary, he talks about going shopping for dinner after wandering around town.

But this all obfuscates the fact that fish blood looks nothing at all like human blood and fish don't bleed like mammals.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skep wrote:
It may be that Raffaele Sollecito liked to use his knife so much that he bought whole fish and gutted it at home. But on November 1, a holiday, at 8 pm? In his diary, he talks about going shopping for dinner after wandering around town.


Funny you should say that. That's got me thinking now. Maybe he enjoyed cutting up animals? Maybe he was a weird kind of person that requested his dead animals whole, just so he could have the pleasure of chopping them up with his knives? That's how many killers and serial killers start out.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:59 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
In my 20 years of buying fish in France, I don't know if I ever saw anyone walk away with a whole fish to clean at home. Not even in La Rochelle, which has a thriving market with freshly caught fish.


I have to disagree with this argument. Giovinazzo is not La Rochelle nor a city market, it is a southern fishermen village, the context is completely different, the concept of 'fresh fish' is different (I say this being of Calabrian origin). A person who is used to live with fishermen or was used to go sailing and fishing himself, might well feel ok with a whole fish to clean. But probably in this case Raffaele meant just 'cleaning' in a very general meaning.



Hi Yummi, That profile certainly doesn't fit Raffaele. But it sure as hell fits Amanda, her step father Chris Mellas is a keen, passionate fisherman. I've no doubt that's where she got her inspiration for that little story. The reality of what actually happened that evening was not her point of reference for her fishy story, but rather Chris Mellas who's she watched in his treatment of fish in the past, leading her to believe that's how 'all' people treat their fish. In short, like much else of what she claims happened that evening and the next day, Amanda made it up...IMHO.


La Rochelle is hardly a fishing village. It is one of France's major ports. So I don't think the comparison holds. But what I really meant is that urbanites in France don't really go in for buying whole, non-gutted fish. One reason has to do with their respect for the expertise of various trades. Just as they would not go to the local boucherie and ask for a whole veal to cut up themselves at home, they would not go to the local poissonerie and buy a whole fish without having it prepared by the expert. This doesn't mean whole fish are not displayed and sold. But when they are, if you want the whole fish you pay for the whole fish, including its subsequent gutting, which is done while you watch.

It may be that Raffaele Sollecito liked to use his knife so much that he bought whole fish and gutted it at home. But on November 1, a holiday, at 8 pm? In his diary, he talks about going shopping for dinner after wandering around town.

But this all obfuscates the fact that fish blood looks nothing at all like human blood and fish don't bleed like mammals.

No way Sollecito would be have been able to get a whole fish in Perugia and bring it home to gut it, especially on a holiday. Unless he had gone fishing, but unfortunately Perugia is not a seaside resort, actually it's quite far from the sea.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 24
Thanks Michael for your response. Much appreciated. There's something about the connection between the three that doesn't make sense still though to me. Unless one of them begins to tell the truth though I reckon it's going to remain like that. The whole thing is really unfathomable.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am
Posts: 45
Location: California, US
I don't understand the photos just above. In the two, the man is holding a totally different knife from the one in the white box.

And the photo Michael posted of Amanda: isn't that one from the day she testified in court? She's got the cold sore and that looks like the same shirt she wore that day. (?)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
O.T.: Here we go
"NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Defending a Yale lab technician charged with murder against what appears to be a mountain of forensic evidence might mean trying to convince jurors that the crime scene was contaminated because police didn't immediately shut down the lab where the victim was eventually found, legal experts said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9AQLDFO0
:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:19 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
New article by FRANK

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Esperanza wrote:
Thanks Michael for your response. Much appreciated. There's something about the connection between the three that doesn't make sense still though to me. Unless one of them begins to tell the truth though I reckon it's going to remain like that. The whole thing is really unfathomable.


Like Esperanza, I have doubts about RG’s part in this crime. I cannot really see him as an equal partner; I don’t believe that he was a fully informed participant. And I certainly don’t believe that he participated in any prior planning, if there was prior planning. He may have been a dupe who was used by AK and RS or maybe he just bumbled into a situation that he didn’t understand and that spiralled out of control. I think that the relationship of these three and how it led to murder is the biggest mystery and I have not been able to put together any scenario that makes sense to me.

I can’t give Rudy a complete pass, though, because he apparently did sexually assault or try to assault Meredith and because he didn’t make any effort to get help when she was killed. But I do have doubts about whether he actually participated directly in the murder.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:32 pm
Posts: 24
Anadara


That’s exactly the problem that I have Anadara. I can’t see him as “an equal partner”. I think he was possibly roped in but that doesn’t a murderer make him. I think it would be an absolute travesty if an innocent man spent 30 years in prison. I also think that if Amanda and Raffaelle planned this at his house she could quite easily have handled the knife before arrival at the scene of the crime. Then she may have been waiting outside in the garden or even in the kitchen listening (hence covering her ears). If they didn’t expect Rudy to be there and Raffaelle went into Meredith’s room to either frighten or kill her. Then he performed the act, she screams, Rudy appears.... and later when Raffaelle goes back to Amanda (who heard everything but didn’t see it) he says to her that there was a black man in the house. Amanda immediately thinks it must have been Patrick Lumumba (due to her earlier contact with him/ Meredith getting the job). Maybe they spent all that evening thinking that it was Patrick who’d been there... Never imagining it was another black man i.e. Rudy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
'I suppose we then went shopping in Perugia and I must have bought something for dinner. I then went home and cooked some dinner', yet he can't remember what he bought and what he cooked (he hadn't even started smoking pot at this point).


Definitely if he bought fresh fish he would have had this task to think about "I went to choose a fish", not "I must have gone to buy something".

Quote:
Instead, he gives the impression he just threw something together without much effort (one gets visions of slinging a tv dinner in the microwave without even taking it out of the box...I know that's very un-Italian, but one sees at least the Italian equvilent of doing that anyway).


At least this could be a good motive for killing. No but, anyway I don't think the fish story is particularly important, given that it is certified as Amanda's fantasy in all cases. The fish dinner maybe really occurred but on a previous day. Usable for 'images' or 'visions' as she says.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Anadara wrote:
Like Esperanza, I have doubts about RG’s part in this crime. I cannot really see him as an equal partner; I don’t believe that he was a fully informed participant. And I certainly don’t believe that he participated in any prior planning, if there was prior planning. He may have been a dupe who was used by AK and RS or maybe he just bumbled into a situation that he didn’t understand and that spiralled out of control. I think that the relationship of these three and how it led to murder is the biggest mystery and I have not been able to put together any scenario that makes sense to me.

I can’t give Rudy a complete pass, though, because he apparently did sexually assault or try to assault Meredith and because he didn’t make any effort to get help when she was killed. But I do have doubts about whether he actually participated directly in the murder.


I second that. In my opinion this is another factor that speaks for a pre-meditated crime. They must have given this some thought before. Rudy as fall boy, time to thoroughly clean the crime scene and move the body as all other house-mates had left, these are all too many convenient coincidences in my opinion.

For example the clean-up: In countries like Spain and Italy, bleach is commonly used to mop floors and clean kitchens and I wouldn't be surprised if RS + AK thought that with cleaning up visible blood traces and footprints they would be off the hook. They didn't count on luminol. They cut off the bra without thinking of the already dried blood and that this would indicate that the bra was cut off later. They obviously thought that their staging was more or less perfect and therefore they were caught in surprise in the interviews being stuck for an answer. They thought they wouldn't be any doubt about "what really happened".


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm
Posts: 231
Location: US
Gosh, I've felt this weird nostalgia, as if it were the changing of the seasons. Something missing. And then the above posts cleared my brain. I miss Oceania!

hugz-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Michael wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Michael wrote:
Curt Knox on CBS:


There they go with that "thrown out" stuff again. According to Mr. Knox, the footprint evidence was "thrown out" of court on Friday. OK, I'm starting to get the picture now. Every time the defense presents an opinion contrary to the prosecution the Knox/Mellas/Huff/FoAK contingent actually believes that the defense wins! Apparently we've been giving them way too much credit - I suppose this is why Knox believes his daughter will be home for Thanksgiving. You know, a typical 3rd grader knows better; perhaps we should all chip in and send them the DVD Box Sets of Perry Mason and Law and Order?



Hi FBN. I note also that Curt was given the opportunity once again to get in the part that poor Amanda had to go through the summer without air conditioning, like 'most' Italians. I'd like to know in any case, what prison in the world has air conditioning installed for its inmates. It's a prison, not the Ritz! Perhaps, if the FOA hadn't been so aggressive in its public attacks on the Italians, Amanda may have long been allowed out on house arrest.

What annoys me most is that Curt Knox, father of the accused standing trial, (or some other Knox family member, whichever one is around at the time) has become the de facto official court correspondent for the major US networks! Is that what they consider to be 'fair and balanced' reporting? Would that be allowed to stand in a trial in the US?


I share Michael's and FBN's opinion completely. Not only is the video with Curt Knox 'reporting' another proof how the Knox/Mellas clan try to deliberately twist the facts to their convenience, but also a sad example how the big channels are unable to provide their audience with unbiased information. It seems awkward to me.

From time to time you can read comments from posters who feel for the Knox/Mellas family and most comments show that they believe this family is in complete denial of the situation. Difficult to believe for me. It is undeniable that the family members deliberately told lies to the cameras in order to convince the public of their daughter's innocence. I do not associate terms like innocent or naive with that family, more being manipulative and false.

Pitiful how the usual suspects "celebrate" the "bombshells" of the defence team. Oh boy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am
Posts: 295
Location: London
They are playing 'Una Paloma Blanca' over on Frank's channel. I think we can do better than that.

mul-)


I'm sure this famous American with Italian connections wouldn't mind me penning new words to his old song......

(Shame I could not find a way of including 'a scientific pleasure' in my reworking)

band-)

And now the end is near;
And so they'll face the final showdown.
My friends, I'll say it clear,
They'll both go down, of this I'm certain.

They had their week of fun,
Then traveled down that evil byway;
And more, much more than that,
They did it, FOA!

Regrets they've not expressed;
They lied and lied for their redemption
They did the deed but won't confess
They took a life without compassion.

They staged a crazy break-in
To pin all blame on poor old Rudy,
But more, much more than this,
Of course they're guilty!

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When they bit off more than they could chew.
But through it all they still denied
It was them that hateful night, they were not there,
It was not us, you'll hear them say.

They've laughed, they've posed and lied.
But now its time to face the jury.
And as their smiles subside,
Their fate will be the same as Rudy.

To think they did all that;
Let's hope they pay - in a big way,
In years no less than thirty,
They did it FOA!.

For what is the truth, why won't they say?
Admit it all to slash the years.
And say the things they truly feel;
And speak the words of why they killed.
Let records show they threw the blows -
And did it, FOA!

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 49
Overflow of stress; anxiety. Amanda showed it also - at the crime scene.

As far as Curt standing up and speaking for his daughter, he's being a father. I can't fault that. The newspapers know they are getting a slanted view.

It's just very, very sad. That any human being can treat another so viciously. That the beastality of man is not far from the surface.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Quote:
"Jonathan G. Parker, 19, of Fort Loudoun, Pa., was arraigned Tuesday one count of felony daytime burglary.
According to court records, Deputy P.D. Ware of the Berkeley County Sheriff's Department responded on Aug. 28 to the victim's home after she reported the burglary.
She told police that someone had broken into her home through a bedroom window.
There were open cabinets in her garage, and other signs of a burglar.
The victim later noticed that the intruder also used her computer to check his Facebook status, and his account was still open when she checked the computer."


:D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 158
As far as Rudy goes, I don't believe he was a willing participant in a murder either. However, he is guilty of aiding and abetting, by association and NOT assisting a young woman in the throes of death. There is every evidence that he was there and tried to staunch the bleeding. To allow someone to die such a tragic death makes Rudy just as guilty as those who actually did the deed.
I don't feel sorry for Guede and, if he continues to lie, he deserves to do his 30 years period. The Kerchers deserve closure and the truth, no matter how horrible the truth may be. I find it grating when some try and defend Rudy or propose a situation that does not fit the evidence. He was there, his dna was in abundance and he was still there after Meredith was stabbed. This makes him just as guilty. Meredith could be alive right now if Rudy had only called for help........


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
Not surprisingly, Vinci attributed the footprint to Rudy Guede, the Ivory Coast native who was convicted for his role in Kercher's murder last October. Vinci also showed how a bloody shoe print in Meredith's bedroom made by an athletic trainer should be attributed to Guede and not to Sollecito. But he failed to explain how Guede could have left both a shoeprint and a bare footprint. After court, when asked if it was feasible that Guede could have had one shoe and sock off and one shoe on, Vinci said, "In a situation like that, you could easily lose a shoe." But attorney for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said that Vinci's theory was "not credible." http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... anda-knox/

"In a situation like that, you could easily lose a shoe." Hmmm. And did he lose his sock too?
///////////


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
tigger3498 wrote:
As far as Rudy goes, I don't believe he was a willing participant in a murder either. However, he is guilty of aiding and abetting, by association and NOT assisting a young woman in the throes of death. There is every evidence that he was there and tried to staunch the bleeding. To allow someone to die such a tragic death makes Rudy just as guilty as those who actually did the deed.
I don't feel sorry for Guede and, if he continues to lie, he deserves to do his 30 years period. The Kerchers deserve closure and the truth, no matter how horrible the truth may be. I find it grating when some try and defend Rudy or propose a situation that does not fit the evidence. He was there, his dna was in abundance and he was still there after Meredith was stabbed. This makes him just as guilty. Meredith could be alive right now if Rudy had only called for help........



This is the problem I have. If RG was not a “willing participant,” then he is perhaps not guilty of murder but, rather, of some lesser crime. I do think that all three were somehow involved but I don’t think they were all necessarily equally responsible.

I would not need to know a motive in order to convict a defendant; it would be sufficient for me to be convinced that the accused did, in fact, commit the crime. But the question is, for each of the accused, what was the crime? I believe that AK, RS and RG were all involved but I don’t understand the nature of their involvement, and I would feel more comfortable calling it first degree murder, or second degree, or manslaughter, or accessory (whatever the Italian equivalents may be) in the case of each participant if I had a clearer idea of what occurred and why. I can readily imagine scenarios that involve one or two of the accused but I have not come up with a scenario that convinces me that all three are equally guilty of first degree murder.

For example, I can see where an argument between AK and MK could suddenly escalate out of control and RS could jump in to support his girl friend. But how does RG fit into this scenario? Would Rudy see this as a good opportunity to join in and commit a rape/murder? That is not credible to me. Nor does it seem credible that Rudy attempted to rape MK and the other two decided to help him kill her when she resisted.

Likewise, the ‘sex game gone wrong’ scenario makes no sense to me. Would AK and RS plot a violent and criminal [but nonlethal] ‘sex game’ with RG, someone they barely knew? On the other hand, would they do so without letting RG in on the plan, not knowing what his reaction would be? If Rudy wasn’t involved in the original game plan, I don’t find it credible that he would continue to participate when fun and games turned into a full scale knife attack. And in either case, would they do this knowing that Meredith would almost certainly report the assault to the police the next day?

Perhaps we will never really know the motives of the participants even if one or more of them speaks out - there are, after all, motives which are bizarre, psychotic, or so trivial that they make no sense, and these defendants do not have a history of telling the straight forward truth, anyway. This is unfortunate, though, because if one or two of the accused were “unwilling participants,” then they may suffer punishment that goes beyond their true level of responsibility.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
From Il Messaggero, quoting Monica Napoleoni on the investigation stage of the two breaks into the house.

PERUGIA-The breaks-in into the house of crime, close to solving.
Difficult to identify executors, but the motive remains.

It was enough to follow the trail of numbers, phone call by phone call, to get to the solution. Why the crime within a crime in the Meredith case, or rather the two raids at the house of murdered British student, the disappearance of her mattress and Amanda’s blanket, is marked by a phone number found on a card by police at the time of the first brake-in.
A card that was not in there before the raids. For the investigators, it appears that the first and second raids are directly related, the investigative work already conducted in the days before the theft is valid for the entire investigation. Through telephone records printouts, they were in fact able to arrive at three people suspected of having acted at night in the house of Mez. The investigation, conducted by the homicide section headed by Monica Napoleoni, starts then towards a possible solution, but with persons unknown. Investigators, however, believe that break-ins have not only executors, but also have instigators. The reason being the challenge to discredit the investigation by police into the death of Mez, it stems from a precise proper plan, probably studied by whom it wants to prove a different version, instead of the one that sees Rudy Guede, (already convicted) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the suspects charged of the murder. Who would be, will not be easy to determine.
http://tinyurl.com/n5x8ah


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Jools quoted/translated:
"The reason being the challenge to discredit the investigation by police into the death of Mez, it stems from a precise proper plan, probably studied by whom it wants to prove a different version, instead of the one that sees Rudy Guede, (already convicted) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the suspects charged of the murder. Who would be, will not be easy to determine."

Unless you happen to have been reading the writings of Harry Wilkens and LMT on Frank's blog. The two of them, plus Papa Doc?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm
Posts: 278
Location: Switzerland/Germany
Do not miss the comment section to Barbies article link! A poster named MacK-MacK has posted some excellent additions (well, harsh criticism is the better word) to her article. Its a MUST READ!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
petafly wrote:
Do not miss the comment section to Barbies article link! A poster named MacK-MacK has posted some excellent additions (well, harsh criticism is the better word) to her article. Its a MUST READ!


I think Barbie Nadeau has done her usual excellent and objective job of just telling it like it is. The hysterical criticisms hurled at her by The Entourage (remember, Edda Mellas referred to her as a "tacky" tabloid journalist on national television this summer) have been motivated by her refusal to take sides and her insistence on sticking to the facts. She is one of the rare professionals covering this case in English who has attended the trial sessions, who is fluent in Italian, who is well versed in both US and Italian culture, and who has resisted (or rather ignored?) the onslaught from the PR machine and just kept her eye on the ball. She has never claimed that the investigation was perfect, and had she, she would have been derelict in her duty.

Mack-Mack's posts add some valuable insights to what Barbie Nadeau has provided in her article.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Anadara wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
As far as Rudy goes, I don't believe he was a willing participant in a murder either. However, he is guilty of aiding and abetting, by association and NOT assisting a young woman in the throes of death. There is every evidence that he was there and tried to staunch the bleeding. To allow someone to die such a tragic death makes Rudy just as guilty as those who actually did the deed.
I don't feel sorry for Guede and, if he continues to lie, he deserves to do his 30 years period. The Kerchers deserve closure and the truth, no matter how horrible the truth may be. I find it grating when some try and defend Rudy or propose a situation that does not fit the evidence. He was there, his dna was in abundance and he was still there after Meredith was stabbed. This makes him just as guilty. Meredith could be alive right now if Rudy had only called for help........



This is the problem I have. If RG was not a “willing participant,” then he is perhaps not guilty of murder but, rather, of some lesser crime. I do think that all three were somehow involved but I don’t think they were all necessarily equally responsible.

I would not need to know a motive in order to convict a defendant; it would be sufficient for me to be convinced that the accused did, in fact, commit the crime. But the question is, for each of the accused, what was the crime? I believe that AK, RS and RG were all involved but I don’t understand the nature of their involvement, and I would feel more comfortable calling it first degree murder, or second degree, or manslaughter, or accessory (whatever the Italian equivalents may be) in the case of each participant if I had a clearer idea of what occurred and why. I can readily imagine scenarios that involve one or two of the accused but I have not come up with a scenario that convinces me that all three are equally guilty of first degree murder.

For example, I can see where an argument between AK and MK could suddenly escalate out of control and RS could jump in to support his girl friend. But how does RG fit into this scenario? Would Rudy see this as a good opportunity to join in and commit a rape/murder? That is not credible to me. Nor does it seem credible that Rudy attempted to rape MK and the other two decided to help him kill her when she resisted.

Likewise, the ‘sex game gone wrong’ scenario makes no sense to me. Would AK and RS plot a violent and criminal [but nonlethal] ‘sex game’ with RG, someone they barely knew? On the other hand, would they do so without letting RG in on the plan, not knowing what his reaction would be? If Rudy wasn’t involved in the original game plan, I don’t find it credible that he would continue to participate when fun and games turned into a full scale knife attack. And in either case, would they do this knowing that Meredith would almost certainly report the assault to the police the next day?

Perhaps we will never really know the motives of the participants even if one or more of them speaks out - there are, after all, motives which are bizarre, psychotic, or so trivial that they make no sense, and these defendants do not have a history of telling the straight forward truth, anyway. This is unfortunate, though, because if one or two of the accused were “unwilling participants,” then they may suffer punishment that goes beyond their true level of responsibility.


Hi Anaranda,

All three are on this together!

They all have exactly the same main charge against them and that is of being the presume killers of Meredith Kercher.

Guede convicted to 30 years on his chosen short type of trial and at present in jail awaiting his appeal in November.

The other two remaining also presume killers; have extra charges on themselves apart from the one they share with Guede.
In their chosen type of trial and approaching conclusion, Sollecito & Knox are facing the charges of theft and altering the crime scene. Knox got one more, very serious, additional charge that her two presume accomplices don’t have and that is of the slander committed against Patrick lumumba, because she name him as the rapist and murderer!

All three are considered being equally responsible for the main crime: sexual violence and aggravated murder.

According to the investigators, police, scientific, coroners, prosecutors, numerous judges during the investigation phase and a magistrate pre-trial judge all considered that the three should face trial accused as charge as everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
petafly wrote:
Do not miss the comment section to Barbies article link! A poster named MacK-MacK has posted some excellent additions (well, harsh criticism is the better word) to her article. Its a MUST READ!


Thanks petafly for the link. I totally agree with you. Mack-Mack comments are excellent!
pp-(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Jools quoted/translated:
"The reason being the challenge to discredit the investigation by police into the death of Mez, it stems from a precise proper plan, probably studied by whom it wants to prove a different version, instead of the one that sees Rudy Guede, (already convicted) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the suspects charged of the murder. Who would be, will not be easy to determine."

Unless you happen to have been reading the writings of Harry Wilkens and LMT on Frank's blog. The two of them, plus Papa Doc?

:)
No, don't think even Papa Doc would consider this insane pair good for the task!

I think the answer sits with whoever is responsible for placing a butter knife down the ravine! ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm
Posts: 278
Location: Switzerland/Germany
Quote:
I think Barbie Nadeau has done her usual excellent and objective job of just telling it like it is. The hysterical criticisms hurled at her by The Entourage (remember, Edda Mellas referred to her as a "tacky" tabloid journalist on national television this summer) have been motivated by her refusal to take sides and her insistence on sticking to the facts. She is one of the rare professionals covering this case in English who has attended the trial sessions, who is fluent in Italian, who is well versed in both US and Italian culture, and who has resisted (or rather ignored?) the onslaught from the PR maching and just kept her eye on the ball. She has never claimed that the investigation was perfect, and had she, she would have been derelict in her duty.

Yes. And she sometimes adds her personal impression to her articles, a) because she can 'cause she has one and b) she's a self-aware journalist (and deservedly so):
She writes e.g.: "While these obvious errors might well establish reasonable doubt in an American courtroom, it is unlikely they will have the same effect here in Italy, where defendants often seem to be presumed guilty until proven innocent."

It's like an ideal case here that someone like MacK-MacK doesn't share her opinion and adds like a second and third equivalent good article to it (and is allowed to do so). That didn't happen at the cook, ever...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Yes, Jools, they all have had the same principal charged made against them and, yes, RG has been convicted, but that does not mean that in each case it is the most appropriate charge. Just because they were all present in the house that night does not mean that they were all equal participants in the crime.

What evidence is there that “THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!”? While there is plenty of evidence to indicate that all three were somehow involved in the death, I am unaware of any evidence that demonstrates that there was a three party conspiracy and that “All three are on this together!” In fact, there is very little evidence that suggests a planned and coordinated crime.

As long as the three of them keep silent or continue to lie about the circumstances, it will be impossible to ever know what really happened and the specific involvement of each one. But my point was that, while it is not necessary to prove motive to get a conviction, an understanding of motivation would shed light on the degree of intent of each participant and perhaps suggest that first degree murder is not the correct charge for all of them.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Thanks for pointing out the excellent Mack-Mack comments.

His point that the pricey and omnipresent American PR efforts of Marriott et al are probably counterproductive in Italy is well taken and echoed by others.

My thought is however that "public relations" by definition has as the name implies the objective of modifying the impression that the mass audience of lay persons form about the trial and particularly about the the defendants.

IMHO, that objective *in the US* is certainly being aided and achieved by the usual shallow, sensationalist oriented, and pretty face presenter news that the US audience receives, thanks to the connection$$ and lackeys of Marriott in the mainstream media .

Am I incorrect to resent the fact that the only people that receive post trial day "air time" from NBC, ABC, or CBS is 'Courtly' Curt and 'Enuf Already' Edda.

I mean how unbiased and fair and balanced are their well coached, practiced, rehearsed, mantra- like rote replies to the usual mindlessly repetitive ever so deep penetrating questions.." How did the trial go today?" and "How is (by inference: tortured and abused) Amanda holding up?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Yummi wrote:
Quote:
'I suppose we then went shopping in Perugia and I must have bought something for dinner. I then went home and cooked some dinner', yet he can't remember what he bought and what he cooked (he hadn't even started smoking pot at this point).


Definitely if he bought fresh fish he would have had this task to think about "I went to choose a fish", not "I must have gone to buy something".

Quote:
Instead, he gives the impression he just threw something together without much effort (one gets visions of slinging a tv dinner in the microwave without even taking it out of the box...I know that's very un-Italian, but one sees at least the Italian equvilent of doing that anyway).


At least this could be a good motive for killing. No but, anyway I don't think the fish story is particularly important, given that it is certified as Amanda's fantasy in all cases. The fish dinner maybe really occurred but on a previous day. Usable for 'images' or 'visions' as she says.



Hi Yummi. I'll tell you what. Back in 2005 I went to Italy (Tuscany, near Piza) for a few weeks with my Italian girlfriend and stayed with her father. During that time I went around with nothing but Italians (my girlfriend's friends) and met many others. Of the many things I learned about Italians, one thing is that when you first meet them they will ask you two questions always and they will be the first questions they ask you, and those are, although not necessarily in this order:

1. How do you like Italy? (or variation of)

2. How do you like the food? (or variation of)

I came to learn that for Italians, food is a very serious matter and is sacrelised, to the point that Italian food is the other side of the coin to Italy itself, the two can't be separated in an Italian's mind.

I can imagine Raffaele wanting to impress Amanda with his country and culture by cooking her the odd special Italian meal. However, as you say, had he done so on the night in question he certainly would have remembered it. Especially when one considers Italian food to Italians is a very serious buisness,, even more so when you have to go out of your way to select the proper produce for the occassion (such as with fresh fish and you have to go to a specific place to get it on a day they may not actually have it), then hand prepare and cook, then serve it to the girlfriend you're trying to impress...that's an 'event'.

I think you are therefore bang on correct when you say Raffaele probably did cook fish for Amanda, but on 'another' night (although I still don't believe he gutted the thing). Especially when one considers, when looking at Amanda's version of her alibi, she seems to have a habit of moving events that happened in one time slot into a completely different time slot and even inserts events that happened on a completely different day (Amanda: We had a long erotic shower together, Raffaele cleaned my ears....Raffaele: We did not have a shower together that evening).

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Anadara wrote:
Yes, Jools, they all have had the same principal charged made against them and, yes, RG has been convicted, but that does not mean that in each case it is the most appropriate charge. Just because they were all present in the house that night does not mean that they were all equal participants in the crime.

What evidence is there that “THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!”? While there is plenty of evidence to indicate that all three were somehow involved in the death, I am unaware of any evidence that demonstrates that there was a three party conspiracy and that “All three are on this together!” In fact, there is very little evidence that suggests a planned and coordinated crime.

As long as the three of them keep silent or continue to lie about the circumstances, it will be impossible to ever know what really happened and the specific involvement of each one. But my point was that, while it is not necessary to prove motive to get a conviction, an understanding of motivation would shed light on the degree of intent of each participant and perhaps suggest that first degree murder is not the correct charge for all of them.


Yes, Anadara,

You believe as you say that 'all three were somehow involved in the death'. I believe is not too different from what they have been charged: complicity of murder.

IMO They conspired or where in complicity because they made the collective CHOICE of continuing with an aggression until Meredith was murdered. Here is some examples of the escalation of crimes committed. One threatening Meredith with the tip of a knife/s while other held her on one side and another on the other side while Meredith was fighting for her life and lots more horrific things that I will not go into…

Not any one of them stopped and help Meredith or call for help, all three decided, chose, conspired as accomplices that the knife would escalate from a threatening weapon to a murderous one, at this point they exercised a choice, one which was obviously fatal.

I believe, -perhaps Yummi can confirm- that under the charge of murder they all face, they are consider equal participants.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
‘Am I incorrect to resent the fact that the only people that receive post trial day "air time" from NBC, ABC, or CBS is 'Courtly' Curt and 'Enuf Already' Edda.’

To be fair, the other day Keith Miller of the NBC Today show did try to get a few words out of Mignini by the court room. It didn’t appear that Mignini had much to say to him. But before long Curt was on the screen saying something about there wasn’t a speck of evidence against Amanda. Keith then closed out the segment by saying that Amanda had several University of Washington friends travel to Italy, to try and keep her company, while she was in prison over the long hot (almost unbearable) summer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
DLW wrote:
‘Am I incorrect to resent the fact that the only people that receive post trial day "air time" from NBC, ABC, or CBS is 'Courtly' Curt and 'Enuf Already' Edda.’

To be fair, the other day Keith Miller of the NBC Today show did try to get a few words out of Mignini by the court room. It didn’t appear that Mignini had much to say to him. But before long Curt was on the screen saying something about there wasn’t a speck of evidence against Amanda. Keith then closed out the segment by saying that Amanda had several University of Washington friends travel to Italy, to try and keep her company, while she was in prison over the long hot (almost unbearable) summer.



If this trial were taking place in the US, I seriously doubt the US public would be getting play-by-play analysis from the family members of one of the suspects. On the other hand, I suppose most viewers can do the math and factor in the bias.

A friend of mine here in Seattle recently spent an evening with a couple of acquaintances she describes as "Republican Catholics". This couple brought up the name Amanda Knox and said they were friends of the family (yes, their kids go/went to Seattle Prep). In fact, they have contributed to the FOA cause. My friend, with whom I had never discussed this case, told the couple she had not really been following it, so the couple gave her the FOA-approved version of the Railroad Job From Hell. She listened and then told the couple her gut feeling was that Knox and Sollecito were somehow involved in Meredith's death. She said in her heart of hearts she just couldn't confidently state that Knox is 100% innocent. Apparently, the couple then tried to persuade her she was wrong to listen to her gut, in a way she said made her feel that their zeal was almost religious in nature. She joked at one point that she felt the subject matter was "Saint Amanda", and she said they made her feel uncomfortable.

I didn't get into the details of the case with her, except to correct some of the obvious falsehoods in the récit given by the couple -- such as the "fact" that Guede's sperm was found inside the victim.

However, I found her description of the supporters interesting. It tallies with my feeling that the conservative Catholic community has been tapped in this effort. In part it has to do with the Seattle Prep factor and how the Jesuit wing of the Church really doesn't need more black marks these days. Also, Seattle Prep admits many affluent students, many of them the sons and daughters of prominent business people -- hence the Republican Catholic moniker used by my friend. In fact, many of today's students at Prep aren't even Catholic. Amanda Knox isn't -- or at least she wasn't. It sometimes sounds as if she has converted to Catholicism since her arrest.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Jools wrote:
Anadara wrote:
Yes, Jools, they all have had the same principal charged made against them and, yes, RG has been convicted, but that does not mean that in each case it is the most appropriate charge. Just because they were all present in the house that night does not mean that they were all equal participants in the crime.

What evidence is there that “THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!”? While there is plenty of evidence to indicate that all three were somehow involved in the death, I am unaware of any evidence that demonstrates that there was a three party conspiracy and that “All three are on this together!” In fact, there is very little evidence that suggests a planned and coordinated crime.

As long as the three of them keep silent or continue to lie about the circumstances, it will be impossible to ever know what really happened and the specific involvement of each one. But my point was that, while it is not necessary to prove motive to get a conviction, an understanding of motivation would shed light on the degree of intent of each participant and perhaps suggest that first degree murder is not the correct charge for all of them.


Yes, Anadara,

You believe as you say that 'all three were somehow involved in the death'. I believe is not too different from what they have been charged: complicity of murder.

IMO They conspired or where in complicity because they made the collective CHOICE of continuing with an aggression until Meredith was murdered. Here is some examples of the escalation of crimes committed. One threatening Meredith with the tip of a knife/s while other held her on one side and another on the other side while Meredith was fighting for her life and lots more horrific things that I will not go into…

Not any one of them stopped and help Meredith or call for help, all three decided, chose, conspired as accomplices that the knife would escalate from a threatening weapon to a murderous one, at this point they exercised a choice, one which was obviously fatal.

I believe, -perhaps Yummi can confirm- that under the charge of murder they all face, they are consider equal participants.




It is your opinion that there was a conspiracy although there is no evidence of such. And it is your opinion that a “collective CHOICE” was made but there is no evidence of that, either. Merely being present and having some involvement in the events is not at all the same thing as being equally complicit in the murder.

Rudy claims he engaged in “consensual” sex and was then was in the bathroom when the murder occurred. I do not believe that this is a completely truthful representation of his part in the crime. But it is at least theoretically possible that what he says is true or partly true. And if what he claims really is true, then his crimes are failure to aid a gravely injured person and failure to inform the authorities. These are not commendable acts but surely they fall well short of first degree murder. Perhaps he participated in a sexual assault but not in the murder.

You seem to think that, since they all were charged with the same crime, then they must all be guilty of the same crime. I think that the situation could be more complicated. That is why I think that, although it is not necessary to prove motive, there won’t be any real justice until the actions, motivations and intent of each participant are understood. Maybe, if that time ever comes, it will turn out that there indeed was a conspiracy and that all three acted equally in the murder, but right now I have doubts about that.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
I believe, -perhaps Yummi can confirm- that under the charge of murder they all face, they are consider equal participants.


What I think is in cases like this where the implication can be proven, through a great amount of circumstantial evidence, but the actual role still remains unknown, basically two things may occur: 1) impossibility to assign a precise role has an influence on the penalty: the scenario carrying a 'lower' penalty is chosen as the proven one, so the person gets - let's say - 24 years instead of life 2) in case the failure to define his role is seen as: a meaning the person is dangerous or callous about the crime, as the result of a will to 'cover' or to 'claim' the whole action, then the highest penalty carried by the perpetrator is issued for the complicit. This may depend on defense's choices. The claiming of the action - even if not fully committed - can be interpreted as a green light for the stiffest punishment. The court says: since you claim it, it's your responsability.

There is something else to consider about the law. The fact that all three were in the murder's room is not obvious. This is not required by the law. Not necessarily they have to physically commit a murder to be guilty. Even if they were in another room they can be considered fully guilty in the same degree as the physical perpetrator, if just they didn't do any serious attempt to prevent him from committing a crime (not necessarily a murder) although they knew a crime could be going on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:18 am
Posts: 2
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/410331_knox19.html


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Anadara wrote:
--- snip ---
You seem to think that, since they all were charged with the same crime, then they must all be guilty of the same crime. I think that the situation could be more complicated. That is why I think that, although it is not necessary to prove motive, there won’t be any real justice until the actions, motivations and intent of each participant are understood. Maybe, if that time ever comes, it will turn out that there indeed was a conspiracy and that all three acted equally in the murder, but right now I have doubts about that.
--- snap ---


I have the feeling that Rudy Guede may "only" have been involved in the sexual assault and not in the murder, but I believe he could have easily avoided this situation (of being suspect of murder) if he would have told the truth (supposing he is innocent of murder - which is not clear) from the beginning - something that can be corroborated by the evidence and is believable. If there is one member of this trio who thinks to be "less guilty" than the rest, why would he/she choose to remain silent about it and risk to be charged with murder?

There seems to be a disruption in this trio which manifests in:
- Rudy Guede running off alone while the couple stayed together
- Rudy offering a different version of the events that took place while the couple tried to establish they were together all night at Raffaele's apartment
- Rudy's prints not being cleaned, instead the couple cleaned their own prints and traces from the crime scene, leaving Rudy's prints behind (intention?)
- the break-in that was staged to lead the investigators to a stranger (Rudy?) rather than somebody related to the house

Maybe Rudy's appeal will shed light into the motive of the attack. For now it looks like Rudy might have been invited to the "party" as "goat". If I believe he was there when Meredith was attacked (if not, why did he leave bloody shoe prints behind?) and didn't call for help, than in my opinion he is responsible for the events that took place and he is an accessory to the crime. It is as broad as it's long.

I would have loved to see this crime quickly resolved so that the Kercher family could have had some closure about what happened and maybe why. This must be so hard for them, not only to lose their daughter this way, but to witness this prolonged trial in a foreign country together with the lies of the suspects who are not only dishonest and not believable, but who seem to be emotionless. I feel for the parents of Meredith Kercher and her family.

Lots of people talking about the length of the trial and how to make it up to the defendants in case they are found innocent: they will get an indemnity and their life back, while the Kercher family won't get anything. I honestly don't remember any trial where the victim has been so forgotten and overshadowed than in this one. So sad.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Hi Anadara,

If RG was not a "willing participant", he
a) would have stopped the others from attacking meredith (he is much taller and stronger
then the virginlike manga driven knife collector)
b) he surely would not have spent the rest of the night chilling out in a disco instead of calling
the cops
c) he would not have fled the country
d) he would have called an ambulance, trying to save her life
c) he would have spilled the beans

What still worries me though is the fact that curatolo has spotted only ak and rs


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
[quote="Skeptical Bystander


In fact, many of today's students at Prep aren't even Catholic. Amanda Knox isn't -- or at least she wasn't. It sometimes sounds as if she has converted to Catholicism since her arrest.[/quote]

Yes, on her myspace - profile, she wrote: religion: agnostic
I don't believe she really converted to catholicism or any other christian religion; she is clever
enough to use her brain


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:48 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Thanks, petafly, for the link to the comment. It was very interesting to read.


Posted by Harry R. Wilkens at 9/19/09 10:53 a.m.

In today's interview, Curt Knox sees "the light on the end of the tunnel":
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5322774n

Sometimes the light at the end of tunnel is a coming train.


Posted by Harry R. Wilkens at 9/20/09 4:09 p.m.
--- snip ---
The media war going on (with my Facebook and almost 2.000 followers disabled!) shows clearly that now Mignini is doing everything to keep us silent. He succeeded already with some local journalists.
--- snap ---

I cannot overlook the double standard applied here: Harry seems to be comfortable with Candace's censorship. Censorship is due to a lack of argument and a need to hide.

Candace's blog celebrating that the knife has been "thrown out" la-)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archi ... 5#comments
bricks-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
martin wrote:
Hi Anadara,

If RG was not a "willing participant", he
a) would have stopped the others from attacking meredith (he is much taller and stronger
then the virginlike manga driven knife collector)
b) he surely would not have spent the rest of the night chilling out in a disco instead of calling
the cops
c) he would not have fled the country
d) he would have called an ambulance, trying to save her life
c) he would have spilled the beans

What still worries me though is the fact that curatolo has spotted only ak and rs


I completely agree to you that his behaviour didn't help, but once he decided not to call the police, I actually think it has logic what he did: he tried to provide himself with an alibi rather than to chill out in the disco (he possibly thought that the only thing everybody would remember is that he was there, not when he arrived exactly) and then he fled the country when he thought that he couldn't prove that he was "innocent of murder". You surely must be a very special person to do all that. EDIT: I believe he is guilty and involved, I just have doubts that he was aware that murdering Meredith was planned to be the end of the story or that things were likely to escalate the way they did. What he did is in contrast to what the couple did.

I read somewhere that Rudy sold drugs in order to make a living, I also read the hypothesis that Raffaele might have bought pot from him (maybe on a regular basis). Could that ever be confirmed? The last thing I read about regarding the subject was that both - Amanda and Raffaele - allege not having known Rudy Guede previously.


Last edited by Nell on Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Latest entry from Button, on the eclectic chapbook blog:

Saturday, September 19
Mez: 6.5 Inches of Torment (5#) -
Meredith Kercher Murder Case -

The centerpiece of today's proceedings was the presentation of a large butcher knife with a 6.5" blade which was allegedly used to terrorize and stab the victim through her throat. But, according to forensic experts, in addition to being repeatedly stabbed, the victim was then also strangled.

Both defendants continue to deny wrongdoing, although their alibis contain numerous inconsistencies. And, as Barbie Nadeau points out in her most recent article, Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mixed with Kercher’s blood in several places inside 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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1323
martin wrote:
If RG was not a "willing participant", he
a) would have stopped the others from attacking meredith (he is much taller and stronger
then the virginlike manga driven knife collector)
b) he surely would not have spent the rest of the night chilling out in a disco instead of calling
the cops
c) he would not have fled the country
d) he would have called an ambulance, trying to save her life
c) he would have spilled the beans

I totally agree with these points (except that RG is about the same height as RS). Besides RG had his chance in court and chose to tell lie after lie. I also agree that it is possible that RG didn't handle a knife. The opposite is also true, that it is possible that he did. The wounds point to multiple knifes being used. Anyway, the judge explained the reasoning for RG sentence really well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
teacher wrote:
I don't understand the photos just above. In the two, the man is holding a totally different knife from the one in the white box.
And the photo Michael posted of Amanda: isn't that one from the day she testified in court? She's got the cold sore and that looks like the same shirt she wore that day. (?)


I am puzzled about these two points raised by Teacher: the photo Michael posted goes back quite a while, as T. notes, evidenced by the shirt worn by Knox and from the cold sore.
No doubt she was feeling just as stressed the other day when she was shown the knife. But although the blouse/top she is wearing is the one she had under her red Beatles zip-up windcheater, just what is this knife she is being shown, and who is the man showing her the knife? The knife is by no means the one "religiously" protected /shown / examined in court at the latest hearings.
Any ideas?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm
Posts: 186
Lady Macbeth: "Out, damned spot! out, I say! .... What! will these hands ne’er be clean?"

The knife isn't going anywhere, it's in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
max wrote:
martin wrote:
If RG was not a "willing participant", he
a) would have stopped the others from attacking meredith (he is much taller and stronger
then the virginlike manga driven knife collector)
b) he surely would not have spent the rest of the night chilling out in a disco instead of calling
the cops
c) he would not have fled the country
d) he would have called an ambulance, trying to save her life
c) he would have spilled the beans

I totally agree with these points (except that RG is about the same height as RS). Besides RG had his chance in court and chose to tell lie after lie. I also agree that it is possible that RG didn't handle a knife. The opposite is also true, that it is possible that he did. The wounds point to multiple knifes being used. Anyway, the judge explained the reasoning for RG sentence really well.



It's also worth remembering, whatever one thinks of his testimony and his credibility as a witness, one of our witnesses does place two knives at the crime scene and in the hands of the assailants. Kokomani had Amanda pulling out a knife from her bag and brandishing it, while he also maintains Raffaele chased after him with his own knife. That makes two knives and puts them in the hands of Amanda and Raffaele respectively. There are issues with some of Kokomani's testimony and without doubt, he certainly is a shall we say - 'eccentric' character. However, there can be no doubt he was actually there since both his mobile phone and his noting of the broken down car and repair truck, something not released as information to the public prior to Kokomani's coming forward, place him at the scene. It also makes Kokomani's car the primary candidate for being the car in the entrance to the cottage drive that the mechanic says he saw. Aside from being Raffaele's, I can't see who elses it may have been. But I doubt it was Raffaele's since two witnesses heard multiple people running from the scene. If they'd of had a car, they'd have driven from the scene. Kokomani's testimony of two knives also supports and is supported by the actual evidence. This is the fact that while there is a knife with Meredith's DNA on the blade, which really only could have come from it being used on her, the stain on the bed sheet also indicates another shorter knife, one shorter then that of the kitchen knife. Now, interestingly, Kokomani's statements indicated that the knives he saw carried by Amanda and Raffaele had him stating that one of the knives was smaller then the other. Again, the prospect that there may have been more then one knife was not public knowledge before Kokomani came forward.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Tiziano wrote:
teacher wrote:
I don't understand the photos just above. In the two, the man is holding a totally different knife from the one in the white box.
And the photo Michael posted of Amanda: isn't that one from the day she testified in court? She's got the cold sore and that looks like the same shirt she wore that day. (?)


I am puzzled about these two points raised by Teacher: the photo Michael posted goes back quite a while, as T. notes, evidenced by the shirt worn by Knox and from the cold sore.
No doubt she was feeling just as stressed the other day when she was shown the knife. But although the blouse/top she is wearing is the one she had under her red Beatles zip-up windcheater, just what is this knife she is being shown, and who is the man showing her the knife? The knife is by no means the one "religiously" protected /shown / examined in court at the latest hearings.
Any ideas?


Hi Tiziano. As for the photo, that was included in one of the articles in one of the nationals (I forget which one) reporting on the trial the day I posted it. It's quite possible it's simply a stock photo from a few months ago that they've reused. Cost cutting in progress by the nationals?

I think maybe that knife was being shown as a comparison, perhaps as an idea to show the type of knife that was 'not' used? That sort of knife would leave very distinctive features on any body it was used on. What is certain, is that hunting/combat knife had nothing to do with Meredith's murder.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Jools quoted/translated:
"The reason being the challenge to discredit the investigation by police into the death of Mez, it stems from a precise proper plan, probably studied by whom it wants to prove a different version, instead of the one that sees Rudy Guede, (already convicted) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the suspects charged of the murder. Who would be, will not be easy to determine."

Unless you happen to have been reading the writings of Harry Wilkens and LMT on Frank's blog. The two of them, plus Papa Doc?


Raffaele's team would find it much easier. Just sayin'.
wh-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
Steve Say from the West Seattle Herald.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/0 ... al-resumes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm
Posts: 236
Location: San Francisco
petafly wrote:
Quote:
I think Barbie Nadeau has done her usual excellent and objective job of just telling it like it is. The hysterical criticisms hurled at her by The Entourage (remember, Edda Mellas referred to her as a "tacky" tabloid journalist on national television this summer) have been motivated by her refusal to take sides and her insistence on sticking to the facts. She is one of the rare professionals covering this case in English who has attended the trial sessions, who is fluent in Italian, who is well versed in both US and Italian culture, and who has resisted (or rather ignored?) the onslaught from the PR maching and just kept her eye on the ball. She has never claimed that the investigation was perfect, and had she, she would have been derelict in her duty.

Yes. And she sometimes adds her personal impression to her articles, a) because she can 'cause she has one and b) she's a self-aware journalist (and deservedly so):
She writes e.g.: "While these obvious errors might well establish reasonable doubt in an American courtroom, it is unlikely they will have the same effect here in Italy, where defendants often seem to be presumed guilty until proven innocent."

It's like an ideal case here that someone like MacK-MacK doesn't share her opinion and adds like a second and third equivalent good article to it (and is allowed to do so). That didn't happen at the cook, ever...


It seems to me that past articles by Nadeau have been more "personalized" with her own view of the underlying realities of the case, although always presented in the most reasonable and professional manner. This article is truly just bare bones objective reporting of what happened, with no signs of any editorial interpretation. My sense was, when I first read it, that she'd taken to heart, to some extent, the nasty things that had been said about her reporting by FoAKers. She'd backed off into an unassailable neutrality to protect her own reputation. (Which is understandable.)

The comments by MackMack (and his to Frumpycat) in response to Nadeau's statement about "presumed guilt" served to illuminate a great deal beyond what she had said, especially about comparative law. So, yes, it did end up being "ideal" and very rewarding information at this point in the trial, at least for me, especially in understanding why more "questionable" evidence might be accepted in the Italian court system than it would be in the U.S.

Didi


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am
Posts: 257
Location: Seattle
DLW, thanks for the link to the West Seattle Herald article. Don't read it unless you want your blood to boil thanks to CMellas talking on and on about Meredith's sexual activity. Just when you think this clan can go no lower.

Also, great info in the comments section of the Daily Beast article. Looks like frumpy cat should be renamed bloody cat. Losing the battle of the minds badly, fc, dude.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
jodyodyo wrote:
DLW, thanks for the link to the West Seattle Herald article. Don't read it unless you want your blood to boil thanks to CMellas talking on and on about Meredith's sexual activity. Just when you think this clan can go no lower.

Also, great info in the comments section of the Daily Beast article. Looks like frumpy cat should be renamed bloody cat. Losing the battle of the minds badly, fc, dude.


Well put, Jody. The comments are both shocking and counter-factual on many levels. They still talk about evidence being "thrown out". I guess they have been reading too much of Candace Dempsey's drivel. Has anyone asked them why, if the knife was "thrown out" a year ago last April as they have claimed, it was being examined in court at the end of last week?

The only new information from Steve Shay is that Amanda Knox is not studying Chinese and four other languages, as we thought, but rather Japanese and German. I guess it is understandable that Chinese would be confused with Japanese; they are both Asian languages.

As for Frumpycat, he certainly made an ass of himself over there on the DB website. But to those of us who had the brief pleasure of "talking" with him as he ironed his shirts for work and laid out all of his personal devices, this comes as no real surprise.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
martin wrote:
Hi Anadara,

If RG was not a "willing participant", he
a) would have stopped the others from attacking meredith (he is much taller and stronger
then the virginlike manga driven knife collector)
b) he surely would not have spent the rest of the night chilling out in a disco instead of calling
the cops
c) he would not have fled the country
d) he would have called an ambulance, trying to save her life
c) he would have spilled the beans

What still worries me though is the fact that curatolo has spotted only ak and rs


Guede’s or his defence claims were just that, a theory! A theory that defied logic and was not believed by the judge in his trial. If as Anaranda says: ‘Perhaps he participated in a sexual assault but not in the murder’ then that makes him an accomplice to murder, because he did absolutely nothing to prevent it and as a result Meredith died. Perhaps if he stopped participating before it escalated to that fatal moment, maybe Meredith could still be alive. His participation during the assault, then abandoning the victim and his behaviour afterwards… the different statements accommodating elements to fit his theoretical claims with the new evidence coming out during the investigation phase, points to him as having taken part in murder.

Talking about theories : All three are into an agreed plan, a pact, to never speak the truth, lots of I don’t remember when memory fails, dish out lies, never directly accuse one another, except, in the event of getting arrested some sort of consensual allowance slightly blame each other if necessary with ridiculous theories that would be impossible to proof, i.e.: (maybe she did it or gave my knife to some guy she went to do laundry in the morning and he did it, Patrick did it, the one who broke through the window did it, the Italian guy standing in the room with a knife did it, etc) idiotic and unbelievable theories that will never hold up, but will hopefully get the job of confusing so much that maybe they thought it be enough not to get a conviction and continue with it all the way, at least hold it till the appeals court.

Crazy one but theoretically possible?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
DLW wrote:
Steve Say from the West Seattle Herald.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/0 ... al-resumes

Thanks for the link. Haven't read it yet, I got such a shock when I clicked, that I had to close the page!

Couldn't they find a better picture? She looks like a Psycho!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Totally OT, but some thanks and a comment on journalism.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
I stopped just reading the newspapers after the start of the Gulf War.

I started reading posts from soldiers posted on Usenet, I read the Bagdad blogger.

What they wrote was a whole other story from that put out by the media. Even though they swore and couldn't necessarily write good English, I knew what they said was TRUE or HEARTFELT.

Newspapers these days have a problem. Bye bye Seattle PI and plenty of others.

But working reporters still have a place in this world. I'm not gonna attempt to explain how to fix the problem in the industry cos I don't know the answer.

Thankyou, in no particular order.

Barbie Nadeau
Andrea Vogt
Ann Wise

You're all superb at what you do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

The only new information from Steve Shay is that Amanda Knox is not studying Chinese and four other languages, as we thought, but rather Japanese and German. I guess it is understandable that Chinese would be confused with Japanese; they are both Asian languages.


Skeptical, any idea if she is fluent in german?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
martin wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

The only new information from Steve Shay is that Amanda Knox is not studying Chinese and four other languages, as we thought, but rather Japanese and German. I guess it is understandable that Chinese would be confused with Japanese; they are both Asian languages.


Skeptical, any idea if she is fluent in german?


I believe she studied German before going to Italy. Her mother was born in Germany and had family there. AK got an internship at the Bundestaag through her Uncle; she reported on myspace that she found she was able to read Harry Potter in German. She seemed sort of surprised. I don't know if she studied German at the UW, at Prep, or at both places.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Totally OT, but some thanks and a comment on journalism.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Brian S. wrote:
I stopped just reading the newspapers after the start of the Gulf War.

I started reading posts from soldiers posted on Usenet, I read the Bagdad blogger.

What they wrote was a whole other story from that put out by the media. Even though they swore and couldn't necessarily write good English, I knew what they said was TRUE or HEARTFELT.

Newspapers these days have a problem. Bye bye Seattle PI and plenty of others.

But working reporters still have a place in this world. I'm not gonna attempt to explain how to fix the problem in the industry cos I don't know the answer.

Thankyou, in no particular order.

Barbie Nadeau
Andrea Vogt
Ann Wise

You're all superb at what you do.


I agree with you Brian. Working reporters still have a place and in fact are more vital than ever. Otherwise, we have to rely on Curt Knox and other far from neutral commentators for information about what goes on in the courtroom.

And the trio you have cited has been consistently excellent: objective, fair, tough and honest. They are not the only ones, but they are the only Americans reporting on this case who I would say this of. The others have been just awful, with the possible exception of local writer Charles Mudede, who appears to have stopped covering this case. For those who are new, he is the associate editor of the Stranger, a local Seattle alternative paper. He wrote about being harassed by Marriott, and then he wrote no more. He actually went to Perugia, which alone makes him a diligent reporter. So did Kathi Goertzen. I and others in Seattle are waiting to see if she will use FOA- and Marriott-approved sources and information exclusively, or whether she will step up to the plate a deliver what thepublic has the right to expect of any reporter worthy of the name: an objective, fair, tough and honest report on what she saw in Perugia.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Jools wrote:
DLW wrote:
Steve Say from the West Seattle Herald.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/0 ... al-resumes

Thanks for the link. Haven't read it yet, I got such a shock when I clicked, that I had to close the page!

Couldn't they find a better picture? She looks like a Psycho!


Not the best photo, but have you had a good look at yourself lately? That tie is horrible. Did no one ever teach you that it is bad taste to match your tie with the wallpaper? :lol:

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Jools wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Anadara,

If RG was not a "willing participant", he
a) would have stopped the others from attacking meredith (he is much taller and stronger
then the virginlike manga driven knife collector)
b) he surely would not have spent the rest of the night chilling out in a disco instead of calling
the cops
c) he would not have fled the country
d) he would have called an ambulance, trying to save her life
c) he would have spilled the beans

What still worries me though is the fact that curatolo has spotted only ak and rs


Guede’s or his defence claims were just that, a theory! A theory that defied logic and was not believed by the judge in his trial. If as Anaranda says: ‘Perhaps he participated in a sexual assault but not in the murder’ then that makes him an accomplice to murder, because he did absolutely nothing to prevent it and as a result Meredith died. Perhaps if he stopped participating before it escalated to that fatal moment, maybe Meredith could still be alive. His participation during the assault, then abandoning the victim and his behaviour afterwards… the different statements accommodating elements to fit his theoretical claims with the new evidence coming out during the investigation phase, points to him as having taken part in murder.

Talking about theories : All three are into an agreed plan, a pact, to never speak the truth, lots of I don’t remember when memory fails, dish out lies, never directly accuse one another, except, in the event of getting arrested some sort of consensual allowance slightly blame each other if necessary with ridiculous theories that would be impossible to proof, i.e.: (maybe she did it or gave my knife to some guy she went to do laundry in the morning and he did it, Patrick did it, the one who broke through the window did it, the Italian guy standing in the room with a knife did it, etc) idiotic and unbelievable theories that will never hold up, but will hopefully get the job of confusing so much that maybe they thought it be enough not to get a conviction and continue with it all the way, at least hold it till the appeals court.

Crazy one but theoretically possible?



Whatever you say, Jools, although you are a bit short on evidence to support the conspiracy theory or the “collective CHOICE.” Still, I’m willing to assume that your understanding of Italian law is far, far better than mine. So, if you say that a rapist who does not intervene to prevent a subsequent murder is, by law, as guilty of that murder as is the person who wields the knife, why then it must surely be so. Though one would think that there would be some requirement to prove that the murder was a direct outcome of the sexual assault and closely linked to it in time.

Is the relevant part of Italian law [concerning failure to intervene to prevent a crime] to be found somewhere on PMF? I’ve looked around but didn’t see it. I’m not sure that I could make much of it anyway, being neither a lawyer nor literate in Italian, but I would give it a try.

In the meantime, I will continue to maintain an open mind about the relationship among AK, RS and RG, the circumstances that brought them together on the fatal night, and the roles played by each of them in the crime.

My name is Anadara, not Anaranda.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Anadara wrote:
Jools wrote:
martin wrote:
Hi Anadara,

If RG was not a "willing participant", he
a) would have stopped the others from attacking meredith (he is much taller and stronger
then the virginlike manga driven knife collector)
b) he surely would not have spent the rest of the night chilling out in a disco instead of calling
the cops
c) he would not have fled the country
d) he would have called an ambulance, trying to save her life
c) he would have spilled the beans

What still worries me though is the fact that curatolo has spotted only ak and rs


Guede’s or his defence claims were just that, a theory! A theory that defied logic and was not believed by the judge in his trial. If as Anaranda says: ‘Perhaps he participated in a sexual assault but not in the murder’ then that makes him an accomplice to murder, because he did absolutely nothing to prevent it and as a result Meredith died. Perhaps if he stopped participating before it escalated to that fatal moment, maybe Meredith could still be alive. His participation during the assault, then abandoning the victim and his behaviour afterwards… the different statements accommodating elements to fit his theoretical claims with the new evidence coming out during the investigation phase, points to him as having taken part in murder.

Talking about theories : All three are into an agreed plan, a pact, to never speak the truth, lots of I don’t remember when memory fails, dish out lies, never directly accuse one another, except, in the event of getting arrested some sort of consensual allowance slightly blame each other if necessary with ridiculous theories that would be impossible to proof, i.e.: (maybe she did it or gave my knife to some guy she went to do laundry in the morning and he did it, Patrick did it, the one who broke through the window did it, the Italian guy standing in the room with a knife did it, etc) idiotic and unbelievable theories that will never hold up, but will hopefully get the job of confusing so much that maybe they thought it be enough not to get a conviction and continue with it all the way, at least hold it till the appeals court.

Crazy one but theoretically possible?



Whatever you say, Jools, although you are a bit short on evidence to support the conspiracy theory or the “collective CHOICE.” Still, I’m willing to assume that your understanding of Italian law is far, far better than mine. So, if you say that a rapist who does not intervene to prevent a subsequent murder is, by law, as guilty of that murder as is the person who wields the knife, why then it must surely be so. Though one would think that there would be some requirement to prove that the murder was a direct outcome of the sexual assault and closely linked to it in time.

Is the relevant part of Italian law [concerning failure to intervene to prevent a crime] to be found somewhere on PMF? I’ve looked around but didn’t see it. I’m not sure that I could make much of it anyway, being neither a lawyer nor literate in Italian, but I would give it a try.

In the meantime, I will continue to maintain an open mind about the relationship among AK, RS and RG, the circumstances that brought them together on the fatal night, and the roles played by each of them in the crime.

My name is Anadara, not Anaranda.


Anadara,
Michael has just posted some materials on the legal context that you might find interesting. Look in the general index. Also, if you visit earlier versions of our board, you'll find lots of discussion about good samaritan laws in countries with a civil law tradition, such as Italy and France. Failure to assist a person in mortal danger is considered to be a very serious crime in some countries.

I may be misreading Jools here, but I don't think she was doing anything more than putting forward a theory in collegial fashion.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Hello Everyone,

I'm sure you've all read the excellent discourse on the Italian legal system by MacK-MacK in the comments section of Barbie Nadeau's article on the Daily Beast. I consider them such essential reading, that I've preserved them for posterity on PMF in one of our reference forums. Now, while MacK-MacK makes some very astute comments about the Knox family PR machine, I felt his/her posts were overwhelmingly about explaining civil law as opposed to UK/US common law. I have therefore filed them in the Legal Context forum in the CODICE DI PROCEDURA PENALE Announcement thread. The post is DISCOURSE ON THE ITALIAN CIVIL LAW SYSTEM

If you have not as yet read MacK-MacK's posts, then I very strongly suggest you add them to your reading list and refer to them often in future. They are actually the best and most easily understandable instruction on Italian civil law I've seen to date.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skep wrote:
Failure to assist a person in mortal danger is considered to be a very serious crime in some countries.



Yes, a very good example of that is the death of Princess Diana in the car crash in the Paris tunnel. Members may recall that shortly afterwards, several press photographers were arrested under suspicion of being present just after the accident and failing to give aid to those injured in the car wreck, instead taking photographs while people lay dying. After an investigation, either due to their being judged innocent or a lack of evidence, the French dropped the charges. However, had they been charged and found guilty, they'd have been in serious trouble. It would have been a prison sentence.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Today I talked with my brother-in-law about the case. He was a big shot in the justice department of the European Commisssion. He told me they are doomed.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Sort of off-topic, but sort of on-topic. I've taken the liberty of posting a summary of a new scientific paper published today on how handwriting samples can provide better indications of lying then a lie detector test. I felt this is of interest in the context of the diaries and letters of the accused, all of which have been rather controversial in their content:


The Handwriting of Liars
09:12, Medicine & Health/Psychology & Psychiatry

Forget about unreliable polygraph lie detectors for identifying liars. A new study claims the best way to find out if someone is a liar is to look at their handwriting, rather than analyzing their word choice, eye movements and body language.

The study by Gil Luria and Sara Rosenblum from the University of Haifa in Israel, tested 34 volunteers, who were each asked to write two stories using a system called ComPET (Computerized Penmanship Evaluation Tool), which comprises a piece of paper positioned on a computer tablet and a wireless electronic pen with a pressure-sensitive tip. Using the system, the subjects wrote one paragraph about a true memory, and one that was made up.

The researchers analyzed the writing and discovered that in the untrue paragraphs the subjects on average pressed down harder on the paper and made significantly longer strokes and taller letters than in the true paragraphs. The differences were not visible to the eye, but were detectable by computer analysis. There were no differences in writing speed.

The scientists suggest that handwriting changes because the brain is forced to work harder since it is inventing information, and this interferes with normal writing.

People hesitate when they lie, Dr Richard Wiseman, a psychology professor at the University of Hertfordshire told the Daily Mail, and some companies use this knowledge to check how long people take to tick boxes in online surveys. The new research is promising, he said, but needs larger scale testing.

The study was published in the Applied Cognitive Psychology journal. Research is in its early stages but ComPET could one day find practical application in testing the truthfulness of handwritten insurance claims or loan applications, or in handwriting tests during job interviews. Handwriting analyses could also be combined with lie detectors to identify whether or not people were lying.

More information: Comparing the handwriting behaviours of true and false writing with computerized handwriting measures, Applied Cognitive Psychology, DOI: 10.1002/acp.1621

© 2009 PhysOrg.com



PHYSORG

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Anadara wrote:
Quote:
My name is Anadara, not Anaranda.


Apologies for mistyping your name.
Jools


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
martin wrote:
Today I talked with my brother-in-law about the case. He was a big shot in the justice department of the European Commisssion. He told me they are doomed.



Hi Martin. Did he offer any explanation as to why he thought so?

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

Quote:
So, if you say that a rapist who does not intervene to prevent a subsequent murder is, by law, as guilty of that murder as is the person who wields the knife, why then it must surely be so. Though one would think that there would be some requirement to prove that the murder was a direct outcome of the sexual assault and closely linked to it in time.


I just intervene to say, i think in the Italian jurisprudence there are also mechanisms to determine a grade of participation from behaviors ex post, depending on his subsequent actions. there are also concepts of being "associated in crime" to somebody. If you are still associated to somebody after he has committed a different crime, this means you are subscribing to that crime also and this can be interpretd as a complicity, also in relation to the open system of appeals and demands for re-trials in the Italian system. A judge has the task to determine whether a person was still a willful participant when the crime was committed, or not or in what degree. In this assessment, the defensive line of the accused is determinant. If the accused refuses to distance himself from the worse action, there is a legitimacy in convicting him for that action. And also when building a scenario for the whole action, a judge tries to determine which was the most llikely degree of envolvement of the defendant in regards to his 'will' to carry on the action: the law extends the criminal charge to those who 'support morally' the crime, which means: those who contribute with their presence in the action. So a combination of: creating conditions for a crima, giving moral support to a crime, acting as still going on protecting and covering the action after the crime, refuse to distance himself from the committed action during the trial: all these are elements that can be part of the judge's reasoning. The consequential relation of sexual violence and rape is rather a situation, a scenario to be showna and demonstrated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:43 am 
Offline

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

‘Thanks for the link. Haven't read it yet, I got such a shock when I clicked, that I had to close the page!
Couldn't they find a better picture? She looks like a Psycho!’

Hi Jools. The picture did it for me too. However I got better vibes from it. Watching a smiling Amanda in a colorful, brightly naturally light room, while holding her little niece on her lap, attentively watching Amanda typing away on her laptop. It doesn’t get any more family wholesome than this. She could even have been typing a sequel to her baby brother story for all we know. However, I think Steve Shay did miss out on one opportunity. If the Knox/Mellas family could have smuggled out a picture of Amanda sweating her buns off in that hot prison. That might have helped a little more to mobilize the locals to their cause.
Even Chris Mellas managed to add a few words of wisdom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

I may be misreading Jools here, but I don't think she was doing anything more than putting forward a theory in collegial fashion.



I’m sure that you are quite correct to characterize this as collegial theorizing. But I still don’t see what evidence there is to support Jools’s assertion that “everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!” Really, the evidence provides no indication of this, although certainly it is a possibility that should be kept in mind. As a consequence, it is my collegial theory that we should consider the possibility that AK, RS and RG were not equally involved in the planning [if any], the perpetration, and the cover up of the murder. And, furthermore that we should consider the possibility that they are not all equally guilty of murder.

I will try to read up on “failure to assist a person in mortal danger.” Clearly, though, not assisting the victim of a car accident is quite different from not stepping in to stop a savage knife attack. Still, even if RG did not participate directly in the murder, it seems obvious that he should at least have gone screaming into the street to raise the alarm. That is why I said earlier that I did not hold him blameless though I was prepared to consider him perhaps less guilty than the other two.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Anadara wrote:
I will try to read up on “failure to assist a person in mortal danger.” Clearly, though, not assisting the victim of a car accident is quite different from not stepping in to stop a savage knife attack. Still, even if RG did not participate directly in the murder, it seems obvious that he should at least have gone screaming into the street to raise the alarm. That is why I said earlier that I did not hold him blameless though I was prepared to consider him perhaps less guilty than the other two.


Oh, certainly. While failing to aid victims in a car accident may offer a stiff sentence (if individuals in that accident died), one wouldn't be branded as a "murderer" (although in the eyes of the law it's seen as a kind of murder). But, should you be standing by while someone murders another and do nothing, even if you don't take part, then you certainly are branded a murderer. There are options available to you in the eyes of the law. If you don't step in to stop it in fear for your own life you can at least run away to call for help. At the very least, after the fact you can go to the police to tell them what you know. Finally, if you fail to do any of those things, if the police come to you, question you, arrest you, put you on trial and still you say nothing, then that makes you as guilty as them. You have gone beyond simply doing nothing to actually aiding the murderers in their crime and for no justifiable reason. That makes you as guilty of the crime as they. I see it that way and the civil law system certainly sees it that way.

As a side note, to an extent, common law in the US also sees compliance in a criminal enterprise that results in murder, even if that wasn't the intent and you didn't yourself commit the murder, as still making you culpable. If say in the US you and I decided to go and commit an armed robbery together, even though before the robbery we may both have agreed the weapons would be just for show, but then I turned around and shot the security guard, not only would I be charged and found guilty of murder but so would you, even though it was established you had no intent and you didn't pull the trigger.

The UK is different. While the UK also has common law, only the individual that pulls the trigger is charged with murder (unless it can be evidenced that you had preplanned that to happen beforehand or told that individual to pull the trigger during the crime).

Although, within common law in terms of sentencing, mitigating circumstances are brought into play. Two people rob a bank, one shoots someone dead, even though both are convicted of murder, the one that pulls the trigger will get a longer sentence.

In Italy, it works the other way around. On conviction of murder all are sentenced to life to start with, but the one less culpable gets an earlier time in which they can apply for parole.

I think that's about right. Someone will correct me if it's not.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Michael wrote:
martin wrote:
Today I talked with my brother-in-law about the case. He was a big shot in the justice department of the European Commisssion. He told me they are doomed.



Hi Martin. Did he offer any explanation as to why he thought so?

Hi Michael, I just talked 5 minutes with him, he told me that they have to "win" this trial (not very probable), because the court of appeals later only examines wether the rights of the defendants haven't been violated and if the evidence has been presented according to criminal law procedure. He also told me that the defence team was not able to explain away all the circumstancial evidence and the continuous lying in combination with r's desicion not to
take the stand draws a clear picture of guilt


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
martin wrote:
Michael wrote:
martin wrote:
Today I talked with my brother-in-law about the case. He was a big shot in the justice department of the European Commisssion. He told me they are doomed.



Hi Martin. Did he offer any explanation as to why he thought so?

Hi Michael, I just talked 5 minutes with him, he told me that they have to "win" this trial (not very probable), because the court of appeals later only examines wether the rights of the defendants haven't been violated and if the evidence has been presented according to criminal law procedure. He also told me that the defence team was not able to explain away all the circumstancial evidence and the continuous lying in combination with r's desicion not to
take the stand draws a clear picture of guilt


No, that's not quite correct. That's the third degree trial (in the High Court) that's only concerned with procedure, not the second degree trial.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

"I’m sure that you are quite correct to characterize this as collegial theorizing. But I still don’t see what evidence there is to support Jools’s assertion that “everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!” Really, the evidence provides no indication of this, although certainly it is a possibility that should be kept in mind. As a consequence, it is my collegial theory that we should consider the possibility that AK, RS and RG were not equally involved in the planning [if any], the perpetration, and the cover up of the murder. And, furthermore that we should consider the possibility that they are not all equally guilty of murder."

You are of course free to consider the possibility you raise and I am sure everyone here welcomes any ideas, evidence, arguments, etc. that you want to develop in support of your possibility.

However, I think (and may be wrong but this is my understanding) that all three were indicted under Italian law for the murder of Meredith Kercher. It may well be that morally speaking, their degree of involvement (or guilt, if you prefer) is different. If you sit in the next room while someone is being murdered and then let the person die without calling for help or decide to run away and then go to the disco, then this would be considered failure to assist a person in mortal danger. It is hard to see how it could ever be perceived as okay -- morally or legally. If your involvement in the crime is "limited" to arriving after the fact, helping to alter the crime scene and then providing a false alibi, most people would think you had done something terribly wrong and punishable by law. Maybe you can comfort yourself in the knowledge that you are less guilty because you did not actually commit the fatal act; on the other hand, maybe you will be haunted for the rest of your life because of it. People sometimes inhabit strange moral universes. The questions of moral responsibility and direct versus indirect causality have interested philosophers since the dawn of time.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Michael wrote:
martin wrote:
Michael wrote:
martin wrote:
Today I talked with my brother-in-law about the case. He was a big shot in the justice department of the European Commisssion. He told me they are doomed.



Hi Martin. Did he offer any explanation as to why he thought so?

Hi Michael, I just talked 5 minutes with him, he told me that they have to "win" this trial (not very probable), because the court of appeals later only examines wether the rights of the defendants haven't been violated and if the evidence has been presented according to criminal law procedure. He also told me that the defence team was not able to explain away all the circumstancial evidence and the continuous lying in combination with r's desicion not to
take the stand draws a clear picture of guilt



No, that's not quite correct. That's the third degree trial (in the High Court) that's only concerned with procedure, not the second degree trial.

OK, maybe, I misunderstood him, I'll ask him again next week. He was also a judge (criminal law) before he went to brussels.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Anadara wrote:

"I’m sure that you are quite correct to characterize this as collegial theorizing. But I still don’t see what evidence there is to support Jools’s assertion that “everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!” Really, the evidence provides no indication of this, although certainly it is a possibility that should be kept in mind. As a consequence, it is my collegial theory that we should consider the possibility that AK, RS and RG were not equally involved in the planning [if any], the perpetration, and the cover up of the murder. And, furthermore that we should consider the possibility that they are not all equally guilty of murder."

You are of course free to consider the possibility you raise and I am sure everyone here welcomes any ideas, evidence, arguments, etc. that you want to develop in support of your possibility.

However, I think (and may be wrong but this is my understanding) that all three were indicted under Italian law for the murder of Meredith Kercher. It may well be that morally speaking, their degree of involvement (or guilt, if you prefer) is different. If you sit in the next room while someone is being murdered and then let the person die without calling for help or decide to run away and then go to the disco, then this would be considered failure to assist a person in mortal danger. It is hard to see how it could ever be perceived as okay -- morally or legally. If your involvement in the crime is "limited" to arriving after the fact, helping to alter the crime scene and then providing a false alibi, most people would think you had done something terribly wrong and punishable by law. Maybe you can comfort yourself in the knowledge that you are less guilty because you did not actually commit the fatal act; on the other hand, maybe you will be haunted for the rest of your life because of it. People sometimes inhabit strange moral universes. The questions of moral responsibility and direct versus indirect causality have interested philosophers since the dawn of time.



I think that I made my question quite clear. Jools has asserted that “everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!”

Italian law may very well conclude that passive bystanders who fail to act to prevent a crime or to provide assistance to a victim are equally guilty as the actual perpetrators and, if this is the case, then on those grounds alone RG would appear to be guilty. But my question is, what evidence is there of a three party conspiracy to commit murder? I see no convincing evidence of such a conspiracy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am
Posts: 72
RG's motive: He raped MK when she rejected him, and so he had to kill her afterwards to keep her from reporting the rape to the police.

AK's motive: She was competitive with MK over looks and attention. And it angered her when MK thought she was a slut for cheating on DJ with RS. Then MK stole her job, which pushed her over the edge.

RS's motive: He has no motive. He just participated because AK wanted him to.



...and I think AK invited RG to the cottage under the false pretense that MK liked him, and that's how the motives intertwine.

Just my $0.02 regarding the conspiracy/motive issue. Obviously, I am leaning towards the "things got out of hand" theory. I know some things suggest more premeditation (the turned-off cell phones for example), but I too have a hard time believing that all three suspects had an evil plan to kill MK beforehand. Maybe AK and RS did, but if so, it's much harder to fit RG into the puzzle.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Anadara wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Anadara wrote:

"I’m sure that you are quite correct to characterize this as collegial theorizing. But I still don’t see what evidence there is to support Jools’s assertion that “everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!” Really, the evidence provides no indication of this, although certainly it is a possibility that should be kept in mind. As a consequence, it is my collegial theory that we should consider the possibility that AK, RS and RG were not equally involved in the planning [if any], the perpetration, and the cover up of the murder. And, furthermore that we should consider the possibility that they are not all equally guilty of murder."

You are of course free to consider the possibility you raise and I am sure everyone here welcomes any ideas, evidence, arguments, etc. that you want to develop in support of your possibility.

However, I think (and may be wrong but this is my understanding) that all three were indicted under Italian law for the murder of Meredith Kercher. It may well be that morally speaking, their degree of involvement (or guilt, if you prefer) is different. If you sit in the next room while someone is being murdered and then let the person die without calling for help or decide to run away and then go to the disco, then this would be considered failure to assist a person in mortal danger. It is hard to see how it could ever be perceived as okay -- morally or legally. If your involvement in the crime is "limited" to arriving after the fact, helping to alter the crime scene and then providing a false alibi, most people would think you had done something terribly wrong and punishable by law. Maybe you can comfort yourself in the knowledge that you are less guilty because you did not actually commit the fatal act; on the other hand, maybe you will be haunted for the rest of your life because of it. People sometimes inhabit strange moral universes. The questions of moral responsibility and direct versus indirect causality have interested philosophers since the dawn of time.



I think that I made my question quite clear. Jools has asserted that “everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!”

Italian law may very well conclude that passive bystanders who fail to act to prevent a crime or to provide assistance to a victim are equally guilty as the actual perpetrators and, if this is the case, then on those grounds alone RG would appear to be guilty. But my question is, what evidence is there of a three party conspiracy to commit murder? I see no convincing evidence of such a conspiracy.



Well, let's look at it impassively, without personalizing it and going after individuals. Sleep on it; we like polite discussion here and all caps look like shouting. No need to shout, is there?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Lies and Behavior
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Anadara wrote:
...But my question is, what evidence is there of a three party conspiracy to commit murder? I see no convincing evidence of such a conspiracy.


Oh really? With an obvious 3-party conspiracy to 1. repeatedly tell lies, 2. not be forthcoming with evidence, 3. only address issues when forced into a corner, 4. obstruct justice, 5. say nothing or absolutely as little as possible, and 6. avoid implicating other suspects - anyone who does not see the need to strongly consider a 3-party conspiracy to bring harm to Meredith, up to and including premeditated murder, would seem to be an idiot. Lies and behavior can serve as very strong evidence, both within and outside of a court of law.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
Jodyodyo & Skep, I share your appreciation of the performance of Frumpycat at TDB
site: he is definitely now a very flattened and bloodied pussycat. Just how stupid can one be to so ingenuously invite a doing-over by an obviously extremely experienced and well-informed international legal eagle? For those of you who haven't read it, don't miss it! Among other compliments, he has been characterised as an ill-advised idiot who aggressively belittles others and who has the knack of lowering the debate wherever he goes. This time his shirt is going to need more than a pressing; get out the bleach and the steam iron, Frumpy; you're really going to have to work hard on your laundry tonight mate. Oh sorry, it's "DUDE", isn't it?
Barbie Nadeau


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am
Posts: 295
Location: London
Michael wrote:
Hello Everyone,

I'm sure you've all read the excellent discourse on the Italian legal system by MacK-MacK in the comments section of Barbie Nadeau's article on the Daily Beast. I consider them such essential reading, that I've preserved them for posterity on PMF in one of our reference forums. Now, while MacK-MacK makes some very astute comments about the Knox family PR machine, I felt his/her posts were overwhelmingly about explaining civil law as opposed to UK/US common law. I have therefore filed them in the Legal Context forum in the CODICE DI PROCEDURA PENALE Announcement thread. The post is DISCOURSE ON THE ITALIAN CIVIL LAW SYSTEM

If you have not as yet read MacK-MacK's posts, then I very strongly suggest you add them to your reading list and refer to them often in future. They are actually the best and most easily understandable instruction on Italian civil law I've seen to date.


Filed them for post - erity?

Thanks Michael.

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lies and Behavior
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm
Posts: 422
Location: California/U.S.A.
Fly by Night wrote:
Anadara wrote:
...But my question is, what evidence is there of a three party conspiracy to commit murder? I see no convincing evidence of such a conspiracy.


Oh really? With an obvious 3-party conspiracy to 1. repeatedly tell lies, 2. not be forthcoming with evidence, 3. only address issues when forced into a corner, 4. obstruct justice, 5. say nothing or absolutely as little as possible, and 6. avoid implicating other suspects - anyone who does not see the need to strongly consider a 3-party conspiracy to bring harm to Meredith, up to and including premeditated murder, would seem to be an idiot. Lies and behavior can serve as very strong evidence, both within and outside of a court of law.


I think this debate continues in part due to the various interpretations of the word "conspiracy". It has a legal meaning and a fairly broad range of common meanings. On the one hand, it simply means they were all involved in the crimes of that evening in one way or another. On the other hand, it conjures images of RS, AK, and RG carefully plotting Meredith's demise.

If Anadara understands conspiracy to mean strictly the latter scenario, then I would agree there is no evidence for such a thing. I think most of us would agree that the former scenario is likely, but some people might be reluctant to call that a conspiracy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm
Posts: 225
Exactly, Itchy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Buzz wrote:
RG's motive: He raped MK when she rejected him, and so he had to kill her afterwards to keep her from reporting the rape to the police.

AK's motive: She was competitive with MK over looks and attention. And it angered her when MK thought she was a slut for cheating on DJ with RS. Then MK stole her job, which pushed her over the edge.

RS's motive: He has no motive. He just participated because AK wanted him to.



...and I think AK invited RG to the cottage under the false pretense that MK liked him, and that's how the motives intertwine.

Just my $0.02 regarding the conspiracy/motive issue. Obviously, I am leaning towards the "things got out of hand" theory. I know some things suggest more premeditation (the turned-off cell phones for example), but I too have a hard time believing that all three suspects had an evil plan to kill MK beforehand. Maybe AK and RS did, but if so, it's much harder to fit RG into the puzzle.

IMO, it's useless to reason whether the murder was premaditated or not, unless somebody invents a time machine that allows one of us to travel back and observe what really happened
in that night. The actions of mentally disturbed people can't be analyzed with a normal persons's logic or way of thinking.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm
Posts: 486
Couple of things, firstly in the UK you can be tried for murder if you are there but don't make the final blow as it were. It works across all levels of crime. I remember this as we had a police visit to school (you know the ones, designed to scare the beejesus out of pre-teens so they don't get into trouble as teens!) and we were told that if were went shoplifting with a friend not to steal but to accompany, then you would be charged with the same offense as the 'lifter because you did nothing to alert the store staff (I seem to remember this was on a Grange Hill episode back in the 80's too! Was it Chrissy in Ms Selfridge, can't remember character name!). I'll bet this goes the same with murder if it happens over a pinched lipstick?

Also, those looking for the conspiracy in this need to look at this as simply as possible. There is no conspiracy as such, more of a tragic sequence of events which were driven/steered by one woman's jealousy & two men's need to impress. Solid evidence shows that Meredith & Rudy were on the move around Perugia at or around 9pm. AK & RS were free of their visitor by 8.45pm so also free to be out n about as computer activity had ceased at this time. Most likely scenario for me is the four meet in the street near the cottage and head back as a foursome. The CCTV is only on one side of the cottage so it's not implausible for Rudy to pass the camera yet the other three go the other way back to the cottage as perhaps they needed to call somewhere else (or Rudy goes to pick up some gear while the others head back to the cottage with RG following on once he's scored). Things get out of hand when Meredith realises they are there for a party and are disturbing her early night. I personally would rip my flatmate if she was making noise after I had asked them to be quiet; what is to say poor Meredith didn't confront AK and AK's explosion lead to the death of poor Meredith? I find this more likely that Rudy, Mandy & Raf sitting in the cottage thinking up disgusting & murderous ways to pass an evening.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

Well, let's look at it impassively, without personalizing it and going after individuals. Sleep on it; we like polite discussion here and all caps look like shouting. No need to shout, is there?



Yes, I guess it does look like shouting, but I copied and pasted the quote in order to exactly reproduce the other poster's words.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lies and Behavior
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Itchy Brother wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Anadara wrote:
...But my question is, what evidence is there of a three party conspiracy to commit murder? I see no convincing evidence of such a conspiracy.


Oh really? With an obvious 3-party conspiracy to 1. repeatedly tell lies, 2. not be forthcoming with evidence, 3. only address issues when forced into a corner, 4. obstruct justice, 5. say nothing or absolutely as little as possible, and 6. avoid implicating other suspects - anyone who does not see the need to strongly consider a 3-party conspiracy to bring harm to Meredith, up to and including premeditated murder, would seem to be an idiot. Lies and behavior can serve as very strong evidence, both within and outside of a court of law.


I think this debate continues in part due to the various interpretations of the word "conspiracy". It has a legal meaning and a fairly broad range of common meanings. On the one hand, it simply means they were all involved in the crimes of that evening in one way or another. On the other hand, it conjures images of RS, AK, and RG carefully plotting Meredith's demise.

If Anadara understands conspiracy to mean strictly the latter scenario, then I would agree there is no evidence for such a thing. I think most of us would agree that the former scenario is likely, but some people might be reluctant to call that a conspiracy.



Right on the mark. It has been established that the three knew one another, although Raffaele Sollecito (who, curiously, opted not to take the stand) continues to deny that he had ever met Guede. Remember that they lived 125 steps apart in Perugia. As Charles Mudede noted, you can't spend a week in the town without bumping into the same people over and over. And when Guede was arrested, Sollecito was "worried" that he would invent strange things.



In his short and ill-tempered stint on our first board, Chris Mellas began by insisting that Knox did not know Guede (and that she had never bought drugs in her life). When pressed, he said she "knew of" him. When asked what this meant, he would not elaborate (except, probably, to call us all shitheads and threaten to rub our faces in shit).



Candace Dempsey would of course argue that it is simply impossible for these three to have known one another or "conspired" to do anything, since AK and RS were college students and poor RG just a black townie (black townie = brownie?). I guess that is because in her bright shiny world, the different classes just don't mix.



As for the conspiracy, conspire controversy, let's not forget that our members come from all over the world. Many of them are using a language that is not their native tongue and doing quite well - better than most of us would do in theirs. It is important to keep this in mind when reading. It helps to prevent misunderstandings from morphing into arguments.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE!
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:37 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Administrator Note:

Hello Everyone. Fly By Night's excellent PowerPoint presentation 'A Tale of Two Peaks' has been uploaded to PMF and is available for download in the following thread in the 'Media' forum here: FLY BY NIGHT'S POWERPOINTS & PRESENTATIONS

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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Anadara wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

Well, let's look at it impassively, without personalizing it and going after individuals. Sleep on it; we like polite discussion here and all caps look like shouting. No need to shout, is there?



Yes, I guess it does look like shouting, but I copied and pasted the quote in order to exactly reproduce the other poster's words.


I think Itchy Brother's explanation is a very good one. If you understand conspire to mean what it means in a legal context, then the statement that certain items point to the theory that the three conspired to murder Meredith Kercher stands. Perhaps not everything points to it, and it doesn't preclude other theories, which can be presented in polite disagreement with this one. Some people here believe something along the lines that a totally fortuitous set of circumstances brought these three people together on the night the fourth, Meredith Kercher, was murdered.

Personally, I find the devil is always in the details. It is hard for me to believe that AK and MK were on good terms (according to AK) and yet, on the day MK left to have a quiet dinner with her friends, she did not say where she was going and AK did not ask. Worse, AK (again according to AK) did not really understand that Nov 1 was a holiday and that particular weekend a long one. I find this hard to swallow. Did she not wonder why there were no classes on Thursday or Friday? This is someone who - according to herself and others - did not want to hang out with native speakers of English because she was after total immersion in Italian culture. How about asking your boyfriend why there's no school for starters? All the guys downstairs went away for the long weekend, home to visit their parents as all good Italian boys (except Raffaele, apparently) do on this holiday, which is all about honoring dead ancestors. Filomena and Laura were away for the night too. And Patrick was not sure he would need her that night. Any clue as to why? How about this: on a long holiday weekend, many students go away. Supposedly AK had no idea about any of this. And no idea what any of the people in her household were doing. This has always seemed highly implausible to me.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Posts: 252
martin wrote:
IMO, it's useless to reason whether the murder was premaditated or not, unless somebody invents a time machine that allows one of us to travel back and observe what really happened in that night. The actions of mentally disturbed people can't be analyzed with a normal persons's logic or way of thinking.
The two things that indicate premeditation are:

  • Cell phones turned off. If something happens spontaneously and gets out of hand, cell phones don't get turned off.
  • Knife taken from Raff's apartment to cottage. You don't carry a large kitchen knife to a cottage which already has kitchen knives for no reason.

It's clear to me that they were planning something.

Now the question is, were they planning to scare/bully/rape Meredith, but not murder her?

If so, what would be the purpose of turning off the cell phones? The only reason to turn off the phones is so that they would not betray their presence at the cottage. If their intention was that Meredith would be alive afterwards, then their expectation would have been that she would be so intimidated that she wouldn't report the incident, or that it would be their word against hers. In that case, turning off the phones would serve no purpose.

The only reason to turn off the phones is to prevent their presence at the cottage being known. The only reason to prevent their presence being known is that they intended to murder her from the start.

Likewise, if their intention was less than murder, then why specially take a knife from Raff's apartment? They could have used knives in the cottage to intimidate her. The only reason to take another knife is to prevent identification of the knife. (Raff obviously thought that scouring the knife and cleaning it with bleach would be enough.)

So my conclusion is that they intended to murder her from the start.

As for Rudy's involvement, this is not at all clear, but I think it's a possibility that they intended to pin the blame on him from the start.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Kathi Goertzen
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Heads-up for anyone in the Seattle area:

Tonight at 6pm and 11pm KOMO-4 News in Seattle, an ABC affiliate, reportedly will air two separate 5 minute segments hosted by news anchor Kathi Goertzen regarding the trial of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Goertzen, as you may recall, made a brief trip to Perugia to sit through the final court sessions before summer break and was impressed by the heated debates at the time regarding the prosecution allegedly witholding DNA evidence from the defence, saying it sounded like everyone needed to take a break. It will be interesting to see if the tradition of weak, uninformed, and outright biased reporting by most Seattle-based news outlets is maintained by her 10 minute report - hopefully we will get a little more than that this time around.

KOMO will probably have the segements posted online after they are aired at komonews.com but if not I'll have them captured and available for download.


Last edited by Fly by Night on Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
GreenWyvern wrote:
If so, what would be the purpose of turning off the cell phones? The only reason to turn off the phones is so that they would not betray their presence at the cottage. If their intention was that Meredith would be alive afterwards, then their expectation would have been that she would be so intimidated that she wouldn't report the incident, or that it would be their word against hers. In that case, turning off the phones would serve no purpose.



Or alternatively, simply so that they wouldn't be disturbed while they carried out their plans of whatever it was they were intending to do to/with Meredith (which may have been many things aside from Murder). Then, once things had gone too far, thoughts of their phones and remembering to turn them back on again were the furthest thing from their minds.

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

"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm
Posts: 252
Michael wrote:
GreenWyvern wrote:
If so, what would be the purpose of turning off the cell phones? The only reason to turn off the phones is so that they would not betray their presence at the cottage. If their intention was that Meredith would be alive afterwards, then their expectation would have been that she would be so intimidated that she wouldn't report the incident, or that it would be their word against hers. In that case, turning off the phones would serve no purpose.

Or alternatively, simply so that they wouldn't be disturbed while they carried out their plans of whatever it was they were intending to do to/with Meredith (which may have been many things aside from Murder). Then, once things had gone too far, thoughts of their phones and remembering to turn them back on again were the furthest thing from their minds.

I disagree, because it's no big deal if someone phones you while you are busy bullying/intimidating/getting Rudy to rape, or whatever. If someone phones, you just don't answer. Or you let the others carry on, while you answer the phone in the next room.

It's seems to me that switching off their phones must have been specifically to avoid their movements being tracked, rather than to prevent being disturbed by the phone ringing.

Edited to add:

If we don't want to be disturbed by our phone ringing, I think most of us would put the phone into silent mode, rather than switching it off completely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lies and Behavior
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Anadara wrote:
...But my question is, what evidence is there of a three party conspiracy to commit murder? I see no convincing evidence of such a conspiracy.


Oh really? With an obvious 3-party conspiracy to 1. repeatedly tell lies, 2. not be forthcoming with evidence, 3. only address issues when forced into a corner, 4. obstruct justice, 5. say nothing or absolutely as little as possible, and 6. avoid implicating other suspects - anyone who does not see the need to strongly consider a 3-party conspiracy to bring harm to Meredith, up to and including premeditated murder, would seem to be an idiot. Lies and behavior can serve as very strong evidence, both within and outside of a court of law.


I think this debate continues in part due to the various interpretations of the word "conspiracy". It has a legal meaning and a fairly broad range of common meanings. On the one hand, it simply means they were all involved in the crimes of that evening in one way or another. On the other hand, it conjures images of RS, AK, and RG carefully plotting Meredith's demise.

If Anadara understands conspiracy to mean strictly the latter scenario, then I would agree there is no evidence for such a thing. I think most of us would agree that the former scenario is likely, but some people might be reluctant to call that a conspiracy.



Right on the mark. It has been established that the three knew one another, although Raffaele Sollecito (who, curiously, opted not to take the stand) continues to deny that he had ever met Guede. Remember that they lived 125 steps apart in Perugia. As Charles Mudede noted, you can't spend a week in the town without bumping into the same people over and over. And when Guede was arrested, Sollecito was "worried" that he would invent strange things.



In his short and ill-tempered stint on our first board, Chris Mellas began by insisting that Knox did not know Guede (and that she had never bought drugs in her life). When pressed, he said she "knew of" him. When asked what this meant, he would not elaborate (except, probably, to call us all shitheads and threaten to rub our faces in shit).



Candace Dempsey would of course argue that it is simply impossible for these three to have known one another or "conspired" to do anything, since AK and RS were college students and poor RG just a black townie (black townie = brownie?). I guess that is because in her bright shiny world, the different classes just don't mix.



As for the conspiracy, conspire controversy, let's not forget that our members come from all over the world. Many of them are using a language that is not their native tongue and doing quite well - better than most of us would do in theirs. It is important to keep this in mind when reading. It helps to prevent misunderstandings from morphing into arguments.



Maybe the lawyers on PMF can explain the legal meaning of “conspiracy” or “conspire” in different legal systems - Italian, American, British, and so on. My understanding of the word is that a conspiracy involves an agreement among two or more people to jointly engage in some sort of criminal, or at least nefarious, conduct. [And, for what it is worth and to identify any linguistic bias I may have, I am a native speaker of American English]. I am open to the possibility that such an agreement did exist among the three but I would like to see evidence of it. That is why I asked my question since, so far, I have not been convinced that there was a conspiracy involving RG - neither before the murder nor after it.

I think that there is sufficient evidence to support the existence a criminal conspiracy between AK and RS after the crime [that is, the clean up] and some evidence to suggest a conspiracy between these two before the murder. But how does RG fit in? Could he also, in some ways, have been a victim because the other two conspired to use him as a dupe?

[And, if wrists are going to be slapped for “shouting,” I think that you should acknowledge that I was not the shouter.]


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Anadara wrote:
I think that there is sufficient evidence to support the existence a criminal conspiracy between AK and RS after the crime [that is, the clean up] and some evidence to suggest a conspiracy between these two before the murder. But how does RG fit in? Could he also, in some ways, have been a victim because the other two conspired to use him as a dupe?

[And, if wrists are going to be slapped for “shouting,” I think that you should acknowledge that I was not the shouter.]



I don't think Guede was planned as such, I think they simply lucked onto him by bumping into him somewhere. There may even have been a brief conversation, a whimsy if you like, sometime in the preceeding days along the lines of 'Hey, wouldn't it be funny if we played a little trick on Meredith. Rudy's hot for her, what if we told him she was hot for him?'. Then that night, they bump into Rudy, they're at a loose end and one of them has some smoke and they invite him over to the cottage with them. Then Amanda blurts out 'Hey, Meredith quite likes you you know'. Then before Amanda and Raffaele knew it, they'd started a game and it seemed quite fun so they went along with it and upped the anti. At the cottage, the game took on a life of its own and Meredith lost her temper, aiming it at Amanda. This in turn caused certain resentments of Amanda's to rise to the surface. The three wrong people got together on the wrong night under the wrong circumstances and found Meredith in the wrong mood and at some point Meredith just set off a spark in how she reacted. Then from that point onwards, we move into the realm of FBN's 'perfect storm of dysfunctional complicity'. Things snowballed and a snowball only rolls one way...downhill. At some point, this became too much for Rudy and he went to take cover in the bathroom, but only after he'd done his part in going too far. Meanwhile, the other two couldn't prevent the snowball from crashing into the base of the mountain and Rudy was confronted with the result on exiting the bathroom.

This is the 'kind' of scenario I see as viable. Personaly though, I can't envisage the other extreme of Amanda and Raffaele sitting in his apartment and one or the other turning around and suddenly saying 'Hey, let's go murder Meredith!' then bumping into Rudy and 'Hey, we're just off to murder Meredith, it'll be fun, wanna come along, it's gonna be cool!' and then Rudy just tagging along and joining in.

And yes Anadara, it wasn't you who was shouting in caps, you were quoting another poster who'd done so. We can move on now.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The fly in the ointment of that though is, if Kokomani is right, Amanda taking a knife in her bag to the cottage. I'm finding it difficult to square this circle. This is why I'm very keen on hearing the prosecution's summing up, which is the point at which they will provide a narrative for how they believe things transpired that night. So far, we've heard only evidence but no story. I wonder which of us has gotten the closet to the story the prosecution will present?

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
[And, if wrists are going to be slapped for “shouting,” I think that you should acknowledge that I was not the shouter.]

Okay, you were not the shouter. Hope that helps. Nobody's wrists are being slapped, by the way. We're just interested in discussion.

SB
Co-moderator

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lies and Behavior
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Anadara wrote:
Maybe the lawyers on PMF can explain the legal meaning of “conspiracy” or “conspire” in different legal systems - Italian, American, British, and so on. My understanding of the word is that a conspiracy involves an agreement among two or more people to jointly engage in some sort of criminal, or at least nefarious, conduct. [And, for what it is worth and to identify any linguistic bias I may have, I am a native speaker of American English]. I am open to the possibility that such an agreement did exist among the three but I would like to see evidence of it. That is why I asked my question since, so far, I have not been convinced that there was a conspiracy involving RG - neither before the murder nor after it.

I think that there is sufficient evidence to support the existence a criminal conspiracy between AK and RS after the crime [that is, the clean up] and some evidence to suggest a conspiracy between these two before the murder. But how does RG fit in? Could he also, in some ways, have been a victim because the other two conspired to use him as a dupe?

[And, if wrists are going to be slapped for “shouting,” I think that you should acknowledge that I was not the shouter.]


How did RG fit in? You mentioned one of the key elements that sticks in my mind above and I'll repeat it below along with two other elements, the 3rd being the lens that brings it all into focus as I see it:

1. Recall that in describing the night of the murder, two days later on November 4th 2007 Raffaele told Kate Mansey of the Mirror that "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

2. In his diary on November 20th, 2007 Raffaelle wrote, “today finally they have taken the real murderer of this story from beyond belief. It is an Ivorian of 22 years, they have found him in Germany. Papa I saw happy and smiling, but I for the moment am not calm 100% because I fear that he will invent strange things.

3. Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy were clearly participants in the druggie subculture of Perugia and, believe it or not, druggies are known to intentionally keep things off radar. Amanda and Raffaele freely admit to being regular dope smokers and it is likely that they at least experimented with the other drugs known to be common in Perugia. Since druggies need dealers just like dealers need druggies, it would not be unusual to discover them hanging out together in party-like situations because it's all about peace and love, man- just as long as everyone is getting paid, laid and keeping their demons in check. And don’t forget that a known cocaine dealer (Kokomani) was in the area the night of the murder and was not initially forthcoming with evidence – all of these people have secrets, and reasons to keep them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Nor do I believe there was any PREMEDITATED conspiracy.

AK thought she was working that night until Patrick informed her otherwise, RS thought he was gonna be running a girl to the train staion until she called by.

I don't believe the mop ever went anywhere, but RS certainly had a leak under his sink. RS also had a land line and Papa was calling him that evening. I think that after Amelie finished RS and AK found themselves at an unexpected loose end. Washing mushrooms and other ingredients for a meal isn't best achieved in a sink with a leak while fending off Papa on the phone. Switch off phones, and lets take this all up to the cottage including this knife, it's only 5 minutes away

When, how and where they met Rudy, I wouldn't want to offer an opinion.

Meredith comes home and she hadn't eaten mushrooms and nor was Filomena's window broken. Whatever route Meredith took she would have looked straight at that window as she approached the cottage and if it was she wouldn't be thinking about a mushroom snack.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lies and Behavior
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1323
Fly by Night wrote:
1. Recall that in describing the night of the murder, two days later on November 4th 2007 Raffaele told Kate Mansey of the Mirror that "It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

Ah, I forgot about that interview. So now we have them all 3 talking about some 'fun' event for that evening.
- RS in that interview
- RG in the Kokomani testimony, 'We are just having a party'
- AK in one of her first statements, 'We were drunk and wanted to have some fun'

I think this is likely how it started and drunk seems much more logical to me then just stoned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
“Well, let's look at it impassively, without personalizing it and going after individuals. Sleep on it; we like polite discussion here and all caps look like shouting. No need to shout, is there?”

Anadara wrote:
“Yes, I guess it does look like shouting, but I copied and pasted the quote in order to exactly reproduce the other poster's words.”

Michael wrote:
“And yes Anadara, it wasn't you who was shouting in caps, you were quoting another poster who'd done so. We can move on now.”

I guess is my turn to say something on the post with caps that you seem to think I was shouting. I suggest you look and read again my post and the whole paragraph where I inserted caps and not just, what the other poster copied and pasted ie: the caps quote.

‘According to the investigators, police, scientific, coroners, prosecutors, numerous judges during the investigation phase and a magistrate pre-trial judge all considered that the three should face trial accused as charge as everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!’

My using the caps was nothing more than to emphasize what the actual charge was, if you think that it was shouting at the board, you are wrong, nothing more I can say apart from that you are absolutely mistaken.

Sorry board for the interruption!

As Michael says you can move on now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 217
I still wonder if Amanda's continued attempts to reach Meredith to get together on Halloween after being told that she (Meredith) would be busy with friends has something to do with wanting to "play a joke on Meredith" on that night when the roommates were gone, everybody was out and about, mostly in costume, and things were a little wild. The opportunity didn't arise on Halloween, but after Patrick called to tell Amanda that she didn't have to work, and Raffaele didn't have to take the friend to the station, voila, there was a new opportunity.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
beans wrote:
I still wonder if Amanda's continued attempts to reach Meredith to get together on Halloween after being told that she (Meredith) would be busy with friends has something to do with wanting to "play a joke on Meredith" on that night when the roommates were gone, everybody was out and about, mostly in costume, and things were a little wild. The opportunity didn't arise on Halloween, but after Patrick called to tell Amanda that she didn't have to work, and Raffaele didn't have to take the friend to the station, voila, there was a new opportunity.



Hi Beans. Well, there is a suggested history of Amanda doing the "joke" thing (busting into an apartment on your flatmate while wearing ski masks anyone?). And, if it was done befoe why not again? And Halloween was certainly an adequate excuse for such a prank.


Brian -

Hi Brian, great to see you back. Well, funny you should mention the leak under Raffaele's sink. A while ago, I established that the meal and subsequent leak, if it actually happened, did so before 21:30 and therefore hypothesised that the "need" for a mop may in actual fact have been the causal factor for the couple heading off to the cottage (a disaster flood had happened, both had just discovered they had a free evening and they 'needed' a mop. A mop was at the cottage). Along the way, they then met Rudy.

Even though the mop played no further part in the evening's events, the fact it was the primary cause of their leaving for the cottage gave them an "anchor of truth" to leach onto and so the need for a mop was used as the primary excuse given to police for Amanda going to the cottage the following morning. However, the mop was never actually moved, it served only to validate certain actions. It also may have been the reason for Amanda going into the Conad store, to get the mop they actually needed but had failed to retrieve the previous evening because events had taken a different course. On finding mops weren't stocked, Amanda immediately left the shop without making any purchase and moved on to the cottage (since mopping Raffaele's floor was a secondary concern) to clean up and arrange some details. However, the mop remains a star in the mornig's events as both excuse and padding for their story. That's kind of where I was heading.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Michael wrote:
Anadara wrote:
I think that there is sufficient evidence to support the existence a criminal conspiracy between AK and RS after the crime [that is, the clean up] and some evidence to suggest a conspiracy between these two before the murder. But how does RG fit in? Could he also, in some ways, have been a victim because the other two conspired to use him as a dupe?

[And, if wrists are going to be slapped for “shouting,” I think that you should acknowledge that I was not the shouter.]



I don't think Guede was planned as such, I think they simply lucked onto him by bumping into him somewhere. There may even have been a brief conversation, a whimsy if you like, sometime in the preceeding days along the lines of 'Hey, wouldn't it be funny if we played a little trick on Meredith. Rudy's hot for her, what if we told him she was hot for him?'. Then that night, they bump into Rudy, they're at a loose end and one of them has some smoke and they invite him over to the cottage with them. Then Amanda blurts out 'Hey, Meredith quite likes you you know'. Then before Amanda and Raffaele knew it, they'd started a game and it seemed quite fun so they went along with it and upped the anti. At the cottage, the game took on a life of its own and Meredith lost her temper, aiming it at Amanda. This in turn caused certain resentments of Amanda's to rise to the surface. The three wrong people got together on the wrong night under the wrong circumstances and found Meredith in the wrong mood and at some point Meredith just set off a spark in how she reacted. Then from that point onwards, we move into the realm of FBN's 'perfect storm of dysfunctional complicity'. Things snowballed and a snowball only rolls one way...downhill. At some point, this became too much for Rudy and he went to take cover in the bathroom, but only after he'd done his part in going too far. Meanwhile, the other two couldn't prevent the snowball from crashing into the base of the mountain and Rudy was confronted with the result on exiting the bathroom.

This is the 'kind' of scenario I see as viable. Personaly though, I can't envisage the other extreme of Amanda and Raffaele sitting in his apartment and one or the other turning around and suddenly saying 'Hey, let's go murder Meredith!' then bumping into Rudy and 'Hey, we're just off to murder Meredith, it'll be fun, wanna come along, it's gonna be cool!' and then Rudy just tagging along and joining in.

.


This is the kind of scenario that I see as viable, too. I’m thinking that maybe Meredith had decided that things were so rowdy and had taken such an ugly turn, that her best option was to go and sleep elsewhere. She went to her room to get her things together and discovered that her money was missing. She then accused Amanda of theft and maybe even went so far as to threaten to report the theft to the police. And this is when the knives were drawn. Perhaps this is when Rudy chose to hide in the bathroom listening to music, hoping to wait out the storm and get back to his attempted seduction [to his way of thinking] of Meredith, when instead he should have called the cops.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Understanding Micheli #2: Why Judge Micheli Rejected The Lone-Wolf Theory
Posted by Brian S

On their arrival at the cottage, the agents of the postal police found Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox standing outside the front door with a mop and bucket.

The two seemed surprised to see them (the postal police had come to talk to Filomena about a bomb hoax which potentially involved her phone, plus they had recently been informed of the discovery of second phone in the same garden), but then they explained they had discovered suspicious circumstances inside the cottage.

Micheli#2
Hello Brian. While you were away there was discussion about mops and buckets, and I knew I has seen mention of the bucket somewhere. I have found it at last (see above). To me this reference of yours points very obviously to Knox & Sollecito cleaning up together at the cottage. But what were they doing outside with mop & bucket? Did this information come directly from Michele's sentencing (Guede) report, which you were discussing at TJMK? Did they ever say what they were doing? Any other ideas?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Tiziano wrote:
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Understanding Micheli #2: Why Judge Micheli Rejected The Lone-Wolf Theory
Posted by Brian S

On their arrival at the cottage, the agents of the postal police found Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox standing outside the front door with a mop and bucket.

The two seemed surprised to see them (the postal police had come to talk to Filomena about a bomb hoax which potentially involved her phone, plus they had recently been informed of the discovery of second phone in the same garden), but then they explained they had discovered suspicious circumstances inside the cottage.

Micheli#2
Hello Brian. While you were away there was discussion about mops and buckets, and I knew I has seen mention of the bucket somewhere. I have found it at last (see above). To me this reference of yours points very obviously to Knox & Sollecito cleaning up together at the cottage. But what were they doing outside with mop & bucket? Did this information come directly from Michele's sentencing (Guede) report, which you were discussing at TJMK? Did they ever say what they were doing? Any other ideas?


Tiziano,

I will respond directly to this, because it was one of two mistakes I know I made when I attempted to paraphrase Micheli's report(over 100 pages).

I'm not an Italian speaker.

Micheli's report says the mop was outside with the couple when the police arrived, but the bucket was somewhere in the house.

Raffaele's evidence states that he thinks Amanda took the bucket into the house when he claims they arrived at the cottage just before the police came, but he didn't see where she put it.


Brian


EDIT to add:

It seems to me this situation is even worse as circumstantial evidence.

I havn't got the exact words to hand but:

RS and AK are discovered by the police standing/sitting out at the front of the cottage.

By the side of the door is a mop. RS said he put it there when he arrived at the cottage and said he thought AK took the bucket inside.

Somewhere inside the house is the bucket which can be associated with the mop. Ask Filomena and Laura.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:17 pm
Posts: 43
Hi,

I have a question. I agree with all of the theries that are on here but I can't decide which one is correct. I do have a question. Why have the other 2 roomates become silent? Last I remember Amanda called Filomena to ask if they were still going to live together(pre-arrest). After that no media, no interviews - nothing. I do agree with that from the roomates to respect Mez, but what do they think? I have not heard that they visited Amanda in jail, so I would assume that this action makes them think she is guilty(Amanda).

Can someone correct me if I am wrong or pont me in the correct direction? This is just my opionion.

Thank you in advance,
Maria


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:15 am
Posts: 377
DLW wrote:
Steve Say from the West Seattle Herald.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/0 ... al-resumes


From DLW's linked article:
Quote:
“We think the evidence sounds so clear but in the back of our heads we think they refuse to believe us,” said Cassandra Knox, Amanda’s stepmother, the wife of Amanda’s father Curt. “It just seems so blatantly obvious but they wont let it go. Grocery store checkers will recognize my last name on my credit card and say, ‘I just cant even believe what your family is going through. Why is this still going on? Why isn’t the government getting involved?’ Even strangers in Perugia who Curt and I have met are saying this is ridiculous. It gives you hope.”


This statement literally begs the question, "Why hasn't the Knox family asked for help from the U.S. government?" Even the grocery store clerks want to know!!!!! sh-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
coolbeach wrote:
Hi,

I have a question. I agree with all of the theries that are on here but I can't decide which one is correct. I do have a question. Why have the other 2 roomates become silent? Last I remember Amanda called Filomena to ask if they were still going to live together(pre-arrest). After that no media, no interviews - nothing. I do agree with that from the roomates to respect Mez, but what do they think? I have not heard that they visited Amanda in jail, so I would assume that this action makes them think she is guilty(Amanda).

Can someone correct me if I am wrong or pont me in the correct direction? This is just my opionion.

Thank you in advance,
Maria


Hi Maria,

I think I can answer most of your question.

The two room mates have always been silent. I just think they're young people caught up in a situation they don't want to know about.

Also, because they are that age, they take authority's instructions not to speak to anyone seriously.

I'm not aware that either of them has ever spoken to the press, except once.

To the best of my knowledge, Laura has always been absolutely silent, but Filomena was absolutely enraged when AK gave her evidence about the phone calls/conversations they had on the morning after Meredith was killed. She certainly gave her opinion to some of the Italian press.

I haven't got the links just here and now, but her words were something to the effect that every time Amanda speaks about that morning, her story changes.

Look back on this board to the time that Amanda gave her evidence. Unfortunately, Filomena was only prepared to speak to one or two Italian publications so you'll have search and do a translation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Kathi Goertzen interviews Edda Mellas HERE

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am
Posts: 72
Brian S. wrote:
Nor do I believe there was any PREMEDITATED conspiracy.

AK thought she was working that night until Patrick informed her otherwise, RS thought he was gonna be running a girl to the train staion until she called by.

I don't believe the mop ever went anywhere, but RS certainly had a leak under his sink. RS also had a land line and Papa was calling him that evening. I think that after Amelie finished RS and AK found themselves at an unexpected loose end. Washing mushrooms and other ingredients for a meal isn't best achieved in a sink with a leak while fending off Papa on the phone. Switch off phones, and lets take this all up to the cottage including this knife, it's only 5 minutes away

When, how and where they met Rudy, I wouldn't want to offer an opinion.

Meredith comes home and she hadn't eaten mushrooms and nor was Filomena's window broken. Whatever route Meredith took she would have looked straight at that window as she approached the cottage and if it was she wouldn't be thinking about a mushroom snack.



Hi Brian. Apparently MK's last meal was pizza. My guess is that the pizza had mushrooms on it, but who knows.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
Buzz wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Nor do I believe there was any PREMEDITATED conspiracy.

AK thought she was working that night until Patrick informed her otherwise, RS thought he was gonna be running a girl to the train staion until she called by.

I don't believe the mop ever went anywhere, but RS certainly had a leak under his sink. RS also had a land line and Papa was calling him that evening. I think that after Amelie finished RS and AK found themselves at an unexpected loose end. Washing mushrooms and other ingredients for a meal isn't best achieved in a sink with a leak while fending off Papa on the phone. Switch off phones, and lets take this all up to the cottage including this knife, it's only 5 minutes away

When, how and where they met Rudy, I wouldn't want to offer an opinion.

Meredith comes home and she hadn't eaten mushrooms and nor was Filomena's window broken. Whatever route Meredith took she would have looked straight at that window as she approached the cottage and if it was she wouldn't be thinking about a mushroom snack.



Hi Brian. Apparently MK's last meal was pizza. My guess is that the pizza had mushrooms on it, but who knows.



Maybe, but not according to her friends or the original autopsy:

Quote:
Although Miss Kercher had an early dinner of pizza with some friends from England, traces of other food were discovered in her stomach, indicating that she may have returned home and eaten again...Giuliano Mignini, the chief prosecutor, said that "in all probability" Miss Kercher had eaten some mushrooms and mozzarella..."Meredith had not eaten mushrooms during the dinner she had with her friends earlier," said Mr Mignini.

He added that a box of "a box of champignon mushrooms, of a similar type to the ones eaten by Miss Kercher, "were filmed by the forensic police in the refrigerator of Sollecito"...


The Telegraph

There are better sources than this for this information.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
Brian S. wrote:
Tiziano,

I will respond directly to this, because it was one of two mistakes I know I made when I attempted to paraphrase Micheli's report(over 100 pages).

I'm not an Italian speaker.

Micheli's report says the mop was outside with the couple when the police arrived, but the bucket was somewhere in the house.

Raffaele's evidence states that he thinks Amanda took the bucket into the house when he claims they arrived at the cottage just before the police came, but he didn't see where she put it.

Brian
EDIT to add:

It seems to me this situation is even worse as circumstantial evidence.

I haven't got the exact words to hand but:

RS and AK are discovered by the police standing/sitting out at the front of the cottage.

By the side of the door is a mop. RS said he put it there when he arrived at the cottage and said he thought AK took the bucket inside.

Somewhere inside the house is the bucket which can be associated with the mop. Ask Filomena and Laura.

Many thanks Brian for the clarification. This is the famous mop which probably never left the Via della Pergola premises - Michael developed an interesting scenario about its significance while you have been away.

Re Maria's enquiry about the two Italian girls, Filomena and Laura, I would think that they have behaved with decorum and good common sense, avoiding further notoriety, after being caught up in a violent and unsavoury crime. They would have no reason at all to go and visit Knox in prison, especially after observing her behaviour before her arrest. Furthermore, Laura Mezzetti is described as a procuratore legale, that is an attorney, and works in a legal practice, so she would be very careful about anything that she said about those on trial.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
Further to Laura Mezzetti:

Sono undici i testimoni che i magistrati della procura - Giuliano Mignini e Manuela Comodi - hanno sentito nelle ultime settimane, in quelle che sono definite, "indagini integrative" sulla vicenda dell'omicidio di Meredith Kercher.
La più interessante è quella rilasciata da Laura Mezzetti, 28 anni, procuratore legale e coinquilina di Amanda Knox e Meredith, agli uomini della sezione omicidi della squadra mobile (il sostituto commissario Monica Napoleoni e gli investigatori Oreste Volturno e Lorena Zugarini).
La testimone, che era stata già sentita cinque volte nel corso dell'inchiesta - si è rammentata che Amanda, la mattina del 2 novembre, presentava nella zona centrale del collo, proprio sotto il mento una abrasione, una escoriazione "non sanguinolenta".
Neanche un arrossamento, ma proprio un graffio. A sostegno del racconto della testimone, gli inquirenti hanno allegato le foto in cui si vede questo "segno" particolare.
In pratica l'accusa - è una nostra deduzione - potrebbe sostenere in aula che quella escoriazione sarebbe stata il frutto della colluttazione durante l'esecuzione del delitto di Mez.
Elio Clero Bertoldi
dal Corriere dell'Umbria Giovedì 27 Novembre 2008


From a piece by Bertoldi in November '08 at the closing stages of the prosecution's evidence gathering.

Translation:
The prosecution magistrates Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodo have heard eleven witnesses in the last weeks during what have been called "supplementary investigations" into the murder of Meredith Kercher.
The most interesting is that given by Laura Mezzetti, 28, legal attorney and flat mate of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher, to the officers of the homicide section of the flying squad (Assistant Superintendent Monica Napoleoni and Detectives Oreste Volturno and Lorena Zugarini).
The witness, who had already been interviewed five times during the course of the investigations, recalled that Amanda, on the morning of November 2nd, was displaying in the middle part of her neck, just under her chin, an abrasion, a scratch which was "not bleeding".
Not just a red patch, but a real scratch. In support of this statement the investigators attached some photos in which this particular "mark" can be seen.
In practice, and this is our theory, the prosecution could claim in court that this scratch could have been the result the struggle during the carrying out of the crime against Mez.


I do not know whether this evidence was eventually presented in court, but no doubt it is part of the corpo del reato, the thousands of pages long body of evidence in the possession of the court. There are photos/discussion on this forum of the "mark" in question, and I believe that it was claimed to have been a love-bite/"hickey" at some stage.

I thought that it was interesting that the witness was Laura, and it gives a hint at what her attitude to Knox might be. We know that Filomena thought that Knox was economical with the truth, to put it kindly.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Michael wrote:
Kathi Goertzen interviews Edda Mellas HERE


Apart from the above interview with Edda Mellas, the first installment of Kathi Goertzen's report on the 6pm Komo4 nightly news can be found HERE

There will be a follow up to this report broadcast shortly and it should be posted on the KOMO site shortly thereafter as well. Note that you can read the narrative, but there is also a link to the actual newscast video at the top of the narrative.

KOMO claims that the full interview with Barbie Nadeau will be posted on their website, along with the full interview with Edda Mellas that has already been posted. The Nadeau interview is not yet available but will likely be posted when the second installment of the Goertzen story has been posted. So far, I find that Goertzen has done an admirable job of reporting here, especially considering what we have become accustomed to here in Seattle.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
indie wrote:
This statement literally begs the question, "Why hasn't the Knox family asked for help from the U.S. government?" Even the grocery store clerks want to know!!!!! sh-))


Believe me, they have. And just like Nancy Grace, nobody wants to go near this stinking pile of s#*t.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Amanda on Halloween
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Michael wrote:
beans wrote:
I still wonder if Amanda's continued attempts to reach Meredith to get together on Halloween after being told that she (Meredith) would be busy with friends has something to do with wanting to "play a joke on Meredith" on that night when the roommates were gone, everybody was out and about, mostly in costume, and things were a little wild. The opportunity didn't arise on Halloween, but after Patrick called to tell Amanda that she didn't have to work, and Raffaele didn't have to take the friend to the station, voila, there was a new opportunity.



Hi Beans. Well, there is a suggested history of Amanda doing the "joke" thing (busting into an apartment on your flatmate while wearing ski masks anyone?). And, if it was done befoe why not again? And Halloween was certainly an adequate excuse for such a prank.


To get closer to an understanding of what actually happened the night of November 1st 2007 you would need to somehow crawl inside the psyche of a killer - a jealous killer perhaps.

As far as Amanda Knox was concerned, I think the attempts to contact Meredith on Halloween had more to do with fishing for information, acting on an uncontrollable primal instinct, and an escalating obsession. Escalation was, I believe, what the murder of Meredith Kercher was all about.

Knox knew that her job at Le Chic was on the rocks and she's not the type to let any indication, real or imagined, that Meredith might be replacing her escape her attention. Escalating obsession has no concern for how petty a situation may appear to the casual observer.

If this is true then Knox's intuition turned out to be correct - the offer was made to Meredith by Patrick at 3am in the morning and Knox and Sollecito no doubt heard all about it later that afternoon at the cottage. Would anyone have noticed the turmoil escalating quietly but exponentially within Knox at that point? Unless they had dealt firsthand with something similar in the past - probably not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm
Posts: 231
Location: US
Hi Fly By Night,

I agree that Amanda calling Meredith on Halloween was escalating obsession. A need for control. Much like her fishing expedition calling the roommates while at police station - feeling them out to gauge the situation. Also like her going to the police station with Raffaele. Total control. Not to say Raffaele is no the same, or even calling the shots. He is just harder for me to try and read.

Premeditation? I'm not sure they had consciously planned it except that I think the two were stalking Meredith in a way. Like Skep mentioned earlier, for Meredith to leave, probably on a bad note, I think they were toying with her. (ugh)

They knew that cottage would be available to them, and for a long period of time.

Michael, I too cannot wait for the prosecution's summary!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Germany
Just a copy & paste from over at Franks, i think that somehow gives a clear impression of what the FOA, and sadly also some stupid media outlets, want the public to believe

Quote:
Anonymous said...
"No, just someone in a situation that he hadn't ever remotely been in before. He didn't know how to handle it. He tried to invent what he thought were reasonable stories to explain things in order to get the police off his back. His thinking was "Why do they keep asking me these questions when I am innocent?"


Do you have any idea how ridiculous your excuses sound? In effect, you are saying when someone is investigated for a crime they should not only be allowed to lie their heads off, but it also shouldn't be held against them. In case you didn't realise, lies are a common feature of those who've committed crimes.

I'm so glad you are not in any form of law enforcement. How many arrests and convictions would there be? Hardly any I suggest. The criminal population would be allowed to run riot.

Single handedly you're rewriting the book on how police should investigate crimes and what should qualify as factors to cause suspicion of an individual. So, police can't use behaviour as an indicator, now they can't use lies as an indicator, all suspects must be treated during questioning as though they're guests at Buckingham Palace, lackof or false alibis shouldn't be considered as suspicious, false accusations of others by suspects shouldn't be regarded as suspicious and should be responded to with 'there, there...nevermind, mistakes happen', abnormal patterns of behaviour such as at the same time as your co-suspect turning of your mobile phone for the night of a murder, having access to the crime scene as well as being found present at it as well as knowing the victim should in no way be regarded as suspicious, etc, etc, etc,. Somehow I suspect, your book only applies to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and is one quickly thrown out of the window for other suspects.

September 22, 2009 6:09 AM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Germany
A question about the bathmat-shuffle:

If AK really did 'the shuffle' with at least one foot on the wet mat, wouldn´t there be traces of that moves on the way leading to her room or on the backside of the bathmat? AK with the whole weight of her body on the wet mat and 'skating' it down to her room?

I mean, most bathmats have a rubberish underground so they don´t slide that well on tile underground and i think there would be some abrasion on the ground or on the gaps between the tiles. Or some fibrous material. Or traces of water if she really didn´t dry herself before the shuffle?

And if there are no such traces found, wouldn´t that (again) prove that there was either a (partially) clean up AFTER the shuffle or no bathmat-shuffle at all?

Not that i believed her showering-and-dryblowing-story for one day, i saw her hair on the photos that morning, but i guess it could be used to prove (again) that she lied.(Maybe this is still going to happen in the sum up of the prosecution?).

Sorry if this was already discussed but i couldn´t find it elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:22 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Mistercrunch wrote:
If AK really did 'the shuffle' with at least one foot on the wet mat, wouldn´t there be traces of that moves on the way leading to her room or on the backside of the bathmat? AK with the whole weight of her body on the wet mat and 'skating' it down to her room?



Well, it certainly would have rubbed out some of Rudy's footprints in the corridor at least, wouldn't it?

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm
Posts: 186
How do you view the relation between the mushroom found in MK’s oesophagus, the knife and the mushrooms remaining in RS’s fridge? Michael’s suggestion that retching placed the mushroom back into the oesophagus enables a total disassociation of the knife and the mushrooms.
I don’t believe the knife was required to prepare a mushroom dish at the cottage. (Did AK prepare the mushrooms, wash the knife and put it in her handbag prior to the confrontation with Kokomani? Too convoluted.). Maybe they took the dish as they didn’t know how long it would be before MK returned. So upon their evening becoming ‘clear’, they got tooled-up, grabbed the mushrooms (already prepared) turned their phones off and headed out. The fact that RS dispensed with the knife he usually carried, either because it wasn’t suitable for the intended purpose or because too many people were familiar with it, is significant. We only have Kokomani and RG placing a knife in his hand, and giving somewhat different descriptions,
Maybe he was carrying 2 knives that night, the significance in that case being his need for the ‘extra’ one. They didn’t need 2 knives, in addition to the one RS always carried, just to make a mushroom supper at a cottage which had its own complement of knives.
In the absence of other possible targets of their ire on a quiet night in Perugia, in an otherwise empty house, I would say their intent was to do harm to MK. I would also say perhaps RG was outside the loop as regards murder, but very much in the gang and intending harm, in the form of non-consensual sex.
They met him at the basketball court. The ‘plan’ for the evening was not news to him/had been in the air the previous day, or he didn’t take much persuading.
Looking at the intent to do harm and the outcome, I would say premeditation, no equivocation.
Other aspects of the crime(s) should ensure maximum sentences, so the prosecutors may not put a lot of emphasis on premeditation when they come to sum up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
I've been thinking about Raffaele's and Amanda's phones.

I don't think that the direct significance of them is so much that they were 'turned off' at about the same time. Rather, I think the important factor is that they were both 'kept' off.

I'm prepared to accept that they'd been turned off for innocent reasons. I think there is some truth to Amanda's story that she turned off her phone so that Patrick couldn't change his mind and call her back into work and she wanted a little quiet time with Raffaele. Sharing the sentiment, he then turned off his. 'However', this would have lasted only for a period of time, a couple of hours until Amanda thought the coast was clear and the both of them wanted to check if anyone had called or texted them. But, I think events over took them. Having had dinner and suddenly confronted with the flood in the kitchen, events forced them to leave for the cottage and get the mop. It was then that fate stepped in and they bumped into Rudy. For whatever reason, he ended up joining them on their return to the cottage and then events took their course.

They then found themselves as the center piece in a murder. After running around like headless chickens for a while, the rest of the evening was spent working out what the hell they were going to do and then putting it into action. During all of this, the last thing they'd have been thinking about was checking their messages. The phones were simply forgotten for the night.

I therefore am of the mind that the phones were 'turned off' for innocent reasons, but they were 'kept' off for anything but. In short, two different and seperate dynamics at play in regard to the phones instead of only one.

This goes some way to solving the 'premeditation' problem, which really doesn't fit.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
I am wondering how many years RS and AK will get in case they will be found guilty? 30 years, like Rudy Guede? Or more?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:37 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Nell wrote:
I am wondering how many years RS and AK will get in case they will be found guilty? 30 years, like Rudy Guede? Or more?



No, it's an automatic life sentence, with the first two years in solitary confinement. Guede only got 30 years instead of life because he'd opted for the fast track trial. He therefore gets a discount because he's saved the state time and money in their prosecution by not opting for a full blown trial.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Michael wrote:
I've been thinking about Raffaele's and Amanda's phones.

I don't think that the direct significance of them is so much that they were 'turned off' at about the same time. Rather, I think the important factor is that they were both 'kept' off.

I'm prepared to accept that they'd been turned off for innocent reasons. I think there is some truth to Amanda's story that she turned off her phone so that Patrick couldn't change his mind and call her back into work and she wanted a little quiet time with Raffaele. Sharing the sentiment, he then turned off his. 'However', this would have lasted only for a period of time, a couple of hours until Amanda thought the coast was clear and the both of them wanted to check if anyone had called or texted them. But, I think events over took them. Having had dinner and suddenly confronted with the flood in the kitchen, events forced them to leave for the cottage and get the mop. It was then that fate stepped in and they bumped into Rudy. For whatever reason, he ended up joining them on their return to the cottage and then events took their course.

They then found themselves as the center piece in a murder. After running around like headless chickens for a while, the rest of the evening was spent working out what the hell they were going to do and then putting it into action. During all of this, the last thing they'd have been thinking about was checking their messages. The phones were simply forgotten for the night.

I therefore am of the mind that the phones were 'turned off' for innocent reasons, but they were 'kept' off for anything but. In short, two different and seperate dynamics at play in regard to the phones instead of only one.

This goes some way to solving the 'premeditation' problem, which really doesn't fit.


This is a really interesting theory that might even be true. Nevertheless, what strikes me is how cold blooded AK + RS must have been thinking of a "solution" for their "problem" (the left foot prints etc.). This is actually what always made me think they must have had given it a thought before they committed the crime. But I think your theory is plausible and easier to believe than thinking two young people with promising futures would be able to plan such a horrible crime in advance for "no reason" (well, nothing that makes sense to me, at least). If your theory is true, than I find it remarkable how they didn't lose their heads .


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:40 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Michael wrote:
Nell wrote:
I am wondering how many years RS and AK will get in case they will be found guilty? 30 years, like Rudy Guede? Or more?



No, it's an automatic life sentence, with the first two years in solitary confinement. Guede only got 30 years instead of life because he'd opted for the fast track trial. He therefore gets a discount because he's saved the state time and money in their prosecution by not opting for a full blown trial.


Thanks, Micheal. i guess then "life in prison" means exactly that? Dying in prison? I believe that in some European countries "life" means a maximum of 25 years, or am I wrong?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Life imprisonment (Italy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Italy, life imprisonment (ergastolo in Italian) has an indeterminate length.

After 10 years (8 in case of good behavior) the prisoner may be given permission to work outside the prison during the day and/or to spend up to 45 days a year at home, and after 26 (or 21 in case of good behavior) years, they may be paroled. The admission to work outside the jail or to be paroled needs to be approved by a special court (Tribunale di Sorveglianza) which determines whether or not an inmate is suitable for libertà condizionata (parole). Prisoners sentenced for associations with Mafia activities or terrorism that do not cooperate with the authorities are ineligible for parole, and thus will spend the rest of their life in prison.

An inmate that has received more than one life sentence is also required to spend a period from 6 months to 3 years in solitary confinement.

In 1994, the Constitutional Court ruled that giving a life sentence to a person under the age of 18 was unconstitutional.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
The bathmat shuffle is baffling, isn't it? I'd assumed she'd told about it to somehow account for the bloody footprint on the mat, or any blood etc that might subsequently found in her room. What's all that about?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
If Mignini's absolved on the 28th in Florence, what will the FOAKers say then?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:10 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
bolint wrote:
Life imprisonment (Italy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Italy, life imprisonment (ergastolo in Italian) has an indeterminate length.

After 10 years (8 in case of good behavior) the prisoner may be given permission to work outside the prison during the day and/or to spend up to 45 days a year at home, and after 26 (or 21 in case of good behavior) years, they may be paroled. The admission to work outside the jail or to be paroled needs to be approved by a special court (Tribunale di Sorveglianza) which determines whether or not an inmate is suitable for libertà condizionata (parole). Prisoners sentenced for associations with Mafia activities or terrorism that do not cooperate with the authorities are ineligible for parole, and thus will spend the rest of their life in prison.

An inmate that has received more than one life sentence is also required to spend a period from 6 months to 3 years in solitary confinement.

In 1994, the Constitutional Court ruled that giving a life sentence to a person under the age of 18 was unconstitutional.


Thank you very much, bolint. I don't know why it didn't occur to me, to look it up in wikipedia.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Changes in the KOMO archives
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Seattle's KOMO 4 News has pulled the video of the actual newscast and embedded the Barbie Nadeau interview directly in the narrative along with the Edda Mellas interview. Perhaps they are editing the two 5 minute video segments they aired into one complete video presentation?

In any event, Kathi Goertzen's narrative report is still availableHERE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
The latest KOMO reporting and interviews by Kathi Goertzen released today are a real study in the contrast between 7 minutes of intelligent, informed statements from Barbie Nadeau and then another 8 minutes of programmed pathetic whining and snarky, sickening spin doctoring from Edda Mellas.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/60456442.html

For example, Edda whines:
1) that except for the US media ( IMHO mostly influenced by Marriott) the typical tabloid reporting spends all their time on "what we wear", and "where we have pictures taken" rather than evidence "that there really is none anyway".

2) Raffy and Amanda smile at each other in court because "they are both young innocents caught up in this horrific crime that has absolutely nothing to do with them"

3)Sure, Amanda is somewhat scared because "in Italy, people are convicted even of there is no evidence against them"

4) A new behavioral expert will testify that Amanda made that false confession and that written statement because "after hours and hours of intensive interrogation techniques including being hit, an innocent young girl who has never seen this before, and did not speak the language... "will say anything" (and IMHO apparently write the same story the next day after resting and recouperating from being hit ??)

I apologize if my summary is not exact verbatim quotes, but the intent and impression is certainly correct


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Totally OT, but some thanks and a comment on journalism.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
--- snip ---
So did Kathi Goertzen. I and others in Seattle are waiting to see if she will use FOA- and Marriott-approved sources and information exclusively, or whether she will step up to the plate a deliver what thepublic has the right to expect of any reporter worthy of the name: an objective, fair, tough and honest report on what she saw in Perugia.
--- snap ---


Is that what you have been waiting for?
http://www.komonews.com/home/video/6043 ... eo=YHI&t=a

... they presented all this weird circumstantial stuff ...
Yeah, right.

Unfortunately, I can't see when this interview was given.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Also did not see exact date for KOMO interview, but in it, Edda mentions "break coming up", so apparently it was not conducted too recently.

I still have difficulty resisting retching when Edda keeps up the Marriott and minions mantra to attempt to explain Amanda's self incriminating statements both oral and written...." when someone endures hours and hours and hours of intimidating interrogation that includes threats and being struck, anyone can be forced to say anything"

Kinda like BIG lies, repeat anything often enough, and the ill informed begin to believe ?

Despite the facts that show these "interrogations" were anything but "hours and hours, and hours", and statements about being hit were erroneous enough to incur additional charges against Amanda.

Edda and the Marriot minions also conveniently cover up and never mention that in Italian system, defendants *are expected to lie* in their own statements before and during trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Still another vomit inducing interview moment...In attempting to explain Amanda's DNA evidence in bathroom, Edda parrots the party line....."well of course her DNA is in the bathroom, she lives there"

Then Edda shows her snarky self with her addendum " Duh" .

Interviewer avoided any hint of hardball when she avoids the ever so obvious follow up to Edda's "Duh" insult....

But Ms Mellas, how does one explain the fact that Amanda's DNA sample was *mixed with the deceased's blood* ???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
In several places?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Totally OT, but some thanks and a comment on journalism.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Nell wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
--- snip ---
So did Kathi Goertzen. I and others in Seattle are waiting to see if she will use FOA- and Marriott-approved sources and information exclusively, or whether she will step up to the plate a deliver what thepublic has the right to expect of any reporter worthy of the name: an objective, fair, tough and honest report on what she saw in Perugia.
--- snap ---


Is that what you have been waiting for?
http://www.komonews.com/home/video/6043 ... eo=YHI&t=a

... they presented all this weird circumstantial stuff ...
Yeah, right.

Unfortunately, I can't see when this interview was given.


Well, it was clearly filmed in Perugia, when Kathi Goertzen was there. She was there in July, just before the summer recess. Both the interview with Edda Mellas and the one with Barbie Nadeau were done in Perugia, so the timeframe can be determined this way. Also, in the most recent court sessions, Curt Knox has been present, which means (according to the rotation) that Edda Mellas is back in Seattle now.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
I thought she had to go back to work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:36 pm
Posts: 70
stint7 wrote:
Still another vomit inducing interview moment...In attempting to explain Amanda's DNA evidence in bathroom, Edda parrots the party line....."well of course her DNA is in the bathroom, she lives there"

Then Edda shows her snarky self with her addendum " Duh" .

Interviewer avoided any hint of hardball when she avoids the ever so obvious follow up to Edda's "Duh" insult....

But Ms Mellas, how does one explain the fact that Amanda's DNA sample was *mixed with the deceased's blood* ???


Not to mention why was only 1 fingerprint of AK's found in the whole house!

From The Telegraph article linked above:

'The only trace of her apart from the blood was a single fingerprint on a cup in the kitchen.

However, said Mr Mignini, "everyone can miss something, even when they clean".'


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Prince Vittorio Emanuele of Savoia (the son of the last king of Italy) has been ordered to stand trial by a Gup in Potenza on charges of criminal association in mob, corruption and other crimes. He had a record of previous indictment for murder (he was acquitted by a French court in the 90s', but in Italy he is commonly believed to be a murderer). He was arrested in 2006 in Potenza on demand of prosecutor Henry John Woodcock. The Gip Allberto Iannuzzi ordered other 12 arrests.

http://www.repubblica.it/2009/09/sezioni/cronaca/vittorio-emanuele-indagato/vittorio-emanuele-indagato/vittorio-emanuele-indagato.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
stint7 -->

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/60456442.html

"For example, Edda whines:
1) that except for the US media ( IMHO mostly influenced by Marriott) the typical tabloid reporting spends all their time on "what we wear", and "where we have pictures taken" rather than evidence "that there really is none anyway"."

While omitting to say that she has courted it directly (her daughters posing outside the house for instance). Also Amandas fairly "unique" way of dressing in court invites comment.

"2) Raffy and Amanda smile at each other in court because "they are both young innocents caught up in this horrific crime that has absolutely nothing to do with them""

Really as people say again and again if they were innocent they would not be smiling ... Knox obviously enjoys being the centre of attention in any capacity at all. Solleceto smiling makes my skin crawl.

"3)Sure, Amanda is somewhat scared because "in Italy, people are convicted even of there is no evidence against them""

Again this shows the misguided and unrewarding tactic of trying to smear the legal system of a whole nation while in that nation. Mellas obviously believes that america is the world. I recall comments on some sites early in the case where people were saying "why doesn't the state department just get her out of there!" ... do these people analyse the facts at all.

"4) A new behavioral expert will testify that Amanda made that false confession and that written statement because "after hours and hours of intensive interrogation techniques including being hit, an innocent young girl who has never seen this before, and did not speak the language... "will say anything" (and IMHO apparently write the same story the next day after resting and recouperating from being hit ??)"

Again she states this which is completely untrue. Along with "there is absolutely no evidence of Amanda in the house on the night of the murder". This is wearing a bit thin ... after the knox familys misguided campaign and allocation of $$$ over the past year here we are left with Curt and most of all Edda completely out of her depth pleading to the cameras. Thats all that's left of the campaign after a year they have absolutely no representation.

"I apologize if my summary is not exact verbatim quotes, but the intent and impression is certainly correct"

No -- thanks. I'm watching it again ...she says "garbage journalism" ... HA! the only garbage journalism stories originate from their camp.

"reporting on evidence - not "silly stuff"" ... this woman really has a high opinion of herself and her position ... well she would she is deluding herself

Now shes commenting on the media campaign (while conducting it herself) -- with her expert analysis she thinks the tide of opinion against knox is turning even in italy.

... here we go - something else - she says "its in the appeals process that true justice takes place" ... smearing the trial process again -- she's here really admitting that amanda will go to jail ... exact quote "we've been told" (by who I wander) "a lot of times in italy even if there is no evidence against you you're still found guilty - it's in the appeals process that true justice takes place" (???)

Unless new evidence is found the appeal will be exactly the same as the trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Quote: "...after hours and hours of intensive interrogation..."

Actually, she said "hours and hours and hours" :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Has anyone suggested that the mushroom may have been offered up to Meredith on the tip of the knife as part of the "fun"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
strange people smiling in court:

Sweet smile of Andrei Chikatilo, the "Monster of Rostok", sexual serial murderer in the Soviet Union from 1978 to 1990
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/krimi/baggrund/article.php/id-8111522.html

Angelo Izzo, psychopatic sexual assauter and murderer, young wealthy and welle educated:
http://www.repubblica.it/2005/d/sezioni/cronaca/izz/schedci/schedci.html
http://www.repubblica.it/2005/e/sezioni/cronaca/izz2/tribusorv/tribusorv.html

Angelo Izzo arrested again in 2005
http://www.repubblica.it/2005/e/sezioni/cronaca/izz3/psic/psic.html
and convicted again:
http://www.rainews24.it/it/news.php?newsid=66602

19 years old Anna Maria Botticelli and Mariena Sica, two 'psycho' conspiring murderers, in 2000:
http://www.gennarodestefano.it/images/art0109_2.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
[quote="bucketoftea"]Has anyone suggested that the mushroom may have been offered up to Meredith on the tip of the knife as part of the "fun"?[/quote

Hello to All
and to Bucket:
Considering the brutality and insanity of this crime, just about anything is conceivable.

What's NOT conceivable is finding a credible explanation that includes these mushrooms, with the "Rudy-as- the- Lone- Wolf- killer- theory"

The FOAKers need to rethink that theory, in light of the mushroom evidence (among other things).

This information from Meredith's autopsy is another piece of circumstantial, but compelling evidence that indicates that Rudy was NOT ALONE in the house with Meredith that night.

It's just common sense.

After a dinner of pizza and apple crumble, does anyone think that Meredith would have returned home and decided to pull out some mushrooms, on her own? Unlikely that she would have been prompted to do so. She was tired, her stomach was full. I doubt strongly that she would have gone to the kitchen to do some after dinner grazing...on mushrooms....

REALLY UNLIKELY.

Even more unlikely is that Rudy brought/cooked/offered them to her. Why? Because Rudy would NOT have withheld this information. On the contrary, he would have revealed this at the first opportunity—it would support his claim that he came over to see Meredith for "social" reasons. Bringing/offering/cooking mushrooms with-- or for-- Meredith could only have supported his story that he had some sort of "date" with her.

Except that Rudy has never mentioned munching on mushrooms with Meredith.

Sooo...if it wasn't the victim who... spontaneously decided to eat mushrooms after a filling meal, and it wasn't Rudy....

I wonder if the FOAKers can reconcile this seemingly illogical post-prandial mushroom fact— fitting in with their Lone Wolf Theory...


(To paraphase from another well known trial....."If it doesn't fit, their theory is sh-t!!")


Last edited by The 411 on Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:17 pm
Posts: 43
Tiziano wrote:
Further to Laura Mezzetti:

Sono undici i testimoni che i magistrati della procura - Giuliano Mignini e Manuela Comodi - hanno sentito nelle ultime settimane, in quelle che sono definite, "indagini integrative" sulla vicenda dell'omicidio di Meredith Kercher.
La più interessante è quella rilasciata da Laura Mezzetti, 28 anni, procuratore legale e coinquilina di Amanda Knox e Meredith, agli uomini della sezione omicidi della squadra mobile (il sostituto commissario Monica Napoleoni e gli investigatori Oreste Volturno e Lorena Zugarini).
La testimone, che era stata già sentita cinque volte nel corso dell'inchiesta - si è rammentata che Amanda, la mattina del 2 novembre, presentava nella zona centrale del collo, proprio sotto il mento una abrasione, una escoriazione "non sanguinolenta".
Neanche un arrossamento, ma proprio un graffio. A sostegno del racconto della testimone, gli inquirenti hanno allegato le foto in cui si vede questo "segno" particolare.
In pratica l'accusa - è una nostra deduzione - potrebbe sostenere in aula che quella escoriazione sarebbe stata il frutto della colluttazione durante l'esecuzione del delitto di Mez.
Elio Clero Bertoldi
dal Corriere dell'Umbria Giovedì 27 Novembre 2008


From a piece by Bertoldi in November '08 at the closing stages of the prosecution's evidence gathering.

Translation:
The prosecution magistrates Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodo have heard eleven witnesses in the last weeks during what have been called "supplementary investigations" into the murder of Meredith Kercher.
The most interesting is that given by Laura Mezzetti, 28, legal attorney and flat mate of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher, to the officers of the homicide section of the flying squad (Assistant Superintendent Monica Napoleoni and Detectives Oreste Volturno and Lorena Zugarini).
The witness, who had already been interviewed five times during the course of the investigations, recalled that Amanda, on the morning of November 2nd, was displaying in the middle part of her neck, just under her chin, an abrasion, a scratch which was "not bleeding".
Not just a red patch, but a real scratch. In support of this statement the investigators attached some photos in which this particular "mark" can be seen.
In practice, and this is our theory, the prosecution could claim in court that this scratch could have been the result the struggle during the carrying out of the crime against Mez.


I do not know whether this evidence was eventually presented in court, but no doubt it is part of the corpo del reato, the thousands of pages long body of evidence in the possession of the court. There are photos/discussion on this forum of the "mark" in question, and I believe that it was claimed to have been a love-bite/"hickey" at some stage.

I thought that it was interesting that the witness was Laura, and it gives a hint at what her attitude to Knox might be. We know that Filomena thought that Knox was economical with the truth, to put it kindly.


Thank you all. I read alot here but don't post much. I would like to say that all of you present evidence without a bias. I am in the USA, and the case here as to what is reported is always biased to the prosecution.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:12 pm
Posts: 15

"3)Sure, Amanda is somewhat scared because "in Italy, people are convicted even of there is no evidence against them""

Again this shows the misguided and unrewarding tactic of trying to smear the legal system of a whole nation while in that nation. Mellas obviously believes that america is the world. I recall comments on some sites early in the case where people were saying "why doesn't the state department just get her out of there!" ... do these people analyse the facts at all.


My interpretation is this is a face-saving ploy if AK is convicted. I think this possibility may be dawning on even the inner clan members.

BTW Judging by the Wiki piece on Italian sentencing, even with a life sentence the pair could be out on day release and with full release for part of the year within 6 years! Can this be true?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
BTW Judging by the Wiki piece on Italian sentencing, even with a life sentence the pair could be out on day release and with full release for part of the year within 6 years! Can this be true?


Aa example of rehabilitaion is some of the most convicted persons in Italy, terrorist Giuseppe Valerio Fioravanti. It comes to my mind because he lives now in Bologna. He was arrested in 1981, he admitted guilt of 9 murders but he claims innocence for the Bologna massacre. He was found guilty for the death of 94 people, was sentenced to 10 life terms plus 250 years.
He has been living permanently free for the last five years. Now, just two month ago his 5 years probabion time expired, consequently his life sentence was declared canceled and he is free also formally. He had no permits, actually, during his time in jail. He started to work outside jail and meet his wife outside around 2001, and to spend significant period of time outside only at that time.


http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerio_Fioravanti (in Italian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerio_Fioravanti (English)

Francesca Mambro is his wife. Continuously in jail full-time for about 17 years (1982-1999) she spent the following 10 years partly in permits and semi–freedom (which means sleeping in jail and working daytime outside) her sentence was suspended for two years to allow her to stay with the child she had meanwhile, afterward she was given five years of probation freedom.
She was convicted eight life terms and 84 years.


http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Mambro (Italian)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0qhamMgDYE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Anyway, to the question:
"even with a life sentence the pair could be out on day release and with full release for part of the year within 6 years! Can this be true?"

the answer is, very likely no.
First, a permit to stay home or to do some activity for one day is not a full release. It is more like a house arrest, with many limitations. For example stated limitaions can be: no phone calls, no interviews, no internet contacts, etc.
Second, permits in the first years will be short (1-3 days).
Third, a permit is given only to convicted who "deserve" them in terms of fulfilling some demands on public security issues, which means: absolutely sure conditions to believe the person won't attempt to escape (that's why foreigneers almost never enjoy the benefits), psychologists, prison personnel and surveillance judges must be convinced the person is reliable and has some remorse (includes activity of financial refunding to victim), the person must have a job or a social activity, the person must not be deemed dangerous (sex offenders and liars are more often considered dangerous).
The term of 8-9 years is the theoretical starting point to begin to ask for the smallest benefits. Those benefit are essential in order to have a person who has developed some contacts with society when he/she is released. But not necessarily they wil consist in a release - probably not for Amanda. The most important prize is the condition of semi-freedom, difficult to obtain: probably only after 16-17 years in prison for a lifer. But what to do with a foreigneer?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:11 am
Posts: 72
Brian S. wrote:
Buzz wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Nor do I believe there was any PREMEDITATED conspiracy.

AK thought she was working that night until Patrick informed her otherwise, RS thought he was gonna be running a girl to the train staion until she called by.

I don't believe the mop ever went anywhere, but RS certainly had a leak under his sink. RS also had a land line and Papa was calling him that evening. I think that after Amelie finished RS and AK found themselves at an unexpected loose end. Washing mushrooms and other ingredients for a meal isn't best achieved in a sink with a leak while fending off Papa on the phone. Switch off phones, and lets take this all up to the cottage including this knife, it's only 5 minutes away

When, how and where they met Rudy, I wouldn't want to offer an opinion.

Meredith comes home and she hadn't eaten mushrooms and nor was Filomena's window broken. Whatever route Meredith took she would have looked straight at that window as she approached the cottage and if it was she wouldn't be thinking about a mushroom snack.



Hi Brian. Apparently MK's last meal was pizza. My guess is that the pizza had mushrooms on it, but who knows.



Maybe, but not according to her friends or the original autopsy:

Quote:
Although Miss Kercher had an early dinner of pizza with some friends from England, traces of other food were discovered in her stomach, indicating that she may have returned home and eaten again...Giuliano Mignini, the chief prosecutor, said that "in all probability" Miss Kercher had eaten some mushrooms and mozzarella..."Meredith had not eaten mushrooms during the dinner she had with her friends earlier," said Mr Mignini.

He added that a box of "a box of champignon mushrooms, of a similar type to the ones eaten by Miss Kercher, "were filmed by the forensic police in the refrigerator of Sollecito"...


The Telegraph

There are better sources than this for this information.





Oh, okay. Thanks. Guess I guessed wrong. If there were no shrooms on the pizza but some were found in RS's fridge, then I agree that this is quite a strong piece of circumstantial evidence indeed. Seems the list of things the defense must explain away keeps getting longer.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
Yes, what to do with a foreigner. In the interview with Bob Graham, published 10 days ago, Edda expresses her deepest regret:
"Edda says: 'The biggest mistake I made was not insisting on Amanda getting out of there.' " http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/126 ... l-murderer

////////////


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Goofy...GET HELP.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Here is Goofy, one of Amanda Knox's champions for her innocence at his best...talking to himself while pretending he's having an interactive, spellbinding conversation with other foakers. Even though it was not me posting over there, I most certainly agree with the anonymous poster opining that Knox was jealous of Meredith. I also find it most curious why Sollecito and Knox did not attend Meredith's candlelight vigil Monday night, November 5th at 8:00pm, while instead opting to have dinner with Raff's friends (or treat themselves to a Pizza - I've read both accounts).

These goofy people seem far more interested in all of us here than helping their best friend Chris Mellas' stepchild. Or, maybe Chris and Edda appreciate this kind of help?

GOOFY - GET HELP. fc-))

Note the following posts from "Frank Sfarzo's" place. All were posted 2 minutes apart. By the same person. Goofy. What kind of lunatic thinks up this shit? Did I miss the article pointing out that my fair city of Seattle is experiencing a "shortage of psychiatrists" crisis?


Anonymous said...
Tara, dude, so you weren't popular in h.s. and you felt like killing people. That's YOU. Other people aren't like that. If anybody's jealous, it's you. Sorry you can't get laid!!!!! Amanda's promiscuous? As if. You. Could. Be.

September 23, 2009 4:11 PM


Anonymous said...
Yeah, what is it, tara. Did you not get asked to the prom? Get over it girl. You sound like one bitter lady and delusional to boot.

September 23, 2009 4:13 PM


Just Saying said...
Maybe Rudy will sleep with Tara. They LOVE him on PMF. He's just a murderer. Nothing wrong with that.

September 23, 2009 4:15 PM


Anonymous said...
Hey, Tara, how come Filomena and Laura didn't go to the candlelight vigil? Why didn't Giacomo, Meredith's boyfriend, show up? You have such wonderful psychological insights. Please explain that one.

September 23, 2009 4:17 PM


Oh WhoCairz anyway? b-))

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Goofy...GET HELP.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Tara wrote:
Here is Goofy, one of Amanda Knox's champions for her innocence at his best...talking to himself while pretending he's having an interactive, spellbinding conversation with other foakers. Even though it was not me posting over there, I most certainly agree with the anonymous poster opining that Knox was jealous of Meredith. I also find it most curious why Sollecito and Knox did not attend Meredith's candlelight vigil Monday night, November 5th at 8:00pm, while instead opting to have dinner with Raff's friends (or treat themselves to a Pizza - I've read both accounts).

These goofy people seem far more interested in all of us here than helping their best friend Chris Mellas' stepchild. Or, maybe Chris and Edda appreciate this kind of help?

GOOFY - GET HELP. fc-))

Note the following posts from "Frank Sfarzo's" place. All were posted 2 minutes apart. By the same person. Goofy. What kind of lunatic thinks up this shit? Did I miss the article pointing out that my fair city of Seattle is experiencing a "shortage of psychiatrists" crisis?


Anonymous said...
Tara, dude, so you weren't popular in h.s. and you felt like killing people. That's YOU. Other people aren't like that. If anybody's jealous, it's you. Sorry you can't get laid!!!!! Amanda's promiscuous? As if. You. Could. Be.

September 23, 2009 4:11 PM


Anonymous said...
Yeah, what is it, tara. Did you not get asked to the prom? Get over it girl. You sound like one bitter lady and delusional to boot.

September 23, 2009 4:13 PM


Just Saying said...
Maybe Rudy will sleep with Tara. They LOVE him on PMF. He's just a murderer. Nothing wrong with that.

September 23, 2009 4:15 PM


Anonymous said...
Hey, Tara, how come Filomena and Laura didn't go to the candlelight vigil? Why didn't Giacomo, Meredith's boyfriend, show up? You have such wonderful psychological insights. Please explain that one.

September 23, 2009 4:17 PM


Oh WhoCairz anyway? b-))



Goofy tends to play with himself as no one else will engage. And you're right, whocairz? What is the sound of one hand clapping?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:06 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
For what I've read in the past, his postings are beneath contempt. His posts tell us more about himself then he possibly realises. eee-)


Regarding the mushrooms:
The FOA's sustain that not only Raffaele had mushrooms in his fridge, but that in the cottage they found mushrooms in the fridge too. What's that all about? Did the police find mushrooms in the fridge of the cottage where Meredith was murdered?

BTW, I find it awkward how posters at Candace's blog call Meredith Kercher often "Mez" (above all Candace has this habit). Again a method to persuade the reader to believe they would care about the victim. It suggests they would have been or at least would feel close to the victim. It's painful to watch. This trial is all about manipulation and distortion.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm
Posts: 231
Location: US
Candace doesn't care about Meredith Kercher. Candace doens't even care about murderers like Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. She is so excited to be writing a book. Meredith's brutal death is the most important thing that has ever happened to Candace. She is a fraud.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Germany
Buzz wrote:
Oh, okay. Thanks. Guess I guessed wrong. If there were no shrooms on the pizza but some were found in RS's fridge, then I agree that this is quite a strong piece of circumstantial evidence indeed. Seems the list of things the defense must explain away keeps getting longer.


and from over at the Cook´s

Quote:
Posted by Charlie Wilkes at 9/22/09 10:54 p.m.

Yummi wrote:

I don't think it's so common to have a mushroom falling on the pizza of somebody who has asked one without. Italian customers are not indifferent about such details.


A package of mushrooms was in the refrigerator at the cottage. It is shown in the police video. The plastic wrapper was torn open but the package was nearly full. Meredith might have eaten a couple of raw mushrooms as a snack when she arrived home.


What is true here? Where was that package of mushrooms filmed?

Edit to add: Charlie in his post above gives the police video as a source, but as far as i know, the only video that contains mushrooms was taken at RS place.

Quote:
Posted by funnycat at 9/23/09 9:50 p.m.

There were mushrooms on Meredith's own shelf. Each girl had her own shelf.


No sources for that, like i expected. But could anyone here help me out? Is that just the usual spin or are there really sources for mushrooms at the cottage after the victim was found?

This wouldn´t be a mystery at all if there were some, but if not, this is indeed important.


Last edited by mistercrunch on Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:56 am, edited 7 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Jumpy wrote:
... Meredith's brutal death is the most important thing that has ever happened to Candace ...


You spoke out what lots of people think.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:31 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Nell wrote:
For what I've read in the past, his postings are beneath contempt. His posts tell us more about himself then he possibly realises. eee-)


Regarding the mushrooms:
The FOA's sustain that not only Raffaele had mushrooms in his fridge, but that in the cottage they found mushrooms in the fridge too. What's that all about? Did the police find mushrooms in the fridge of the cottage where Meredith was murdered?

BTW, I find it awkward how posters at Candace's blog call Meredith Kercher often "Mez" (above all Candace has this habit). Again a method to persuade the reader to believe they would care about the victim. It suggests they would have been or at least would feel close to the victim. It's painful to watch. This trial is all about manipulation and distortion.


To be quite honest with you, I don't think the mushroom is that important, other then to show that Meredith was murdered a relatively short time after she had returned home, before the digestion process in the stomach could get to work and it was partially brought up (into the esophagus).

As for mushrooms in the fridge, I don't think that's so important either. It's only important in order to debunk a police hypothesis that Amanda and Raffaele may have brought over mushrooms and eaten them with Meredith before her murder. However, that's not really important since that was a hypothesis mooted in the very early days of the case shortly after Meredith's autopsy to one newspaper. The prosecution never persued that hypothesis and it was very quickly dropped, never to have been repeated since. The whole thing is therefore irrelavant to the case. It's important only to those on Candace's because it gives them something to make a lot of hot air about and explode in righteous outrage over and as we know, those over on the Smog love nothing better then exploding in a frenzy righteous outrage. For them, it's their heroin fix.

Regarding those in the Kitchen refering to Meredith as 'Mez' I share your distaste. You'll note that even here, where we are friends of the victim, of Meredith (as in to her justice), we have always refrained from calling her 'Mez'. This is because we never knew her personally. We don't have the right to call her Mez. That is a term overly familiar, one for which the right to use lies solely with Meredith's family and friends who actually knew her personally. While on Candace's, they call her 'Mez' in the familiar, as if they're her buddys. It would be bad enough simply on the basis they are strangers that never knew her. What makes it repugnant is they don't give a damn about Meredith, never have and worse, have attempted to screw her and all those that actually knew and loved her, out of her right to justice at every turn as well as even trying to erase her not only as the victim and replace her with Amanda Knox, but erase her very memory. It goes beyond inappropriate, it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:33 pm
Posts: 30
Mushrooms - This looks like a loose end that will never be explained. That doesn’t make it irrelevant, though. Nothing that could shed some light on the events of the final hour preceding the murder is irrelevant. Too bad the police did not look for mushroom DNA on the knife and elsewhere in the cottage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Anadara wrote:
Mushrooms - This looks like a loose end that will never be explained. That doesn’t make it irrelevant, though. Nothing that could shed some light on the events of the final hour preceding the murder is irrelevant. Too bad the police did not look for mushroom DNA on the knife and elsewhere in the cottage.


What I mean by that, is that I don't think there's some dark secret around the mushrooms or any story around them that will change the nature of the case. Neither are they some sort of evidence that the police or prosecution are being unfair to Raffaele and Amanda. They are simply another point within the context, that's as far as they 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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Michael wrote:
To be quite honest with you, I don't think the mushroom is that important, other then to show that Meredith was murdered a relatively short time after she had returned home, before the digestion process in the stomach could get to work and it was partially brought up (into the esophagus).

As for mushrooms in the fridge, I don't think that's so important either. It's only important in order to debunk a police hypothesis that Amanda and Raffaele may have brought over mushrooms and eaten them with Meredith before her murder. However, that's not really important since that was a hypothesis mooted in the very early days of the case shortly after Meredith's autopsy to one newspaper. The prosecution never persued that hypothesis and it was very quickly dropped, never to have been repeated since. The whole thing is therefore irelavant to the case. It's important only to those on Candace's because it gives them something to make a lot of hot air about and explode in righteous outrage over and as we know, those over on the Smog love nothing better then exploding in frenzy righteous outrage. For them, it's their heroin fix.


I agree with you that the fact Meredith ate a mushroom before she died is not so revealing than finding out that she must have died very shortly afterwards. Nonetheless, if there wouldn't have been any mushrooms at the cottage, but at Raffaele's apartment, than it would have been another indication where that mushroom came from that Meredith ate. As far as I can see there is not much doubt about Amanda Knox' and Raffaele Sollecito's presence at the cottage, so from that angle the mushroom is not important.

Michael wrote:
Regarding those in the Kitchen refering to Meredith as 'Mez' I share your distaste. You'll note that even here, where we are friends of the victim, of Meredith (as in to her justice), we have always refrained from calling her 'Mez'. This is because we never knew her personally. We don't have the right to call her Mez. That is a term overly familiar, one for which the right to use lies solely with Meredith's family and friends who actually knew her personally. While on Candace's, they call her 'Mez' in the familiar, as if they're her buddys. It would be bad enough simply on the basis they are strangers that never knew her. What makes it repugnant is they don't give a damn about Meredith, never have and worse, have attempted to screw her and all those that actually knew and loved her, out of her right to justice at every turn as well as even trying to erase her not only as the victim and replace her with Amanda Knox, but erase her very memory. It goes beyond inappropriate, it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.


I couldn't agree more.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Mistercrunch wrote:
No sources for that, like i expected. But could anyone here help me out? Is that just the usual spin or are there really sources for mushrooms at the cottage after the victim was found?

This wouldn´t be a mystery at all if there were some, but if not, this is indeed important.



I'm not sure. I've never actually seen the photo of the mushrooms in the fridge myself. I don't think it's ever been published in the media (why would it?). But, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt though (as we know, many of them are FOA and have access to the case file). Normally I wouldn't, as we've all seen how they twist the data (shrinking Rudy's footprint for propaganda is a good example), but in this case, since the prosecution have not raised the subject of mushrooms in court other then to say one was found in Meredith's esophagus, I see little value in doing otherwise.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm
Posts: 186
Item B on the charge sheet against AK and RS, as translated by Catnip (from the ‘Legal Context’ thread on this board)
“(B)
of the misdemeanour to which articles 110 Penal Code, 4 Statutes 110/1975, of having in complicity amongst themselves carried out of the house of Sollecito, without justified reason, a large knife with sharp point and blade length totalling 31cm (seized at Sollecito’s on 6 November 2007)” (my italics)
This on a quiet night, post-Halloween pre-holiday weekend, to a destination empty save for MK, and as mentioned in charge A (the murder charge) “taking advantage of the nocturnal hour and of the isolated location of the apartment”.
It’s a strange kind of ‘game’, ‘prank’ or ‘fun’ which requires such an instrument, that’s for sure. The knife was transported with MK in mind, I would say.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The clean-up -

One thing that's always bothered me in regard to the 'clean-up' is the matter of cleaning tools. What was used? We now know that it's unlikely to be the mop. If rags had been used, it's highly likely that police would have discovered blood residue on them (although I suppose it's possible that could all have been rinsed away). One solution is that rags were used and then dumped in one of the community dumpsters in Perugia in that empty plastic bag Amanda took to the cottage (what actually was that for? It most certainly wasn't to pick up washing as Amanda claimed).

There is however, another answer which may be more likely.

The purpose for a criminal to clean a crime scene is to remove evidence, NOT SPREAD IT ABOUT, as would be the case when using materials in the form of cloths and mops. In cleaning up blood, you'd transfer part of that blood to the cloth. I think they opted for another solution and this solution was actually 'two' solutions.

The first solution offered 'itself', thanks to Rudy. Rudy had gotten two towels bloody (either by trying to help Meredith as he claimed or in some other way for some other reason. But, since he himself admits it was he that got the towels bloody, we can accept it was him). Since Rudy had already gotten the towels bloody, it therefore didn't matter if more blood was added to them. The towels may therefore have been used for 'some' partial cleaning. However, blood saturation would have quickly rendered them useless as a cleaning tool and they also quickly became needed for our stagers to use them to lay on the floor for them to walk on and so not further contaminate the scene (they could also be used for that purpose, being bloody already thanks to Rudy). Therefore, something else was needed.

I think that solution was simple and readily available. They simply used wetted down toilet paper and/or paper kitchen towels. These offered several advantages. In a house full of girls there'd be plenty of toilet paper, they'd be well stocked (girls get through tons of the stuff. Sorry girls, but you do :) ). Unlike a mop, it also allows (in fact requires) that you get down close to what you're cleaning, which is essential when surgical removal rather then blanket removal is required and since one is doing it directly with a hand, one can surgically remove certain marks while leaving others, such as removing ones own footprints while leaving others. The greatest advantage, is they don't need to be accounted for, unlike cloths/mops if found with blood, or cloths/mops you may have to dump (in which case, some explaining would be required as to where they've gone). And you don't have to dump them, where you may be seen doing so or they may be found. The beauty of simply cleaning with toilet paper/kitchen towels, is when done, you can just flush them down the toilet.

I do think the purpose of the plastic bag was for taking anything away that needed to be for later dumping though. I just don't know if it was actually ever used for that purpose and if so, for what items specifically.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
nowo wrote:
Item B on the charge sheet against AK and RS, as translated by Catnip (from the ‘Legal Context’ thread on this board)
“(B)
of the misdemeanour to which articles 110 Penal Code, 4 Statutes 110/1975, of having in complicity amongst themselves carried out of the house of Sollecito, without justified reason, a large knife with sharp point and blade length totalling 31cm (seized at Sollecito’s on 6 November 2007)” (my italics)
This on a quiet night, post-Halloween pre-holiday weekend, to a destination empty save for MK, and as mentioned in charge A (the murder charge) “taking advantage of the nocturnal hour and of the isolated location of the apartment”.
It’s a strange kind of ‘game’, ‘prank’ or ‘fun’ which requires such an instrument, that’s for sure. The knife was transported with MK in mind, I would say.



Hi Nowo. Yes, that's the fly in the ointment in terms of attempts to move away from a conclusion of premeditation. If they 'did' transport a knife that at worst suggests an intent to cause serious harm or even murder, or at best, to play some kind of very nasty prank or a requirement to force someone else to ones will by fear under threat of harm.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm
Posts: 186
Michael, indeed. That little phrase 'without justified reason' could be read as 'with malice aforethought', but perhaps I'm going too far, and it is 'only' the charge sheet after all. The search function here is very good, by the way!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm
Posts: 1115
I accept that the theory that the mushrooms came from RS fridge could never be proven.

But, I don't think the mushrooms(1 in her oasophigus) and mozzarela cheese are entirely unimportant. This snack was noted in the preliminary autopsy report and was amongst the details given in a statement to the press on the Sunday after Meredith was killed. It was even suggested around that time that Meredith may have "eaten with her killer".

But those shrooms create a great big problem for the defence theory of a lone wolf Rudy coming through the window.

Because RS and AK have no alibi beyond around 9:15pm, their defense claims that Meredith was killed much earlier than the time band given in the autopsy. Their defense claims that Meredith came home and disturbed RG in the middle of a robbery. They have to have it this way round because if Meredith was at home when Rudy threw a rock through the window, ran back down to the bottom of the car park, climbed the matterhorn, got in through the window without Meredith hearing and getting on the phone to the police or whoever, their theory becomes a joke.

It's also one of the reasons why there was so much discussion in court about whether the shutters were open or closed. They say Filomena left them open and Rudy closed them behind himself when he came in and this is a reason why Meredith didn't see the broken window as she walked down the road.

But Meredith had that snack after she got home.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
(( OT OT OT ))

It looks like people power in the blogsphere may be heading upwards. New innovations such as this will ensure it:


Startup rates people's online clout


A pair of French entrepreneurs has come up with a way to identify people whose Internet comments carry weight.

Pierre-Loic Assayag and David Chancogne launched an online Traackr Authority List at a DEMO emerging technology conference that ended Wednesday in California.

"We think the future of the Internet is about people, not technology, and knowing who has clout," Assayag said.

Traackr uses algorithms that scour the Web for blogs, videos, tweets or other user-posted material related to selected subjects and then track down authors.

The formula evaluates how many people check out the blogs, Twitter posts, YouTube videos and other content, then factors in how widely the opinions "resonate" in ways, such as being "re-tweeted" or linked to other websites.

Resulting lists rank online voices according to how influential they are in the context of given topics.

"The ultimate vision is this market quest for influence," Chancogne told AFP.

"You have people who are bloggers, and a lot of them want to know how well they are doing. We can tell them their scores."

Traackr is aimed at marketers or businesses that want to spread messages effectively as people move increasingly online and away from traditional print, radio and television advertising.

"The new world is an earned media world," Traackr vice president of business development Derek Skaletsky said while demonstrating the technology.

"You have to get the right people to talk about you."

The US-based startup hopes to make money from companies and marketers eager to connect with influential online personalities.

Traackr could eventually rate the influence of those using the Internet as a stage for their viewpoints.

Assigning general online authority scores is unrealistic because people's authority varies depending on their expertise regarding subjects at issue, Chancogne cautioned.

"How credible you are depends on which community you are in," he said. "It is a flexible, malleable thing. If you have the right crowd and the right person to talk to, you are in business."

The startup boasts of helping Honda stage a stellar launch for its Insight hybrid car in Britain earlier this year despite a tight advertising budget. It connected the Japanese car maker with bloggers respected as online authorities in alternate energy and "green" issues.

"In the long term, marketing could be person to person," Chancogne said. "Nano-marketing. At the end of the day, the people matter. The score is just a way to find who they are."



PHYSORG

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
From trgmedia:

‘After more than eight months of hearings could end tomorrow and Saturday between the deliberative phase of the trial with Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox indicted for the murder of Meredith Kercher `` before the Court of Assizes d `` Perugia. The timetable provides for the testimony of the last four witnesses listed by the defense. Classroom comparing the coroner and the Walter Patumi neurophysiopathology Carlo Caltagirone, cited by the lawyers of Knox, while the next day and was `` determined the deposition of the geneticist Sarah Gino, always indicated by the defenders of the young American, and the `` computer expert Michele Gigli, defense consultant reminder. At the end of their testimony, the President of the Court, Giancarlo Massei, declare `` l `` closed deliberative inquiry, that `` the trial phase characterized by `` consideration of what the parties consider the evidence d `` charge and discharge. `` The college has therefore already set the dates of 2 and 3 October to examine requests for inclusion evidence. And `` virtually certain that at this stage, the defenders of Sollecito and Knox will ask for a report on the traces of DNA on the knife and considered the `` murder weapon.’

http://tinyurl.com/yb6b7az


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Dateline - December 2008
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
As we near the end of the trial it is worthwhile to go back to review a few Dateline videos from December 2008. This LINK goes directly to an interview with a legal expert regarding how the Italian court operates. And, the video right after this one provides an analysis of some of the key evidence (you know, the stuff that the FoAKers say does not exist).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dateline - December 2008
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Fly by Night wrote:
As we near the end of the trial it is worthwhile to go back to review a few Dateline videos from December 2008. This LINK goes directly to an interview with a legal expert regarding how the Italian court operates. And, the video right after this one provides an analysis of some of the key evidence (you know, the stuff that the FoAKers say does not exist).


Hi FBN. Yes, we're near the end (thanks for the links and thanks also to DLW for the info). But then not really, we're only near the end of the first stage. It is one of the very few things we share with the FOA...all of us are already thinking about the appeal. During this trial the defence teams have been rather tooled up, having plenty of paid experts to help them muddy the waters. The appeal is going to be a far more frugal affair, as the Knox family have financially shot their bolt on the first trial and the lead up to it.

My actual concern is for the Kercher family who have not received a single penny via fundraising. It shouldn't be forgotten that any appeal will also be a serious financial problem for the Kerchers, people who shouldn't have to be worrying about money, yet have asked for nothing.

PMF stands ready should the Kercher family require any help, of any kind and we don't see this as 'charity'. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have enjoyed the aid of many people fighting their corner with wallets open (although in many cases, for dubious reasons). Should any of the Kerchers or any of Meredith's friends be reading this forum, please don't hesitate to contact us, privately, and we will do our best to lend whatever help we can, with discretion.

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am
Posts: 295
Location: London
Last week it was reported that Amanda's lawyers were preparing her for a guilty verdict. Is this also the case with Sollecito and his lawyers do we know?

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
jhansigirl wrote:
Last week it was reported that Amanda's lawyers were preparing her for a guilty verdict. Is this also the case with Sollecito and his lawyers do we know?


They remain tight lipped. A bit like Raffaele :)

_________________
"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: Paul Ciolino & Peter Van Sant
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Here's a lengthy interview from early April 2008 where Paul Ciolino & Peter Van Sant explain to Seattle news reporter Chris Egert that the world is flat. This appeared just before the infamous 48 hours American Girl, Italian Nightmare report aired on April 11, 2008. It's interesting to hear the same talking points and keywords that the FoAKers/Knox/Mellas still recite like a well rehearsed mantra.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:21 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
From Candace on the Smog:

Dempsey wrote:
NOTE: I believe PM Mignini will be back in court September 28 for his own case. If anybody has more information, please post.



THE SMOG


My God. Desperate on the Smog for news of the Mignini trial or what? Anything they can use to make him an evil guy, positively wetting themselves for it. What are they going to do if he's acquitted? They're TERRIFIED of the prospect. All their 'evil Anti-Christ dictator prosecutor' BS for the last two years falls apart.

Conclusion. They are far more terrified of the verdict on Mignini then Mignini is or anyone else in the world, aside from the Florentine prosecutor he's at war with. Indeed, Mignini just takes it in his stride, it's all a part of being a prosecutor in Italy. Just more politics, another day at the office. But, this means EVERYTHING to the FOA. If he's acquitted, where do they go from there?

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am
Posts: 295
Location: London
Michael wrote:
jhansigirl wrote:
Last week it was reported that Amanda's lawyers were preparing her for a guilty verdict. Is this also the case with Sollecito and his lawyers do we know?


They remain tight lipped. A bit like Raffaele :)


Not surprising I guess. The last time they spoke out in public it turned out to be an 'explosive' flop.

Are the prosecution planning a practical demonstration of the phone calls or am I being 'smogged' again?

_________________
The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.- Michael Rivero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16080
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Jhanisgirl wrote:
Are the prosecution planning a practical demonstration of the phone calls or am I being 'smogged' again?


Nobody but insiders (and I'm not one of those) have any idea of what it is the prosecution have up their sleeve. The phone call demo was something mooted as an example of what it may possibly be by one of the posters here. I suspect it's something else. I think we'll just have to wait and see. I know PMF readers hate those words, but it really is a case of that.

Kermit's early assessment of Mignini is quite right...he raises his skirt an inch at a time, each time showing a bit more leg. Right now, we may be just above the knee :)

_________________
"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: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 12
I think everyone agrees that RG made a mistake in his trial date, and not joining the other 2 at the same time.

I also have no idea what actually happened, in this horrible murder because everyone is still sticking by their lies.

We may only learn what truly happened after all 3 are incarcerated, and they are all looking to spill the beans...Thats my opinion.

All else seems to be speculation.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm
Posts: 278
Location: Switzerland/Germany
Michael wrote:
Jhanisgirl wrote:
Are the prosecution planning a practical demonstration of the phone calls or am I being 'smogged' again?


Nobody but insiders (and I'm not one of those) have any idea of what it is the prosecution have up their sleeve. The phone call demo was something mooted as an example of what it may possibly be by one of the posters here. I suspect it's something else. I think we'll just have to wait and see. I know PMF readers hate those words, but it really is a case of that.

Kermit's early assessment of Mignini is quite right...he raises his skirt an inch at a time, each time showing a bit more leg. Right now, we may be just above the knee :)

That was my guess, sorry if i smogged you (whatever that means), jhansigirl!
I want to repeat for the sake of completeness why i think Mignini might use the phone records: this way he could possibly show that Amanda actually knew Meredith was dead before her door was opened by the police. That little connection, if possible to make, would be one fine way to prove her guilt just using facts and logic!

But he's a sly fox, let's get prepared for a surprise!
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
BJB wrote:
We may only learn what truly happened after all 3 are incarcerated, and they are all looking to spill the beans...Thats my opinion.


Hi BJB - I disagree. I don't think we will ever know as I don't think any of them is ever going to confess. Why would they, even if convicted and sent down for life. Something this horrific is something none of them want to own in any way. I don't see an ounce of spirituality in them or they would be thinking of the Kerchers now. So what reason would they have to own this crime, and atone for it? It would probably destroy them psychologically to do so.

Am I right in thinking that murderers often take years and years to come to terms with what they did? I felt that Myra Hindley never really did at all, for example, as shown by her campaign to push for release. I found no acceptance in that act alone, or contrition. I may be wrong but isn't it viewed as a huge psychological trauma for the brain to accept it fully. (Clearly more of a trauma for the victim's family of course) I cannot see Amanda doing it. Too much invested in her being innocent. She OWES it to her family not to confess. Ever. That's the price she will pay, ultmately. Her punishment. She's alone with it. Imagine being alone with it...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 4549
Images: 0
Michael wrote:
From Candace on the Smog:

Dempsey wrote:
NOTE: I believe PM Mignini will be back in court September 28 for his own case. If anybody has more information, please post.



THE SMOG


My God. Desperate on the Smog for news of the Mignini trial or what? Anything they can use to make him an evil guy, positively wetting themselves for it. What are they going to do if he's acquitted? They're TERRIFIED of the prospect. All their 'evil Anti-Christ dictator prosecutor' BS for the last two years falls apart.

Conclusion. They are far more terrified of the verdict on Mignini then Mignini is or anyone else in the world, aside from the Florentine prosecutor he's at war with. Indeed, Mignini just takes it in his stride, it's all a part of being a prosecutor in Italy. Just more politics, another day at the office. But, this means EVERYTHING to the FOA. If he's acquitted, where do they go from there?


Looks like Frank Sfarzo begins to worry too: comments at his blog need to be approved now, same as at Candace's. Needless to say that he only approves comments about Amanda Knox being framed by Italian police and Mignini. Maybe this is one of the made demands by the Knox/Mellas clan? What a curtain of smoke.

Does someone knows what Frank Sfarzo and Candace Dempsey do for a living - besides defending Amanda Knox for better or worse? I saw that Candace Dempsey has a blog about food and I read somewhere that she is a food critics or something like that. Does any of those two has been reporting about murder cases before or how did they became related to this one?


Last edited by Nell on Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am
Posts: 45
Location: California, US
Bard,

Did you ever see the movie, "Dead Man Walking" starring Sean Penn? I saw it years ago so can't go into the details, but the film was very intense and dealt with a man on death row who never admitted to himself or anyone that he committed the crime he was found guilty of. Just before he was executed, he finally (with the help of a tough nun) was able to own up to it. Your discussion above reminded me of it. If you haven't seen it and it sounds interesting to you, check it out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 712
Location: Tasmania Australia
Article from La Nazione (Perugia section). Sorry; no time to translate.
http://lanazione.ilsole24ore.com/perugi ... sise.shtml
L'OMICIDIO MEREDITH
Riprende il processo in Corte d'Assise
In aula ultimi testimoni della difesa

Il processo per il delitto Kercher è alla battute finali, previste le testimonianze in aula degli ultimi consulenti delle difese di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito, tra venerdì 25 settembre e sabato 26 settembre. Dalla decisione della Corte dipenderanno, quindi, i tempi del processo e l'inizio della requisitoria con la successiva sentenza

Perugia, Amanda Knox in tribunale Perugia, 24 settembre 2009 -
La fase dibattimentale del processo a Raffaele Sollecito e ad Amanda Knox rinviati a giudizio per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher davanti alla Corte d'assise di Perugia, dopo oltre otto mesi di udienze potrebbe concludersi tra domani e sabato. Il calendario prevede infatti le deposizioni degli ultimi quattro testimoni indicati dalle difese.

In aula compariranno il medico legale Walter Patumi e il neurofisiopatologo Carlo Caltagirone, citati dai legali della Knox, mentre il giorno successivo è stata fissata la deposizione della genetista Sara Gino, indicata sempre dai difensori della giovane americana, e dell'esperto informatico Michele Gigli, consulente della difesa Sollecito. Al termine delle loro testimonianze il presidente della Corte, Giancarlo Massei, dichiarerà chiusa l'istruttoria dibattimentale, cioè la fase del processo caratterizzata dall'esame di quelle che le parti considerano le prove d'accusa e a discarico.

Il collegio ha quindi già fissato le date del 2 e del 3 ottobre per esaminare le richieste di integrazione probatoria. E' praticamente certo che in questa fase i difensori di Sollecito e della Knox chiederanno una perizia sulle tracce del Dna e sul coltello considerato l'arma del delitto. Dalla decisione dei giudici su queste istanze dipenderanno i tempi del processo formalmente cominciato il 16 gennaio scorso anche se i primi testimoni sono stati ascoltati il 6 febbraio.

Sarà quindi più chiaro quando potrebbe arrivare la sentenza sull'omicidio Kercher, compiuto a Perugia la sera del primo novembre del 2007, del quale sono imputati Sollecito e la Knox, mentre Rudy Guede è stato già condannato a 30 anni di reclusione con il rito abbreviato. Per lui il 18 novembre comincerà il processo d'appello.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Michael wrote:
Conclusion. They are far more terrified of the verdict on Mignini then Mignini is or anyone else in the world, aside from the Florentine prosecutor he's at war with. Indeed, Mignini just takes it in his stride, it's all a part of being a prosecutor in Italy. Just more politics, another day at the office. But, this means EVERYTHING to the FOA. If he's acquitted, where do they go from there?


I think the "sides" of this case are so polarized, and deeply embedded, the verdict won't change anyone's mind about anything.

Mignini is up for 10 months in jail isn't he? No intelligent person would be over confident would they?
Unless this is just lip service, but then why would the courts pursue it and not have dropped it and ignored it to begin with?

I would think it's somewhat a accusation that goes with the job, but I don't know.

People who know the Italian system would know the statistics.

Is this a very common trial for Prosecutors in Italy?
Or is it actually something that doesn't happen often to Prosecutors?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XI. MAIN DISCUSSION, July 17 -
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 4:26 am
Posts: 9
Hmmm.

Does anyone in PG who may be reading this - know of 'Shaky''s whereabouts today (nearly 2 years subsequent to the crime)?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: THE EVIL PROSECUTOR RETURNS ...... FOR A MILLISECOND
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am
Posts: 578
jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Conclusion. They are far more terrified of the verdict on Mignini then Mignini is or anyone else in the world, aside from the Florentine prosecutor he's at war with. Indeed, Mignini just takes it in his stride, it's all a part of being a prosecutor in Italy. Just more politics, another day at the office. But, this means EVERYTHING to the FOA. If he's acquitted, where do they go from there?

.... Mignini is up for 10 months in jail isn't he? No intelligent person would be over confident would they?

Mario Spezi was given a two month suspended sentence last January for secretly and illegally trying to tape record questioning by Mignini (a cop heard him fumbling with the buttons on his tape recorder in the adjacent toilet stall just before Spezi walked into the session). I don't think that Spezi lost sleep in that case.

I wasn't aware that there was a theoretical jail sentence associated with what is left of the process against Mignini (the accusation of illegalities against Spezi were excluded a few months ago from the case, to the chagrin of the FOAKers).

Mignini has discussed the case non-chalantly. I don't really understand it myself. Even if he were found to have committed an infraction and received some sort of sentence, as in Spezi's case, it would likely be suspended, because of a lack of a record and because it's not a serious crime like murder.

In any case, as Michael said, while the FOAKers need desperately to have an Evil Prosecutor, I don't really think that either Mignini, nor Comodi, nor Massei, nor Maresca, nor Bongiorno, nor the jury, nor Ghirga take the other MoF-related issue concerning Mignini into account in how they act in the case of the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 [ 2410 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 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Countdown To Final Appeal     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


24,540,241 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group