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: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:46 pm It is currently Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:46 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 3464 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Good point SomeAlibi - maybe he had a "hickey" like the FOAK's claim Knox did - right smack dab on his adam's apple, and chose to be a bit more discreet. :)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Tara wrote:
Thanks DF2K for those descriptive photos of Amanda and Raffaele's grief the day after Meredith (Amanda's good friend) was discovered brutally slain in their shared house.

There is Sollecito wearing his yellow scarf...2 days in a row! If I recall wasn't it around 50 degrees in Perugia?

We Seattle folks are wimps when it comes to chilly temperatures however, only speaking for myself, a scarf doesn't emerge until we're in the 30's.

Maybe he has some sort of hangup about his neck?


I hope everyone is enjoying a festive holiday season! b-((


Hi Tara,
Hope your Christmas has been nice and relaxing.
Regarding Sollecito's scarf, some people at the time did speculate over whether he had some kind of injury he was hiding with it.


Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
tom_ch wrote:
Emerald wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.

I have a 39+cm chef's knife that I always take to other peoples houses when I cook (it may have started as 40cm, but a couple mm broke off the tip when I dropped it earlier this year, and it's been resharpened a few times). I also have probably brought a cleaver on occasion as well, plus various other knives (I'm very particular about my cooking knives)

So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.

Tom



cl-)

Occam's Razor telephoned... looking for gainful employ... - it's particularly embarrassed about its recent role as a butter knife

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
More lying (or just insane forgetfulness??) from Knox... From the article linked above ( http://www.repubblica.it/2009/06/sezion ... cesso.html )

"Tutti si chiedono come facciamo ad affrontare questa storia senza impazzire ma tu lo sai, noi non piangiamo in pubblico."

translation: "Everyone is asking how do we face this story without going crazy but you know, we do not cry in public. "

HUH??

No crying??? We have a little series of (somewhat controversial) photos upthread that say different. As for "going crazy" I think smearing the people and the justice system of an entire country is bonkers, but hey, maybe that's sane in Knox/Mellas land.


**edited to correct attribution to Knox**


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Picktor- your artwork is most beautiful. Thanks for the treat!

Here is a CU article with some lines from Guede's apology letter he wrote in the summer to the Kercher family.

One apology letter to the Kercher family.
Written by Guede in his handwriting and given to lawyer Maresca.

Sixty-five lines spread over three pages in a small, nervous handwriting. Rudy Hermann Guede had written the letter in Viterbo prison on 20 June last and was delivered to the Kercher family "spokesman" lawyer Francesco Maresca, so he could pass it on to them.

To Mez’s family: "I’m hoping that my gesture will not upset or inconvenience any one". It is the letter that made the civil part lawyer say that, Rudy was the only one of the three defendants who apologized to the family of the victim. In this letter Rudy confirms that he met Mez in the month of September 2007 and that he had acquainted her.

“I had a chance --he wrote-- to understand the strengths of your daughter and sister and the kind of person she was; none other than a splendid and brilliant girl, who with her clean honest, calm, polite character, was able to affect positively whoever was close to her.”
“I'm not that monster that they wanted you to believe, not the person that they have falsely described. Nor do I want to tell you either that I’m an immaculate angel like certain hypocrites do. I have only one blame, that of not having done everything possible to save the life of a beautiful girl, the life of your daughter, your sister. I am a young man who upon founding himself in front of the horror it was left overwhelmed by the fear, without doing everything possible to save Mez. I do not know if I can ever succeed to repay you for such fault of mine, an impossible thing, but I ask of you just one thing: that you never stop to search for the truth.”
http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=21


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Bea wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Tara wrote:
Thanks DF2K for those descriptive photos of Amanda and Raffaele's grief the day after Meredith (Amanda's good friend) was discovered brutally slain in their shared house.

There is Sollecito wearing his yellow scarf...2 days in a row! If I recall wasn't it around 50 degrees in Perugia?

We Seattle folks are wimps when it comes to chilly temperatures however, only speaking for myself, a scarf doesn't emerge until we're in the 30's.

Maybe he has some sort of hangup about his neck?


I hope everyone is enjoying a festive holiday season! b-((


Hi Tara,
Hope your Christmas has been nice and relaxing.
Regarding Sollecito's scarf, some people at the time did speculate over whether he had some kind of injury he was hiding with it.


Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Bea I completely agree with you, the scarf covering doesn't mean Rs was covering anything, it is a fashionable item as well as covering the neck in chill weather.
I myself have a whole collection of them and will wear one wrapped the same way almost everyday in winter.
pp-(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 340
Location: UK
Hi Jools,
Like has been said before - Guede is the only one out of the 3 to have told any semblance of truth.
At the very least he has admitted to being there at the house that night.
He is also the only one of the 3 to reach out to the Kerchers with anything that could be regarded as an apology, however hollow it may seem.
I couldn't help thinking of Edda Mellas while reading the above and wondering why she views condolence to be conditional to Amanda Knox being found not guilty.
I simply can't understand that view, there is no shred of human decency there.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
A comment by Fiorenza Sarzanini in Corriere Della Sera:

The Sentence to Rudy Guede Halved.
The Reduction and the Truth Never Revealed.

Murderer and rapist. This is what the ruling of judges in Perugia says, that sentences Rudy Guede to 16 years in prison. The process truth reached so far confirms that it was he, together with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who have killed Meredith Kercher on the night November first two years ago.

The pain of loosing a girl of twenty years old, cannot be measure with the conviction years given to her torturers, even if presumed until a definite decision. But certainly it causes to reflect on reductions in all possible mitigations granted to defendants who are accused of very serious crimes such as murder and sexual violence. The feeling becomes therefore stronger, that in reality these verdicts could represent a compromise in front of an accusatorial framework, which stood the test of the Court of Assises, but without filling up some gaps of the investigation. Why the persons indicated by the accusation in court as “key witnesses” contradicted themselves and denied even details that indeed had verbalized during the enquiry stage. Above all why in the final reconstruction are two key pieces missing: the time of the murder and the knife used for threatening Mez and cutting her throat.

Among the images that mark this story, one is the face of Lyle Kercher, Meredith's brother, while commenting on the conviction of Amanda and Raffaele: "No one can rejoice, because they will remain in prison and she will never come back." A lesson in humanity that stands ahead of reactions from other victims relatives who invoke for exemplary convictions, holding that a high sentence serves to avenge the suffered pain.

Yesterday’s verdict must be reflected upon, especially for the impact it could have. Rudy is little over twenty years old, is right that prison for him is --as well as for other detainees-- a path for rehabilitation. The road ahead appears still to be very short. Even if the Supreme Court upholds that ruling, in ten years he may in fact already be free.

Perhaps at time of granting mitigating circumstances it would be good to consider that, although he was under obligation to admit to having been present at the crime scene, the Ivorian has never told what really happened in that house. Corriere Della Sera


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Hi Jools,
Like has been said before - Guede is the only one out of the 3 to have told any semblance of truth.
At the very least he has admitted to being there at the house that night.
He is also the only one of the 3 to reach out to the Kerchers with anything that could be regarded as an apology, however hollow it may seem.
I couldn't help thinking of Edda Mellas while reading the above and wondering why she views condolence to be conditional to Amanda Knox being found not guilty.
I simply can't understand that view, there is no shred of human decency there.

Hi DF2K,

I agree. No shred of decency and she knows more than anyone else what her la_) did!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts: 30
Yeah, it's really cool how Rafaelle and Amanda shared stuff. Like, he brought over his knife to cook for her (and managed to prick the murder victim and get her DNA on it), Amanda brought over a plastic bag from his apartment on the day the murder was discovered, and Amanda was bringing over a mop and bucket to help clean his apartment on the day the murder was discovered.

It's like a regular silk road of trade between these two dwellings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
grushka wrote:
Yeah, it's really cool how Rafaelle and Amanda shared stuff. Like, he brought over his knife to cook for her (and managed to prick the murder victim and get her DNA on it).


Except, even less believably, he claims to have 'pricked' Meredith during preparation of a meal at HIS apartment. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Bea wrote:
grushka wrote:
Yeah, it's really cool how Rafaelle and Amanda shared stuff. Like, he brought over his knife to cook for her (and managed to prick the murder victim and get her DNA on it).


Except, even less believably, he claims to have 'pricked' Meredith during preparation of a meal at HIS apartment. :roll:


The DNA wasn't found on the tip of the knife.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
SomeAlibi wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Emerald wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.

I have a 39+cm chef's knife that I always take to other peoples houses when I cook (it may have started as 40cm, but a couple mm broke off the tip when I dropped it earlier this year, and it's been resharpened a few times). I also have probably brought a cleaver on occasion as well, plus various other knives (I'm very particular about my cooking knives)

So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.
Tom



cl-)

Occam's Razor telephoned... looking for gainful employ... - it's particularly embarrassed about its recent role as a butter knife



What is puzzling, however, if it is true RS habitually brought his own cooking knives along, is that he never proffered this as an explanation of why the knife made a trip to the cottage. It seems a bit late for that now. I believe RS also stated or wrote that he had hardly been to 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: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Emerald wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.

I have a 39+cm chef's knife that I always take to other peoples houses when I cook (it may have started as 40cm, but a couple mm broke off the tip when I dropped it earlier this year, and it's been resharpened a few times). I also have probably brought a cleaver on occasion as well, plus various other knives (I'm very particular about my cooking knives)

So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.
Tom



cl-)

Occam's Razor telephoned... looking for gainful employ... - it's particularly embarrassed about its recent role as a butter knife



What is puzzling, however, if it is true RS habitually brought his own cooking knives along, is that he never proffered this as an explanation of why the knife made a trip to the cottage. It seems a bit late for that now. I believe RS also stated or wrote that he had hardly been to the cottage.


It was a BIG knife - raffy's maid probably confirmed it was his kitchen knife. The flatmates probably confirmed it wasn't one of theirs. IF for cooking IF it had been brought from his apt. for cooking. AK had a set of knives under her bed (her knives she had carried with her from Germany) - knives for cooking.

Also - AK in her recollections about Meredith Kercher stated to the police that the night of the murder RS cooked some pasta for himself - not her. Just pasta.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Emerald wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.

I have a 39+cm chef's knife that I always take to other peoples houses when I cook (it may have started as 40cm, but a couple mm broke off the tip when I dropped it earlier this year, and it's been resharpened a few times). I also have probably brought a cleaver on occasion as well, plus various other knives (I'm very particular about my cooking knives)

So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.
Tom



cl-)

Occam's Razor telephoned... looking for gainful employ... - it's particularly embarrassed about its recent role as a butter knife



What is puzzling, however, if it is true RS habitually brought his own cooking knives along, is that he never proffered this as an explanation of why the knife made a trip to the cottage. It seems a bit late for that now. I believe RS also stated or wrote that he had hardly been to the cottage.


It was a BIG knife - raffy's maid probably confirmed it was his kitchen knife. The flatmates probably confirmed it wasn't one of theirs. IF for cooking IF it had been brought from his apt. for cooking. AK had a set of knives under her bed (her knives she had carried with her from Germany) - knives for cooking.


Not probably. They did confirm the knife was not from the cottage. Frankly, I can't believe this is even a topic of discussion at this point.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Emerald wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.

I have a 39+cm chef's knife that I always take to other peoples houses when I cook (it may have started as 40cm, but a couple mm broke off the tip when I dropped it earlier this year, and it's been resharpened a few times). I also have probably brought a cleaver on occasion as well, plus various other knives (I'm very particular about my cooking knives)

So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.
Tom



cl-)

Occam's Razor telephoned... looking for gainful employ... - it's particularly embarrassed about its recent role as a butter knife



What is puzzling, however, if it is true RS habitually brought his own cooking knives along, is that he never proffered this as an explanation of why the knife made a trip to the cottage. It seems a bit late for that now. I believe RS also stated or wrote that he had hardly been to the cottage.


It was a BIG knife - raffy's maid probably confirmed it was his kitchen knife. The flatmates probably confirmed it wasn't one of theirs. IF for cooking IF it had been brought from his apt. for cooking. AK had a set of knives under her bed (her knives she had carried with her from Germany) - knives for cooking.


Not probably. They did confirm the knife was not from the cottage. Frankly, I can't believe this is even a topic of discussion at this point.


I'm not arguing about it Skeptical Bystander - I am trying to stop other people arguing about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Emerald wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Emerald,
The photos were of Sollecito mummy wrapped and holding a cleaver (and what is said to be a bottle of bleach) but I myself believe it is a methylated spirit type substance.
Why he has a big butchers cleaver like that in his possession god only knows.


I know RS likes to collect knives. Does anyone know if he liked to cook, too? I'm not a chef by any means, but have some very intense knives I use from time to time. A big cleaver and one which would probably be considered a machete. I've also taken knives with me to other peoples homes when I knew I would be cooking. Not saying that's what RS did, but the point has been brought up about taking knives to other's homes.

I have a 39+cm chef's knife that I always take to other peoples houses when I cook (it may have started as 40cm, but a couple mm broke off the tip when I dropped it earlier this year, and it's been resharpened a few times). I also have probably brought a cleaver on occasion as well, plus various other knives (I'm very particular about my cooking knives)

So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.
Tom



cl-)

Occam's Razor telephoned... looking for gainful employ... - it's particularly embarrassed about its recent role as a butter knife



What is puzzling, however, if it is true RS habitually brought his own cooking knives along, is that he never proffered this as an explanation of why the knife made a trip to the cottage. It seems a bit late for that now. I believe RS also stated or wrote that he had hardly been to the cottage.


It was a BIG knife - raffy's maid probably confirmed it was his kitchen knife. The flatmates probably confirmed it wasn't one of theirs. IF for cooking IF it had been brought from his apt. for cooking. AK had a set of knives under her bed (her knives she had carried with her from Germany) - knives for cooking.


Not probably. They did confirm the knife was not from the cottage. Frankly, I can't believe this is even a topic of discussion at this point.


I'm not arguing about it Skeptical Bystander - I am trying to stop other people arguing about it.



Oh, I know that T. I was just making a general statement. It strikes me as odd that people are still wondering if RS carried this kitchen knife with him wherever he went as guest chef for the night. I think we would all know this by now if it were even remotely true.

Also, I have lived in Europe and in Asia and in North America, during which time I have frequented people who love to cook, even a few professional chefs. I never saw anyone bring his own cooking knives to someone else's house. I know a couple of peasants who carry their own small knife at all times, which they use to cut bread.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 158
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


Michael and I agree that our role here is to make sure that discussion stays at the high level you all have worked to build and maintain.:)

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!


This is a very good idea. Maybe we can create a thread for anyone who wants to work on that project. I think you're right. Not everyone who gives airtime to these aggrieved Americans has taken the time to review the evidence. This creates a natural imbalance that could be corrected if, for example, someone representing the Kerchers rebutted this nonsense or was at least given the opportunity to present the facts/set the record straight. It is too bad that Maresca is not given the chance to do this in the UK.

I also think it must be painful for the Kercher family to hear Edda Mellas invading the British airwaves. I hope their radio is tuned to static.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:05 am
Posts: 1
If one spills water while cooking pasta or a pipe leaks water, one never waits until the next day to get a mop from a friends place to clean up the water. Nobody waits until the next day to clean up water. You simply get a towel to clean up the water the same night......lies, nothing but lies, "what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!


This is a very good idea. Maybe we can create a thread for anyone who wants to work on that project. I think you're right. Not everyone who gives airtime to these aggrieved Americans has taken the time to review the evidence. This creates a natural imbalance that could be corrected if, for example, someone representing the Kerchers rebutted this nonsense or was at least given the opportunity to present the facts/set the record straight. It is too bad that Maresca is not given the chance to do this in the UK.

I also think it must be painful for the Kercher family to hear Edda Mellas invading the British airwaves. I hope their radio is tuned to static.



You know I'm a fan of this idea. I will contribute. I just wonder what the best technology for this happening is? I'm thinking maybe Googledocs?

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!



This is a very good idea. Maybe we can create a thread for anyone who wants to work on that project. I think you're right. Not everyone who gives airtime to these aggrieved Americans has taken the time to review the evidence. This creates a natural imbalance that could be corrected if, for example, someone representing the Kerchers rebutted this nonsense or was at least given the opportunity to present the facts/set the record straight. It is too bad that Maresca is not given the chance to do this in the UK.

I also think it must be painful for the Kercher family to hear Edda Mellas invading the British airwaves. I hope their radio is tuned to static.


How wierd. I was reading the earlier post from someone 'new to the case', who had lots of FAQs and was just about to suggest a FAQ section on the board to refer new people to to save time and patience! Synchronicity. I don't know why we haven't thought of it before The lamp (fingerprints?); the mop (any blood found?); the bloodied clothes worn during the murder (whereabouts of?); the washing machine; DNA (yikes!); Rudy's non-existent life as a criminal and 'drifter' - all these questions seem to recur frequently. I was on the point of starting the document myself. Perhaps if everyone submitted a couple it would save time?

Hope everyone had a good Christmas BTW! bu-)

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Oh, I know that T. I was just making a general statement. It strikes me as odd that people are still wondering if RS carried this kitchen knife with him wherever he went as guest chef for the night. I think we would all know this by now if it were even remotely true.

Okay, Skep, that (emphasized sentence) made me Laugh Out Loud (TM).... to the point of tears.... I'm glad I wasn't sipping my tea at that point, LOL.... :D :) :) d-)) dm-) tt-) b-(( pp-(

But to the point of carrying knives around... Hmm, I've probably done it once or twice in my life, while taking some food that needed to be further prepared or a cake that needed to be cut.... (shades of RG's excuse of 'we need the knife to cut a birthday cake'....)... but other than that, nope, I pretty much depend on the knives in the household I'm going to! da-))


Last edited by Earthling on Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
edgedude wrote:
If one spills water while cooking pasta or a pipe leaks water, one never waits until the next day to get a mop from a friends place to clean up the water. Nobody waits until the next day to clean up water. You simply get a towel to clean up the water the same night......lies, nothing but lies, "what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive...



Certainly Raffaele -- a top chef with a traveling kitchen knife collection -- would never let pasta water sit on his kitchen floor overnight. Why would anyone do any such thing, when the solution is just a towel or two away. In addition, water damage to other units is a constant worry in apartment buildings, especially old ones. I can't see anyone leaving a pool of water on the floor overnight, or even needing a mop to clean up the water if one isn't readily available. This is one of the many parts of the story I have never understood.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!


This is a very good idea. Maybe we can create a thread for anyone who wants to work on that project. I think you're right. Not everyone who gives airtime to these aggrieved Americans has taken the time to review the evidence. This creates a natural imbalance that could be corrected if, for example, someone representing the Kerchers rebutted this nonsense or was at least given the opportunity to present the facts/set the record straight. It is too bad that Maresca is not given the chance to do this in the UK.

I also think it must be painful for the Kercher family to hear Edda Mellas invading the British airwaves. I hope their radio is tuned to static.


FAQ

a: timeline
b: physical evidence
c: circumstantial evidence
d: concurrance of witness statements
e: how the trial was conducted
f: trial testimony
g: relations of written testimony and circumstance
h: the media factor
i: grounds for appeal

lots of 'bulletpoints'

nin-)


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
edgedude wrote:
If one spills water while cooking pasta or a pipe leaks water, one never waits until the next day to get a mop from a friends place to clean up the water. Nobody waits until the next day to clean up water. You simply get a towel to clean up the water the same night......lies, nothing but lies, "what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive...

Totally true, edgedude. We had proof of this yesterday at Christmas dinner. There was a little accident *ahem* in the bathroom with overflow of water. Anyway, the hosts immediately cleaned up the water. They didn't leave it to rot the floorboards overnight, or even the bathroom tile. Sheesh.


Last edited by Earthling on Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Earthling wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Oh, I know that T. I was just making a general statement. It strikes me as odd that people are still wondering if RS carried this kitchen knife with him wherever he went as guest chef for the night. I think we would all know this by now if it were even remotely true.

Okay, Skep, that (emphasized sentence) made me Laugh Out Loud (TM).... to the point of tears.... I'm glad I wasn't sipping my tea at that point, LOL.... :D :) :) d-)) dm-) tt-) b-(( pp-(

But to the point of carrying knives around... Hmm, I've probably done it once or twice in my life, while taking some food that needed to be further prepared or a cake that needed to be cut.... (shades of RG's excuse of 'we need the knife to cut a birthday cake'....)... but other than that, nope, I pretty much depend on the knives in the household I'm going to! da-))


I'm glad someone besides me laughed at that one! I was thinking about those silly top chef/iron chef competitions when I wrote it. As for taking knives to other people's houses, it just seems so odd. Knives are things that anyone with a kitchen has, right? I can see taking one on a picnic though.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Oh, I know that T. I was just making a general statement. It strikes me as odd that people are still wondering if RS carried this kitchen knife with him wherever he went as guest chef for the night. I think we would all know this by now if it were even remotely true.

Okay, Skep, that (emphasized sentence) made me Laugh Out Loud (TM).... to the point of tears.... I'm glad I wasn't sipping my tea at that point, LOL.... :D :) :) d-)) dm-) tt-) b-(( pp-(

But to the point of carrying knives around... Hmm, I've probably done it once or twice in my life, while taking some food that needed to be further prepared or a cake that needed to be cut.... (shades of RG's excuse of 'we need the knife to cut a birthday cake'....)... but other than that, nope, I pretty much depend on the knives in the household I'm going to! da-))


I'm glad someone besides me laughed at that one! I was thinking about those silly top chef/iron chef competitions when I wrote it. As for taking knives to other people's houses, it just seems so odd. Knives are things that anyone with a kitchen has, right? I can see taking one on a picnic though.


Perhaps we should ask Candace. She'll know. Cookery questions are right up her street...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:22 pm
Posts: 140
Location: WA, USA
Highscores: 7
You say:
donnie wrote:
As for Knox. Is there a really solid proof/evidence that she was the killer? I'm not being ignorant, i just couldn't find anything like that. Was circumstantial evidence the base for sentencing her to jail for 26 years? I know all about the knife, the witness, the odd behaviour, but i believe that this is simply not enough.Is there anything that is linking here to the room?


And later you say:
donnie wrote:
To Skeptical Bystander-Dude, relax. You're taking it way to seriously/personnal. It's not the first time i see you acting this way. Everytime when someone new arrive and he/she got other opinion than yours, he's/she's welcome to get the hell out of here, out of respect or whatever else that is.


How could you know so much about how Skep moderates the board, and yet claim to have read nothing about the evidence, discussed in minutiae here on a daily basis I might add, pertaining to the convicted murderers? I call shenanigans, since this appears to be a game.

You seem to have missed the purpose of this forum and the real nature of it's participants. Catnip said it so beautifully in his holiday greeting:

catnip wrote:
To all, the Board and its readers,

who, in infinite variety, by

* nurturing the heart and emotional core, finding and making links and connections,
* tending to the patterns of logical thinking, highlighting geometries of reasoning and signposting the paths through the thickets
* and, by example and guidance, keeping the spirit of a beautiful young soul alive



My open heart is with all those people celebrating the holiday's with an empty place at the table. And particularly those like the wonderful Kercher family who while knowing that it was the cruel and deliberate acts of other humans who created that empty space, can still show faith and trust in humanity. It's that evidence of true character I honor, and not those of a caged, maternal beast striking out all who might threaten her pups. That behavior may be truly natural, but it does not evoke the spirit of evolved humanity.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!


This is a very good idea. Maybe we can create a thread for anyone who wants to work on that project. I think you're right. Not everyone who gives airtime to these aggrieved Americans has taken the time to review the evidence. This creates a natural imbalance that could be corrected if, for example, someone representing the Kerchers rebutted this nonsense or was at least given the opportunity to present the facts/set the record straight. It is too bad that Maresca is not given the chance to do this in the UK.

I also think it must be painful for the Kercher family to hear Edda Mellas invading the British airwaves. I hope their radio is tuned to static.



You know I'm a fan of this idea. I will contribute. I just wonder what the best technology for this happening is? I'm thinking maybe Googledocs?


maybe ask kermit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Bea wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Tara wrote:
Thanks DF2K for those descriptive photos of Amanda and Raffaele's grief the day after Meredith (Amanda's good friend) was discovered brutally slain in their shared house.

There is Sollecito wearing his yellow scarf...2 days in a row! If I recall wasn't it around 50 degrees in Perugia?

We Seattle folks are wimps when it comes to chilly temperatures however, only speaking for myself, a scarf doesn't emerge until we're in the 30's.

Maybe he has some sort of hangup about his neck?


I hope everyone is enjoying a festive holiday season! b-((


Hi Tara,
Hope your Christmas has been nice and relaxing.
Regarding Sollecito's scarf, some people at the time did speculate over whether he had some kind of injury he was hiding with it.


Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Raffy had a hunched aspect - his neck completely covered (the morning after). Was he injured? I really hope he was. Not just wearing the scarf lightly - wearing it like he was extremely cold or something else. He gave AK his warm coat to wear. Why didn't he give her the scarf? Were they fighting over it? The scarf to cover the obvious scratch on her neck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Raffy had a hunched aspect - his neck completely covered (the morning after). Was he injured? I really hope he was. Not just wearing the scarf lightly - wearing it like he was extremely cold or something else. He gave AK his warm coat to wear. Why didn't he give her the scarf? Were they fighting over it? The scarf to cover the obvious scratch on her neck.


Sorry, but i just cannot agree that there is ANY significance to the scarf. As I said above, he was wearing it in a manner quite in keeping with both style and tradition in Italy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Bea : AARGH!!!!

me too now

h-))


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Raffy had a hunched aspect - his neck completely covered (the morning after). Was he injured? I really hope he was. Not just wearing the scarf lightly - wearing it like he was extremely cold or something else. He gave AK his warm coat to wear. Why didn't he give her the scarf? Were they fighting over it? The scarf to cover the obvious scratch on her neck.


Sorry, but i just cannot agree that there is ANY significance to the scarf. As I said above, he was wearing it in a manner quite in keeping with both style and tradition in Italy.


Was he carrying the knife?


Not sure what you mean by that. huh-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Raffy had a hunched aspect - his neck completely covered (the morning after). Was he injured? I really hope he was. Not just wearing the scarf lightly - wearing it like he was extremely cold or something else. He gave AK his warm coat to wear. Why didn't he give her the scarf? Were they fighting over it? The scarf to cover the obvious scratch on her neck.


Sorry, but i just cannot agree that there is ANY significance to the scarf. As I said above, he was wearing it in a manner quite in keeping with both style and tradition in Italy.


Was he carrying the knife?


Not sure what you mean by that. huh-)


Sample conversation with ELIZA the AI program:

Eliza: I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.

human: I have a terrible headache.

Eliza: Maybe you should consult a doctor of medicine, I am a psychiatrist.

human: Okay I'll do that then.

Eliza: Can you elaborate on that?

human: What are you talking about? No I cannot elaborate. See you later.

Eliza: Why do you say that?

human: Now you're talking nonsense!

Eliza: What makes you believe now I am just talking nonsense?

human: You are not making any sense.

Eliza: Perhaps your plans have something to do with this.

etc etc etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Raffy had a hunched aspect - his neck completely covered (the morning after). Was he injured? I really hope he was. Not just wearing the scarf lightly - wearing it like he was extremely cold or something else. He gave AK his warm coat to wear. Why didn't he give her the scarf? Were they fighting over it? The scarf to cover the obvious scratch on her neck.


Sorry, but i just cannot agree that there is ANY significance to the scarf. As I said above, he was wearing it in a manner quite in keeping with both style and tradition in Italy.


Was he carrying the knife?


Not sure what you mean by that. huh-)


Sample conversation with ELIZA the AI robot:

Eliza: I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.

human: I have a terrible headache.

Eliza: Maybe you should consult a doctor of medicine, I am a psychiatrist.

human: Okay I'll do that then.

Eliza: Can you elaborate on that?

human: What are you talking about? No I cannot elaborate. See you later.

Eliza: Why do you say that?

human: Now you're talking nonsense!

Eliza: What makes you believe now I am just talking nonsense?

human: You are not making any sense.

Eliza: Perhaps your plans have something to do with this.

etc etc etc.



If I may say so, both of you could be right. It is true that in many European countries, wool scarves for men are a common fashion accessory. In addition, I have noticed that men and women in some European countries don a wool scarf whenever there is a draft or a chill in the air, to ward off colds. So there is nothing necessarily sinister about Raffy wearing a scarf on November 2, even if it was yellow (sorry, I could not resist).

On the other hand, he could well have wanted to conceal something under the scarf. I just don't think we have information that would confirm or rule out this possibility.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Raffy had a hunched aspect - his neck completely covered (the morning after). Was he injured? I really hope he was. Not just wearing the scarf lightly - wearing it like he was extremely cold or something else. He gave AK his warm coat to wear. Why didn't he give her the scarf? Were they fighting over it? The scarf to cover the obvious scratch on her neck.


Sorry, but i just cannot agree that there is ANY significance to the scarf. As I said above, he was wearing it in a manner quite in keeping with both style and tradition in Italy.


Was he carrying the knife?


Not sure what you mean by that. huh-)


Sample conversation with ELIZA the AI robot:

Eliza: I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.

human: I have a terrible headache.

Eliza: Maybe you should consult a doctor of medicine, I am a psychiatrist.

human: Okay I'll do that then.

Eliza: Can you elaborate on that?

human: What are you talking about? No I cannot elaborate. See you later.

Eliza: Why do you say that?

human: Now you're talking nonsense!

Eliza: What makes you believe now I am just talking nonsense?

human: You are not making any sense.

Eliza: Perhaps your plans have something to do with this.

etc etc etc.


I have NO idea why you are trying to pick a fight with me. Did you perhaps MISINTERPRET my comment about the knife upthread where I pointed out that Sollecito didn't try and use a half-believable excuse that he'd taken the knife to Via della Pergola one day for a meal and 'pricked' (HIS word, not mine-- I KNOW the DNA was mid-blade) Meredith there instead of trotting out the totally pathetic lie that she'd been to his house for a meal.

It seems like you are spoiling for a fight, but I am not your enemy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Raffy had a hunched aspect - his neck completely covered (the morning after). Was he injured? I really hope he was. Not just wearing the scarf lightly - wearing it like he was extremely cold or something else. He gave AK his warm coat to wear. Why didn't he give her the scarf? Were they fighting over it? The scarf to cover the obvious scratch on her neck.


Sorry, but i just cannot agree that there is ANY significance to the scarf. As I said above, he was wearing it in a manner quite in keeping with both style and tradition in Italy.


Was he carrying the knife?


Not sure what you mean by that. huh-)


Sample conversation with ELIZA the AI robot:

Eliza: I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time you are finished talking, type RET twice.

human: I have a terrible headache.

Eliza: Maybe you should consult a doctor of medicine, I am a psychiatrist.

human: Okay I'll do that then.

Eliza: Can you elaborate on that?

human: What are you talking about? No I cannot elaborate. See you later.

Eliza: Why do you say that?

human: Now you're talking nonsense!

Eliza: What makes you believe now I am just talking nonsense?

human: You are not making any sense.

Eliza: Perhaps your plans have something to do with this.

etc etc etc.


I have NO idea why you are trying to pick a fight with me. Did you perhaps MISINTERPRET my comment about the knife upthread where I pointed out that Sollecito didn't try and use a half-believable excuse that he'd taken the knife to Via della Pergola one day for a meal and 'pricked' (HIS word, not mine-- I KNOW the DNA was mid-blade) Meredith there instead of trotting out the totally pathetic lie that she'd been to his house for a meal.

It seems like you are spoiling for a fight, but I am not your enemy.


The degree of your offence is unwarranted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
Okay, ttrroonniicc, we're done here. You seem to be wanting to hijack the thread with some kind of nonsense and I'm just not interested in your games.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Bea wrote:
Okay, ttrroonniicc, we're done here. You seem to be wanting to hijack the thread with some kind of nonsense and I'm just not interested in your games.


Only YOU say that - also there is only 1 thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Bea wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Bea wrote:
Having lived in and visted Italy many times, I can tell you that covering the neck even in the slightest of chilly weather in quite common. In my experience, when Italians have a cold, they think it is ESSENTIAL to keep the throat covered at all times and also that keeping the throat covered is a great preventative to illness.

Additionally, a scarf worn in that way (halved and then ends put through the loop) is a common fashion even in warm weather. I've seen Italian in t-shirts with a scarf in the summer. Kind of got in the habit myself when I lived there actually, as a way to put variety in a small wardrobe.

I have no doubt of Sollecito's guilt, but his wearing a scarf is not a red flag to me. JMHO.


Raffy had a hunched aspect - his neck completely covered (the morning after). Was he injured? I really hope he was. Not just wearing the scarf lightly - wearing it like he was extremely cold or something else. He gave AK his warm coat to wear. Why didn't he give her the scarf? Were they fighting over it? The scarf to cover the obvious scratch on her neck.


Sorry, but i just cannot agree that there is ANY significance to the scarf. As I said above, he was wearing it in a manner quite in keeping with both style and tradition in Italy.


IMO you are right Bea I don' see any significance either and in fact RS the way he wears that scarf in pics is actually call 'The Italian Loop'.
http://www.elizabetta.net/page.php?page_id=15


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:16 pm
Posts: 59
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!


This is a very good idea. Maybe we can create a thread for anyone who wants to work on that project. I think you're right. Not everyone who gives airtime to these aggrieved Americans has taken the time to review the evidence. This creates a natural imbalance that could be corrected if, for example, someone representing the Kerchers rebutted this nonsense or was at least given the opportunity to present the facts/set the record straight. It is too bad that Maresca is not given the chance to do this in the UK.

I also think it must be painful for the Kercher family to hear Edda Mellas invading the British airwaves. I hope their radio is tuned to static.


FAQ

a: timeline
b: physical evidence
c: circumstantial evidence
d: concurrance of witness statements
e: how the trial was conducted
f: trial testimony
g: relations of written testimony and circumstance
h: the media factor
i: grounds for appeal

lots of 'bulletpoints'

nin-)

This seems like a good plan! It will put every one truly interested in facts (****) a place from which to start. One hopes this leads to intelligent discussion instead of.... ar-))
Happy New Year mul-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:57 am 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
My thoughts about the mop and scarf issues:
MOP: as a happy owner of a Mocio Vileda mop, I can say that it is most useful to scrub and clean floors, but totally useless to absorb water. The tissue shreds do not have absorbing power- it's not the purpose of the mop-. Towels, even paper towels are the best and most logical choice to dry a pool of water. Of all the crap the lovebirds have come up with, this is one of the most ludicrous.
SCARF: although it is true that scarves are fashionable in Italy, men especially those of Raffaele's age, don't wear them so often except for winter time under harsh weather conditions, which was not the case on November 2, 2007, when the two were actually "enjoying" the sunshine outside the cottage at the time the Communication police arrived. Although wearing a scarf per se is not an indication of guilt, for the above reasons I would not disregard the possibility that it was worn intentionally in order to hide a bruise. And by the way Raffaele was arrested a few days later, plenty of time for a light bruise to disappear totally.


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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
I'm so sorry my scarf comment caused such a debate here.

I guess I was thinking about how a guy might wear a bright yellow/gold scarf one day, and perhaps tone it down with a more neutral color if he chose to wear another scarf the very next day...not the same one. Since they seem to be popular in Italy, I would think people would have several.

Thanks for the tip about wearing a scarf though Bea - maybe I wouldn't have such a cold right now if I practiced wearing one more often! My favorite is a light colored camel colored wool that happens to be at the dry cleaners right now - light colored scarves and I seem to always run into something with dirt or lipstick/makeup and are only good to wear once before cleaning.



Hi Nicki! Is that your own personal mop? Great shot - brings to mind Kermit and May's comical "Mop Court!"

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


Last edited by Tara on Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am
Posts: 305
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!



Check you pm's


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
piktor wrote:
The 'warm/umido' WASHING MACHINE at the flat was a topic some days ago. Here's Truejustice's Feb. 6-7 witness for the prosecution accounts:

    -''The communication police noticed that there was a washing machine in operation and they could hear the noise of the centrifuge. Soon after, the mobile-squad police found that the machine had finished its work a few minutes earlier, and the clothes were still warm.''

    -''Filomena testified that the washing machine was still warm when she returned to the cottage and that it contained some of Meredith’s clothes.''

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tj ... _february/


That's two police and one other impartial witness who reported the washing machine was in use or had been used recently. So who set the washer? Guede? AK says she found the door open when she arrived at the cottage. The impostor did the laundry? Guede did the laundry?

The washing machine was reported to be full. Maybe they were waiting to put the bathmat in. Strange to have a bathmat in with regular washing. What did the washing consist of? AK stated that she never used the washer in the cottage. She was sighted (by who?) in a laundromat that morning (washing blue nikes). What happened to that witness?

An 'argentinian' was sighted in the laundromat with AK (waiting with her for the shoes to finish washing). He had probably agreed to take the nikes but only if they were washed. I think it was posted here that he wasn't an argentinian he was a venezualan? So he flew out pretty soon after. Did they ever track him down? AK in her "story" seems to insinuate that there were more people in the cottage that night. Was that person there at any point? Is the laundromat near to the shop where she was reported to be buying bleach (possibly)? What time was she sighted at the laundromat? I don't believe that particular witness was brought up in the trial. Where did the information about AK at a laundromat come from? The papers reported that it was someone resembling Guede but recently this forum has assumed it was an 'argentinian'. Sollecito confirmed that she had met someone early that morning because he wrote later he doesn't approve of 'his sort'. When did "guede" at the laundromat turn into "an argentinian"? Also - where was Guede? We know he fled to Germany but reports say he stayed around Perugia for some time. Did he have any close friends in Perugia who he talked to after that night? There are reports here of him dancing at the disco after the fact - people were annoyed because when the the music was stopped (a minutes silence for Meredith Kercher) he continued dancing. So he was still in Perugia at least the following night.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
nicki wrote:

SCARF: although it is true that scarves are fashionable in Italy, men especially those of Raffaele's age, don't wear them so often except for winter time under harsh weather conditions, which was not the case on November 2, 2007, when the two were actually "enjoying" the sunshine outside the cottage at the time the Communication police arrived. Although wearing a scarf per se is not an indication of guilt, for the above reasons I would not disregard the possibility that it was worn intentionally in order to hide a bruise. And by the way Raffaele was arrested a few days later, plenty of time for a light bruise to disappear totally.



It's certainly possible but it's highly unlikely. One, you can see in the pictures of AK and RS that both of them are wearing fleecy coats as is shown by the backing to AK's coat-hood on display in the pics. Two, and really the clincher, the police are extremely attuned to the possibility of injuries on suspects. It is as common as breathing in and out for the police to be looking out for this stuff - it is very very unlikely that RS sat in the police station for many hours in the early interviews before arrest with that scarf tied round his neck without them asking him to take it off and if he refused taking it further. Three, having done several years of judo as a small kid and then having done Wado Ryu karate up to brown belt level in my teens I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Meredith managed to strike their *necks* rather than their faces with a force that a blunt area the size of a fist broke blood vessels. The neck is actually extremely well protected from a punch under most circumstances. The slightest move away or inclination of the head down shuts off something as big as a fist getting to the neck (we know it wasn't fingers from the lack of DNA). I've fought many tens of hours of contact sparring and I've never taken an injury to the neck - you always get them to the chin, cheeks or front of the face. If Meredith had been able to strike out, they would be wearing injuries on their faces. Unfortunately she couldn't.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:22 am 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:

SCARF: although it is true that scarves are fashionable in Italy, men especially those of Raffaele's age, don't wear them so often except for winter time under harsh weather conditions, which was not the case on November 2, 2007, when the two were actually "enjoying" the sunshine outside the cottage at the time the Communication police arrived. Although wearing a scarf per se is not an indication of guilt, for the above reasons I would not disregard the possibility that it was worn intentionally in order to hide a bruise. And by the way Raffaele was arrested a few days later, plenty of time for a light bruise to disappear totally.



It's certainly possible but it's highly unlikely. One, you can see in the pictures of AK and RS that both of them are wearing fleecy coats as is shown by the backing to AK's coat-hood on display in the pics. Two, and really the clincher, the police are extremely attuned to the possibility of injuries on suspects. It is as common as breathing in and out for the police to be looking out for this stuff - it is very very unlikely that RS sat in the police station for many hours in the early interviews before arrest with that scarf tied round his neck without them asking him to take it off and if he refused taking it further. Three, having done several years of judo as a small kid and then having done Wado Ryu karate up to brown belt level in my teens I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Meredith managed to strike their *necks* rather than their faces with a force that a blunt area the size of a fist broke blood vessels. The neck is actually extremely well protected from a punch under most circumstances. The slightest move away or inclination of the head down shuts off something as big as a fist getting to the neck (we know it wasn't fingers from the lack of DNA). I've fought many tens of hours of contact sparring and I've never taken an injury to the neck - you always get them to the chin, cheeks or front of the face. If Meredith had been able to strike out, they would be wearing injuries on their faces. Unfortunately she couldn't.

The neck may be well protected from a punch.However, IMO a pinch or perhaps an elbow blow cannot be discounted so easily. Not that it bears much importance, but FYI, for a young boy to wear a yellow scarf on a sunny & warm fall day is not so common in this part of the world, I can confirm that.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:

SCARF: although it is true that scarves are fashionable in Italy, men especially those of Raffaele's age, don't wear them so often except for winter time under harsh weather conditions, which was not the case on November 2, 2007, when the two were actually "enjoying" the sunshine outside the cottage at the time the Communication police arrived. Although wearing a scarf per se is not an indication of guilt, for the above reasons I would not disregard the possibility that it was worn intentionally in order to hide a bruise. And by the way Raffaele was arrested a few days later, plenty of time for a light bruise to disappear totally.



It's certainly possible but it's highly unlikely. One, you can see in the pictures of AK and RS that both of them are wearing fleecy coats as is shown by the backing to AK's coat-hood on display in the pics. Two, and really the clincher, the police are extremely attuned to the possibility of injuries on suspects. It is as common as breathing in and out for the police to be looking out for this stuff - it is very very unlikely that RS sat in the police station for many hours in the early interviews before arrest with that scarf tied round his neck without them asking him to take it off and if he refused taking it further. Three, having done several years of judo as a small kid and then having done Wado Ryu karate up to brown belt level in my teens I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Meredith managed to strike their *necks* rather than their faces with a force that a blunt area the size of a fist broke blood vessels. The neck is actually extremely well protected from a punch under most circumstances. The slightest move away or inclination of the head down shuts off something as big as a fist getting to the neck (we know it wasn't fingers from the lack of DNA). I've fought many tens of hours of contact sparring and I've never taken an injury to the neck - you always get them to the chin, cheeks or front of the face. If Meredith had been able to strike out, they would be wearing injuries on their faces. Unfortunately she couldn't.

The neck may be well protected from a punch.However, IMO a pinch or perhaps an elbow blow cannot be discounted so easily. Not that it bears much importance, but FYI, for a young boy to wear a yellow scarf on a sunny & warm fall day is not so common in this part of the world, I can confirm that.


He does seem to have a bit of a covering up the neck fetish if you ask me! How many young boys do you know like this?

http://multimedia.iltempo.ilsole24ore.c ... 75/tre.JPG
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mere ... rOl1wl.jpg
http://img.timeinc.net/time/quotes/2009 ... lecito.jpg
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/St ... 231373.jpg
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Aman ... k1-DAl.jpg
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NlO8 ... 3/3015.jpg
http://www.haisentito.it/wp-galleryo/am ... lecito.jpg

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:46 am 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:

SCARF: although it is true that scarves are fashionable in Italy, men especially those of Raffaele's age, don't wear them so often except for winter time under harsh weather conditions, which was not the case on November 2, 2007, when the two were actually "enjoying" the sunshine outside the cottage at the time the Communication police arrived. Although wearing a scarf per se is not an indication of guilt, for the above reasons I would not disregard the possibility that it was worn intentionally in order to hide a bruise. And by the way Raffaele was arrested a few days later, plenty of time for a light bruise to disappear totally.



It's certainly possible but it's highly unlikely. One, you can see in the pictures of AK and RS that both of them are wearing fleecy coats as is shown by the backing to AK's coat-hood on display in the pics. Two, and really the clincher, the police are extremely attuned to the possibility of injuries on suspects. It is as common as breathing in and out for the police to be looking out for this stuff - it is very very unlikely that RS sat in the police station for many hours in the early interviews before arrest with that scarf tied round his neck without them asking him to take it off and if he refused taking it further. Three, having done several years of judo as a small kid and then having done Wado Ryu karate up to brown belt level in my teens I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Meredith managed to strike their *necks* rather than their faces with a force that a blunt area the size of a fist broke blood vessels. The neck is actually extremely well protected from a punch under most circumstances. The slightest move away or inclination of the head down shuts off something as big as a fist getting to the neck (we know it wasn't fingers from the lack of DNA). I've fought many tens of hours of contact sparring and I've never taken an injury to the neck - you always get them to the chin, cheeks or front of the face. If Meredith had been able to strike out, they would be wearing injuries on their faces. Unfortunately she couldn't.

The neck may be well protected from a punch.However, IMO a pinch or perhaps an elbow blow cannot be discounted so easily. Not that it bears much importance, but FYI, for a young boy to wear a yellow scarf on a sunny & warm fall day is not so common in this part of the world, I can confirm that.


He does seem to have a bit of a covering up the neck fetish if you ask me! How many young boys do you know like this?

http://multimedia.iltempo.ilsole24ore.c ... 75/tre.JPG
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mere ... rOl1wl.jpg
http://img.timeinc.net/time/quotes/2009 ... lecito.jpg
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/St ... 231373.jpg
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Aman ... k1-DAl.jpg
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NlO8 ... 3/3015.jpg
http://www.haisentito.it/wp-galleryo/am ... lecito.jpg

You seem to be missing the point that a scarf is a specific fashion accessory, differently from a turtleneck which is commonly worn all year round. However, I am not surprised if police didn't pay much attention to what Sollecito was wearing in the beginning, as he was even able to carry a knife with himself during his first interrogation(s).

I am not 100% sure he purposedly wore a scarf to hid some injuries, but at the same time I don't see how the idea can be so firmly disregarded-especially by someone who has no clue about the current fashion trends among young Italian students.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
A close zoom of this photo shows RS has something going on along his jawline and Knox has her own things going on around her nose, lip and neck.

If you haven't downloaded and examined this photo very closely, I highly recommend it.


Also, if I'm not mistaken, the coat with the fleece lining that Knox was wearing belonged to Sollecito.


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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:10 am 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Tara wrote:
A close zoom of this photo shows RS has something going on along his jawline and Knox has her own things going on around her nose, lip and neck.

If you haven't downloaded and examined this photo very closely, I highly recommend it.


Also, if I'm not mistaken, the coat with the fleece lining that Knox was wearing belonged to Sollecito.

What strikes me in this pic besides Knox's bruise and Sollecito's redness along his jawline, is that Raffaele is wearing what seems a light sweater, but he is keeping his scarf on.Amanda seems to be wearing a t-shirt or some similar garment under the coat. This tells me that the weather wasn't so cold to require a scarf, which is not a fashionable accessory except in cold weather.

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


Last edited by nicki on Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:

SCARF: although it is true that scarves are fashionable in Italy, men especially those of Raffaele's age, don't wear them so often except for winter time under harsh weather conditions, which was not the case on November 2, 2007, when the two were actually "enjoying" the sunshine outside the cottage at the time the Communication police arrived. Although wearing a scarf per se is not an indication of guilt, for the above reasons I would not disregard the possibility that it was worn intentionally in order to hide a bruise. And by the way Raffaele was arrested a few days later, plenty of time for a light bruise to disappear totally.



It's certainly possible but it's highly unlikely. One, you can see in the pictures of AK and RS that both of them are wearing fleecy coats as is shown by the backing to AK's coat-hood on display in the pics. Two, and really the clincher, the police are extremely attuned to the possibility of injuries on suspects. It is as common as breathing in and out for the police to be looking out for this stuff - it is very very unlikely that RS sat in the police station for many hours in the early interviews before arrest with that scarf tied round his neck without them asking him to take it off and if he refused taking it further. Three, having done several years of judo as a small kid and then having done Wado Ryu karate up to brown belt level in my teens I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Meredith managed to strike their *necks* rather than their faces with a force that a blunt area the size of a fist broke blood vessels. The neck is actually extremely well protected from a punch under most circumstances. The slightest move away or inclination of the head down shuts off something as big as a fist getting to the neck (we know it wasn't fingers from the lack of DNA). I've fought many tens of hours of contact sparring and I've never taken an injury to the neck - you always get them to the chin, cheeks or front of the face. If Meredith had been able to strike out, they would be wearing injuries on their faces. Unfortunately she couldn't.

The neck may be well protected from a punch.However, IMO a pinch or perhaps an elbow blow cannot be discounted so easily. Not that it bears much importance, but FYI, for a young boy to wear a yellow scarf on a sunny & warm fall day is not so common in this part of the world, I can confirm that.


He does seem to have a bit of a covering up the neck fetish if you ask me! How many young boys do you know like this?

http://multimedia.iltempo.ilsole24ore.c ... 75/tre.JPG
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mere ... rOl1wl.jpg
http://img.timeinc.net/time/quotes/2009 ... lecito.jpg
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/St ... 231373.jpg
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Aman ... k1-DAl.jpg
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NlO8 ... 3/3015.jpg
http://www.haisentito.it/wp-galleryo/am ... lecito.jpg

You seem to be missing the point that a scarf is a specific fashion accessory, differently from a turtleneck which is commonly worn all year round. However, I am not surprised if police didn't pay much attention to what Sollecito was wearing in the beginning, as he was even able to carry a knife with himself during his first interrogation(s).

I am not 100% sure he purposedly wore a scarf to hid some injuries, but at the same time I don't see how the idea can be so firmly disregarded-especially by someone who has no clue about the current fashion trends among young Italian students.


I think it may come down to whatever one's definition of "chilly enough for a scarf" is. I myself am relatively cold-natured and start sporting a daily scarf in September, even before I begin wearing a jacket. Rafaelle's preference for turtlenecks may indicate he gets cold easily too--- or that he just likes the way he looks in them. Who really knows what his specific fashion preferences are?

When I look at the picture of Rafaelle & Amanda outside the cottage, I get the impression from their attire that it's cool, but not cold, despite the sun. Definitely scarf weather. Then again, I may be influenced by my inherently cold nature.

Men in the US don't wear scarves as often, so I can see why it struck so many people as odd, but to me, the fact that it was the SAME scarf day after day suggests that he was wearing it more out of habit than as a means of concealing something. Again, JMHO.

Thanks for the mop pic, too. Makes it clear why the police were skeptical of her story about using it to sop up an hours-old flood of water on the other side of town.


**edited to add: nicki, I was writing about "definitely scarf weather" at the same time you were writing the opposite. Don't want you to think I was being contrary. AND it does point out the varying opinions of what "cold enough" is. :) ***

**re-edited for typo. It's cold here tonight, so my brain must need a scarf... ;) **


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Tara wrote:
A close zoom of this photo shows RS has something going on along his jawline and Knox has her own things going on around her nose, lip and neck.

If you haven't downloaded and examined this photo very closely, I highly recommend it.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the coat with the fleece lining that Knox was wearing belonged to Sollecito.


That looks very like a bruise on his jawline. AK and RS canoodling is part of video footage. There could lots of angles or more footage (where from - I've only seen stills and short footage from a documentary). The coat is raffaele's coat - he was pictured wearing it when accosted by the Daily Mirror in a cafe later that day. I have seen a rear view of AK wearing the coat (I think from this set) and it seems to have a distinctly wide hood - yes you can see the hood is wide on the link I post below. This may correspond to Kokomani's testimony in seeing that RS had donned some kind of a head covering while running up to his car with a knife when Kokomani was stopped at traffic lights.

It does look there like AK has some damage to the left hand side of her upper lip. She really showing an "I am the victim" face on that shot. Her hair does look unwashed. Notice how she only symbolically seems to be holding him (not completely holding him). Also the tension (warding?) in the way RS's left hand is on her.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/CBS_Product ... 44x183.jpg

Same thing in this photo with RS 'the gesture of holding' (but not holding - not touching her). I know you can read too much into things like that. It could be bruising on the jawline of RS because he is otherwise so pale (shock). It is good to blow the photos up. RS's coat looks very expensive (velvet collar). His coat looks dusty with hairs all over it. Had had an interesting night - I get the impression that RS would keep normally keep his clothes clean.

OK (edited) - that may only be a sweater of RS's. What happened to AK's coat?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:40 am 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
Bea wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
nicki wrote:

SCARF: although it is true that scarves are fashionable in Italy, men especially those of Raffaele's age, don't wear them so often except for winter time under harsh weather conditions, which was not the case on November 2, 2007, when the two were actually "enjoying" the sunshine outside the cottage at the time the Communication police arrived. Although wearing a scarf per se is not an indication of guilt, for the above reasons I would not disregard the possibility that it was worn intentionally in order to hide a bruise. And by the way Raffaele was arrested a few days later, plenty of time for a light bruise to disappear totally.



It's certainly possible but it's highly unlikely. One, you can see in the pictures of AK and RS that both of them are wearing fleecy coats as is shown by the backing to AK's coat-hood on display in the pics. Two, and really the clincher, the police are extremely attuned to the possibility of injuries on suspects. It is as common as breathing in and out for the police to be looking out for this stuff - it is very very unlikely that RS sat in the police station for many hours in the early interviews before arrest with that scarf tied round his neck without them asking him to take it off and if he refused taking it further. Three, having done several years of judo as a small kid and then having done Wado Ryu karate up to brown belt level in my teens I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that Meredith managed to strike their *necks* rather than their faces with a force that a blunt area the size of a fist broke blood vessels. The neck is actually extremely well protected from a punch under most circumstances. The slightest move away or inclination of the head down shuts off something as big as a fist getting to the neck (we know it wasn't fingers from the lack of DNA). I've fought many tens of hours of contact sparring and I've never taken an injury to the neck - you always get them to the chin, cheeks or front of the face. If Meredith had been able to strike out, they would be wearing injuries on their faces. Unfortunately she couldn't.

The neck may be well protected from a punch.However, IMO a pinch or perhaps an elbow blow cannot be discounted so easily. Not that it bears much importance, but FYI, for a young boy to wear a yellow scarf on a sunny & warm fall day is not so common in this part of the world, I can confirm that.


He does seem to have a bit of a covering up the neck fetish if you ask me! How many young boys do you know like this?

http://multimedia.iltempo.ilsole24ore.c ... 75/tre.JPG
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mere ... rOl1wl.jpg
http://img.timeinc.net/time/quotes/2009 ... lecito.jpg
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/St ... 231373.jpg
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Aman ... k1-DAl.jpg
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NlO8 ... 3/3015.jpg
http://www.haisentito.it/wp-galleryo/am ... lecito.jpg

You seem to be missing the point that a scarf is a specific fashion accessory, differently from a turtleneck which is commonly worn all year round. However, I am not surprised if police didn't pay much attention to what Sollecito was wearing in the beginning, as he was even able to carry a knife with himself during his first interrogation(s).

I am not 100% sure he purposedly wore a scarf to hid some injuries, but at the same time I don't see how the idea can be so firmly disregarded-especially by someone who has no clue about the current fashion trends among young Italian students.


I think it may come down to whatever one's definition of "chilly enough for a scarf" is. I myself am relatively cold-natured and start sporting a daily scarf in September, even before I begin wearing a jacket. Rafaelle's preference for turtlenecks may indicate he gets cold easily too--- or that he just likes the way he looks in them. Who really knows what his specific fashion preferences are?

When I look at the picture of Rafaelle & Amanda outside the cottage, I get the impression from their attire that it's cool, but not cold, despite the sun. Definitely scarf weather. Then again, I may be influenced by my inherently cold nature.

Men in the US don't wear scarves as often, so I can see why it struck so many people as odd, but to me, the fact that it was the SAME scarf day after day suggests that he was wearing it more out of habit than as a means of concealing something. Again, JMHO.

Thanks for the mop pic, too. Makes it clear why the police were skeptical of her story about using it to sop up an hours-old flood of water on the other side of town.

Hi Bea,
In Italy, turtlenecks are common even in summer (cotton or silk). Wool scarves -as the one that Raffaele seems to be wearing- are not generally used in mild weather.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
Hi nicki,

See my "edits" at the end of my post. (just want to be sure you know I wasn't being combative, but merely posting an opposite weather opinion simultaneously. :) )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
nicki wrote:
Tara wrote:
A close zoom of this photo shows RS has something going on along his jawline and Knox has her own things going on around her nose, lip and neck.

If you haven't downloaded and examined this photo very closely, I highly recommend it.


Also, if I'm not mistaken, the coat with the fleece lining that Knox was wearing belonged to Sollecito.

What strikes me in this pic besides Knox's bruise and Sollecito's redness along his jawline, is that Raffaele is wearing what seems a light sweater, but he is keeping his scarf on.Amanda seems to be wearing a t-shirt or some similar garment under the coat. This tells me that the weather wasn't so cold to require a scarf, which is not a fashionable accessory except in cold weather.


A question raised today has been: why did RS lend AK his coat (because she didn't have one) - but not his scarf? On such a cold day AK had travelled from the apartment of RS to the cottage coatless? But it must be cold because RS is wrapped up even in the strong sunlight outside that cottage. Again: what happened to the coat of AK? AK in her improbable hiking boots and skirt, coatless. Also - as an aside - those blowups posted today I think of AK and RS laughing in the underwear shop a day later - frightening levity. Not reasonable behaviour IMO.

AK and RS were eating a pizza publically while the memorial service for Meredith Kercher was going on (the night they both ended up in the questura permanently). They must have known about the service (I believe it was even advertised). For someone who has stated she was such a close friend of Meredith Kercher that is very strange. It came up on another forum that when asked about the murder by another friend of Meredith's AK had intoned "shit happens". I think they were trying to carry off a display of callous disregard.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts: 30
Quote:


These courtroom photos are rather extraordinary. So I started to wonder if there were any photos of RS WITHOUT such neck cover.

Here is one with less cover, but still some:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/mult ... 99117c.jpg

Here is one without much, not sure what exact stage of the case this is:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/0 ... 68x346.jpg

Here is one without - are those marks on his neck?
http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jun20 ... 385010.jpg

One without neck cover and no seeming marks on his neck anymore:
http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/cmssez ... ito01g.jpg

Here is a photo presumably before the murder case. No neck cover (eg, not a fetish or a predisposition to dress like that):
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/1 ... 68x707.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
The last photo is of Soll. when he was picked up by a daily mirror journalist in a local cafe later that day. He looks and probably was too wired to sleep. Also his absolute terror and paranoia made him want to be seen to know whether people suspected him - even to the extent of allowing an interview and photo from that journalist. He's got his coat back and is sans AK.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZKaxvAISaQk/R ... e_knox.jpg

I found 1 more photo of RS and AK that morning. I get the impression there is only video footage of them 'canoodling'. These other shots look to be of better quality than video footage would be IMO. In this shot they are on their way away from the scene. This could be in the car journey where Filomena and her boyfriend had noticed their strange aspect (they checked their car to see whether anything had been planted in it - was this because they suspected that RS was transporting a knife?) In this shot they are somewhat relieved to be getting away and are unaware of the camera. RS shows relief but still much tension. AK is looking away lost in her own thoughts and looking stunned. You can see the width of the coat hood here. To me AK's face shows intensity of not of grief but of something different. A very intense look - mental cogs whirring away. Anyway - people complain about too much "cod" psychological analysis but there is such a wealth of material.

One other thing - I thought RS had his own car - an audi. Where was it that morning. Why did they walk from his apartment to the cottage?

http://www.claudiocaprara.it/mediamanag ... erugia.jpg

Another new one (to me at least) ... Soll's stooped aspect. Is he holding the knife against his stomach? AK showing her obvious tiredness when losing track of the cameras (absolutely no sleep).

http://www.lasestina.unimi.it/lasestina ... lecito.jpg

What is the reason for Soll's hunch? I thought it could be tension - but it could be something else. His right hand could be supporting the knife. He's holding his stomach in. It was a 30cm long kitchen knife. A possibility for consideration. Soll. always carried a knife. He even carried a knife into the questura.

AK : Not a 'hickey' and looks like a bruised lip.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mqKZSZYw_HQ/S ... a+mark.bmp

(recently posted here) - remonstration - she's looking at him challenging 'you did something wrong' (something) - maybe: why didn't you give me the scarf? .... he's got his hand out (explaining something). What could they be arguing about just after hearing about the murder of a close friend - being close witnesses to the discovery of the body - what? You wouldn't be engaging in argument (about what) - you'd be in shock.

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/bin/128.$p ... magine.jpg

Here Knox looks in shock - Soll. looks like he's going to cry.- and it's not grief.

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/w ... lecito.jpg

Soll. and Knox a day later:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/1 ... 68x471.jpg


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:57 am
Posts: 47
Location: Northern California
Does anyone know if any of the 3 are left-handed?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 217
To me, Amanda Knox photographed on November 2nd outside the cottage, as seen in the video "Amanda Knox is Burning" posted by Fabio on December 3, 2007, has in addition to the mark on the upper right part of her throat, a red scratch on the lower left part of her neck. You can see it at 0.47 seconds and again at 2 minutes 38 seconds in the video.

I'm not particularly computer savy--I found the video by searching "Amanda Knox is Burning" in Google. Only the following link works anymore. (The PMF link does not work and the video has been removed from YouTube.)

vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=23254735


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
sam spade wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!


This is a very good idea. Maybe we can create a thread for anyone who wants to work on that project. I think you're right. Not everyone who gives airtime to these aggrieved Americans has taken the time to review the evidence. This creates a natural imbalance that could be corrected if, for example, someone representing the Kerchers rebutted this nonsense or was at least given the opportunity to present the facts/set the record straight. It is too bad that Maresca is not given the chance to do this in the UK.

I also think it must be painful for the Kercher family to hear Edda Mellas invading the British airwaves. I hope their radio is tuned to static.


FAQ

a: timeline
b: physical evidence
c: circumstantial evidence
d: concurrance of witness statements
e: how the trial was conducted
f: trial testimony
g: relations of written testimony and circumstance
h: the media factor
i: grounds for appeal

lots of 'bulletpoints'

nin-)

This seems like a good plan! It will put every one truly interested in facts (****) a place from which to start. One hopes this leads to intelligent discussion instead of.... ar-))
Happy New Year mul-)


I would like to see this including a matrix of those bullet points contrasted with something like:

i] used in court evidence
ii] used in judge report (whose?)
iii] used in media reports/interpretation
iv] thrown out by court
v] used by prosecutor
vi] used by legal team (AK/PL/RS/RG/MK)
vii et al] etc, etc.

Something like this would be a *huge* benefit for those like me who are still discussing the case on other forums.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Tara wrote:
A close zoom of this photo shows RS has something going on along his jawline and Knox has her own things going on around her nose, lip and neck.

If you haven't downloaded and examined this photo very closely, I highly recommend it.


Also, if I'm not mistaken, the coat with the fleece lining that Knox was wearing belonged to Sollecito.


Tara, not only that, but that's one of those photos that you might have been asked to write an essay about in creative writing. What exactly is going on there? I am not seeing a grieving couple but probably something rather different.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
The dynamic of the day after the crime was 'discovered' is weird.

Amanda and Raffaele are canoodling in AK's bedroom while the police are doing the prelimentary investigation. Where did Amanda plan on staying that night? Amanda leaves, without taking at least an overnight bag.

It's just very creepy that a gruesome, heinous murder scene is on the other side of the wall, but Amanda just assumed she would remain in the apartment? At that point, the police did not consider her more than a witness. They would have been very generous and understanding that Amanda needed clothes to wear, allowing her to remove necessary items. Under police supervision, but allowing it in any case.

The shopping expedition of Amanda and Raffaele was most definitely for pleasure NOT necessity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm
Posts: 1251
Jools quoted Rudy:
"but I ask of you just one thing: that you never stop to search for the truth.”

While he is exercising his right to silence. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 241
Location: CH
The Machine wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.


Hi Tom,

I've read nothing about Sollecito being into cooking. However, we do know he was into drugs, reading Manga magazines that featured murder and rape, and watching hard core pornography, featuring bestiality.

Well, the question was asked, and I answered.

Also, in my 20+ years of traveling to Italy (generally by motorcycle, so this may only be true of motorcyclists) and working with Italians, virtually every Italian male I know is into cooking.

Actually, this makes sense. As RS had a variety of knives, many which are easy to conceal, why bring along a kitchen knife? The only other reasonable reason is that a big chefs knife is very intimidating to many people, and if you want to scare someone...

Of course, if he did bring it over to cook, why was this never mentioned by the defense?

Tom


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
tom_ch wrote:
The only other reasonable reason is that a big chefs knife is very intimidating to many people, and if you want to scare someone...

Of course, if he did bring it over to cook, why was this never mentioned by the defense?

Tom


I wouldn't describe scaring someone with a big chef's knife as reasonable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 23
Highscores: 3
stilicho wrote:
I would like to see this including a matrix of those bullet points contrasted with something like:

i] used in court evidence
ii] used in judge report (whose?)
iii] used in media reports/interpretation
iv] thrown out by court
v] used by prosecutor
vi] used by legal team (AK/PL/RS/RG/MK)
vii et al] etc, etc.

Something like this would be a *huge* benefit for those like me who are still discussing the case on other forums.

Random lurker here, but I think this would be EXTREMELY useful, because there seems such confusion especially on other forums about what evidence was leaked to the media, what was actually raised in court and so forth. You see people posting that receipts for 2 bottles of bleach bought on the day of the murder were found at Sollecito's apartment, for instance, and it was only a couple of days ago that I discovered that was never used by the the prosecution in court. I was under the impression it was a fact.

I think it would allow a much clearer picture of what happened to emerge, what evidence is disputed and what is indisputable and so on if a detailed list like this one were created.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
Salamander wrote:
Random lurker here, but I think this would be EXTREMELY useful, because there seems such confusion especially on other forums about what evidence was leaked to the media, what was actually raised in court and so forth. You see people posting that receipts for 2 bottles of bleach bought on the day of the murder were found at Sollecito's apartment, for instance, and it was only a couple of days ago that I discovered that was never used by the the prosecution in court. I was under the impression it was a fact.

I think it would allow a much clearer picture of what happened to emerge, what evidence is disputed and what is indisputable and so on if a detailed list like this one were created.


Hi Salamander,

There is an overview of the prosecution's case on TJMK:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Why all the sudden interest in the intricate mechanics of this case?

Amanda is GUILTY. So is Raffaele. And Rudy.

Rudy Guede opted for a 'fast track' trial which afforded him a reduced by one third sentence if found guilty. Thus, the reduction of his 24 yr sentence to 16.

Amanda and Raffaele could have opted for 'fast track'. Same evidence. Instead they chose the very expensive route, media spectacle and full sentence if found guilty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
One of those images went missing (url changed). AK looking tired. RS looking tense.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
ttrroonniicc wrote:
The last photo is of Soll. when he was picked up by a daily mirror journalist in a local cafe later that day. He looks and probably was too wired to sleep. Also his absolute terror and paranoia made him want to be seen to know whether people suspected him - even to the extent of allowing an interview and photo from that journalist. He's got his coat back and is sans AK.



That's a very good spot. The naming convention of the url http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/1 ... 68x707.jpg shows it is from 1/11/2007 and he's got all of his neck and face showing with no marks on them. Ok scarf fans, time to move on - there's nothing up with his neck :)


_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
From La Stampa: 27/12/2009 (12:30)
(Google Translate)

Outburst of the parents of Meredith:
"We are the only ones with a life sentence"
"Satisfied with the sentences?
Not up to us to judge, but
no one will return our daughter
PERUGIA
"In the room of Meredith, we left everything as it was. Is not a sanctuary but it is a constant reminder. Every time I pass her room is like my little girl could return at any moment, as if there was still 'Arline, the mother of Meredith Kercher, the student murdered in Perugia on 2 November 2007, spoke with "People", on sale tomorrow, his emotions after the judgments of conviction for Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede.

"We were the only ones who received a life sentence," said Arline. The magazine - which has released a preview of the interview - will also propose the "unpublished photos» Meredith's children and adolescents. "Many are asking - he continued Arline Kercher to people - why do not you move house, but I say: If we go Mez how will you find us? I know it's a stupid thought. In this story we are the only damn who received a life sentence. "

"When Meredith left for Italy - still the mother said - he was delighted. We called every day, told us of Perugia, and friends. Was right. " Adds the brother of Meredith, Lyle, "Perugia, when it was handed down the conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, I thought 'no one will return Meredith'. They asked me if we were happy with the verdict but we are not judges, not up to us to judge. " "The point - said John Jr., another brother of Mez - is that there are no winners in this story cursed. Nobody won. " Stephanie, who was tied to his sister, he concluded: "Meredith is always with us, never abandon our hearts. On December 28 he reached the years: her birthday and we celebrate it every year with a toast. A toast to Mez.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
From The Mirror:

Meredith killer Foxy gets long hair slashed


By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.

Her mother Edda Mellas said: "She had lovely long hair. Now it is all cut off."

Knox, 22, is in jail in Perugia, Italy, where she is serving 26 years for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, 21.

Her mother visited American Knox - who is planning to appeal - last week before flying back to Seattle for Christmas.

Edda said: "She says she's scared this mess will not get cleared up."

She admitted the family had been so confident Knox would be cleared they had bought her Christmas gifts and a flight home.

Meanwhile, US billionaire Donald Trump called for a boycott of Italian goods over Knox's conviction.
The Mirror


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Perugia News Digest 21 and 22 December 2009
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
PERUGIA NEWS DIGEST 21 AND 22 DECEMBER 2009

These couple of days were the second-instance of Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial, on appeal from the first-instance, where he got 30 years.

The theme all around seems to be: "Why me?"


Fiorenza Sarzanini’s opinion piece in the Corriere della Sera, 23 December 2009, also applies. A translation by Jools is [ here ].

The numbers in brackets refer to the sources listed in the references at the end.


BACKGROUND
Two days to roll the dice on his future. (4)

Forty-eight hours to dismantle the concrete castle of the reasons of the first-instance sentence sending Rudy Guede to prison for 30 years for the murder of Meredith Kercher. (4)

He has to show how his version – “I was in the bathroom when the two murderers entered the house and one of them was Amanda Knox” – stands up. His only sin was that of not saving Meredith. He has admitted being intimate with Meredith, but not against her will. “When I ran away, Meredith was dying but clothed. And why would I have had to stage the violence? It was as if I had to wear the guilt, to point the finger of suspicion at myself that, in any case, I had had a relationship with her.” Therefore, says Rudy, someone else turned the house upside-down pretending there was a burglary and undressed Meredith after she was dead. This last being certain, because, as the victim’s legs did not have blood on them, so therefore she was still wearing her jeans when she was murdered. (4, briefly in 25)

The appeal hearings were held in open court at the request of the accused’s defence counsel. (14)


Prosecutor-General Pietro Catalani (for the State)
– Spoke of Guede’s “full complicity” (concorso pieno) in the violence suffered by the English student (3).
– Asked for confirmation of the GUP’s 30-year sentence (4, 5, 6) at the 18 November 2009 hearing (5, 6).
– Guede’s “little story is not believable” (14)




21 DECEMBER 2009

Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna (for the Kerchers)

Francesco Maresca
“The truth has already been uncovered” in the dealings relating to Guede. (2, 6, 35, 38)
“The family of Meredith Kercher asks for justice and so therefore the recognition of the guilt of Rudy Guede” (1, 2, 6, 7, 35, 38)
or: “The family of Meredith Kercher, a girl of 20 years full of life and in Perugia to study, asks for justice and asks that the guilt of Rudy Guede be recognised.”.(8)

The “non-violent sexual assault” was in the context of “a complex wounding picture which saw the presence of multiple persons” who produced “grave wounds”. (9)
“''Rudy Guede was there. It is not true that he was in the bathroom. He was there and assaulted Meredith.''(8, 9)

Maresca spoke (briefly (9)) about the burglary staging, calling it “passive confirmation” and “for which Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were condemned''.(8, 9)
“When Guede, Knox and Sollecito entered the house, they did not have homicidal intentions. We have before us an impetuous wilful act (dolo d'impeto) triggered by Meredith Kercher’s resistance.” (8, 9)
“Meredith was silenced because she knew the three attackers and would have reported them, would have named their names, they would have had to explain how they ended up at that point”. (8, 9)
The murder was an “escursus criminal and violent”. (9)
“There is an appropriate verdict handed down by an appropriate judge [=i.e., the GUP, Paolo Micheli], a procedural truth that coincides with the historical one.” (2, 6, 35, 43)
“There is no room for you [=i.e., the Court of Appeal] to differ with the guilty verdict of the GUP” (2, 6, 35)

He concluded his address by asking the Court to confirm the 30 year sentence imposed at the trial of first instance, and to confirm the 8.5 million Euro compensation awarded to the family. (9, 16, 20)


Serena Perna
Reminded the Court of the 43 wounds found on the victim’s body, some produced by hand, others with cutting weapons (9).


Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile (for Rudy Guede)
They will ask for a full pardon (assoluzione piena) for Guede, who admitted being present in the house when Meredith was killed but denies being involved in the murder: “I wasn’t the one who cut her life short and I didn’t violate her” (3, 14)

Biscotti:
“Rudy Guede is the victim of a media lynching” in a trial “tainted by strong pressure on the part of the media”. (8,30)
Rudy is the “guilty one designate” according to the press, and the victim “of a lynching on the part of those who have been called the ‘defending-accusers’ who have done everything they could, not to uphold the innocence of their accused, but the guilt of Guede.” (8)

Gentile:
Guede “merits generic mitigation. Our client has no previous record, he is young, he has slandered nobody, he is not a liar and he is the only one who has collaborated, saying how he saw Amanda Knox in the murder house (30, 39), and he has always recounted the same version of facts.”(39)


Reporting Commentary
If general mitigating circumstances ( attenuanti generiche) will apply to Guede, as they did to Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, his penalty could reduce to less than 20 years’ imprisonment. (3, 4)




22 DECEMBER 2009

THE PAPERS
Even though the national and international media pressure is noticeably less compared to before, the local press is dedicating ample space to the proceedings.

On the front page of the Corriere dell’Umbria there is: “Rudy’s day of judgement – Defence lawyers: He is a victim of a media lynching”. And on page 3: “Here’s why Rudy must be pardoned – a passionate address from two criminal lawyers”.

The Giornale dell’Umbria, on its first page, has: “Defence has no doubts: pardon Rudy” and on page 9: “Rudy, the lawyers’ last-ditch stand – a victim of the media, of adverse fortune, and of people without courage”.

In La Nazione, front page: “Pardon Guede, he didn’t kill Mez – today verdict v1.2” and on page 14: “Guede’s Last Chance – lynch victim, he didn’t kill Mez”.

For the Messaggero, Umbria edition, Italo Carmignani and Vanna Ugolini turn to the theme of the charges against the accused and to the subsequent defence counter-attack, titling their article (which continues on page 37): “The Ivorian’s defence attacks the Prosecutor-General. They reaffirm: there was no sexual assault – The other murderer is Raffaele”.

(28)


During the morning session, Biscotti drew a parallel with the Sam Sheppard case (Sheppard was accused of the murder of his wife but was declared innocent after his death) and the Perugia trial. “That case goes back to the Fifties, when a doctor returned home, in the US, to find his wife dead after encountering a male figure on the inside stairs of the apartment. He was arrested and sentenced, but, after his death, his son was able to prove his innocence. We only hope to not having to wait for Rudy’s death to see his extraneity to the allegations acknowledged.” (16, 23)


In Reply
The Prosecutor-General, Pietro Catalani, in reply (33), with the civil party lawyers concurring (22, 24, 32), asked for confirmation of the judgment by GUP Paolo Micheli (10, 12, 22, 28, 42), to “confirm it in its entirety” (11, 24, 32, 33)

A pardon, or, in the alternative, general mitigation (39):
The defence, on the other hand, repeated their request for a (full (34)) pardon (22, 24, 28, 32, 33, 39): He is only “the victim of a media lynching” (24, 39) and pointed out that, in any case, even Rudy merited the application of extenuating circumstances, as was granted to the other two accused (28, 39).
“We ask that Rudy Guede be pardoned because he is innocent: he did not kill Meredith Kercher, but instead sought to face up to the murderers at the house”(42, 43)


The Court, presided over by Giovanni Borsini (28), retired to chambers (11, 32, 33, 34, 42).
After almost six hours (14),or: some hours (24), the decision was reached. (14)



The Court’s Decision
Guilty (23, 25), but the sentence was practically halved (16), or: chopped in half (21, 26).
A (notable (14)) reduction of the sentence, down to 16 years, confirming Rudy Guede’s guilt in the wilful murder (omicidio volontario) of Meredith Kercher (13, 16, 17, 23, 25, 26, 29, 31, 37, 40, 41, 44) and also the sexual assault (21, 25).

The Court granted the application of generic mitigation (which wasn’t dealt with at the first instance although aggravation was), arriving at a sentence of 24 years, after which it was reduced by a third (=8 years) as determined by the fast-track rules. (13, 16, 17, 21, 23, 25, 26, 40). This is, in reality, equivalent to the 26 and 25 years that Knox and Sollecito received, arithmetically lesser only due to the discount that the law provides for choosing the fast-track trial process. (27)
Guede also has to pay the civil party [costs], about 13,000 Euro (16).

The rest of the first-instance judgement was confirmed in toto (“in full”) (13), confirming the theorem that has already emerged from the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito trial (21).

THE JUDGEMENT
Here are the orders (dispositivo) of the ruling:

“The Court of Appeal of the Court of Assizes of Perugia, gathered in chambers hearing, makes known, by way of the reading of the orders, the following ruling:
[The Court,] Under articles 443, 605, and 599 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in partial emendation of the ruling handed down on 29 October 2008 by the GUP of the Perugia Tribunal in the case of Guede Rudy Hermann, appellant therefrom, subject to the granting of generic mitigation held to be commensurate with the aggravation that was contested*, reduces the appellant’s penalty to 16 years of imprisonment.

The remainder of the judgement stands affirmed.

The appellant is ordered is pay costs on the part of the civil party Tattanelli, Aldalia, the sum of 1,500 euro; on the part of the civil party Kercher John Leslie, Kercher Arline Carol, Kercher John Ashley, Kercher Lyle, the sum of 8,000 euro; as well on the part of Kercher Sthephanie Arline Lara to the sum of 5,000 euro.

A period of 90 days is assigned for the deposition [into chancery] of the reasons for the judgement.”
(36)

* Note: since aggravation was brought up at the first-instance, but general mitigation was not, the second-instance redresses the balance on appeal, and the sentence is adjusted accordingly.






Reactions
Rudy:
– He was shocked (21): a laconic “I’m not happy, because I’m innocent.” (13, 14, 16, 17, indirect speech in 23, 25, 26, 27, indirect in 31, 37, 40, 41, 44), on leaving the courtroom (16, 37, 44) after the the reading of the judgement (37, 40, 44).

On leaving the courtroom, Guede turned towards his friends, who had hugged each other at the moment of the reading out of the decision. He then turned towards the journalists, hardly speaking. (40)


Biscotti (for Guede):
“He asked what this judgement means, and we told him. But he was prepared for it. He knew because it was explained since the very first words in these proceedings, that this judgement, whatever it was going to be, would have changed nothing. We will in fact continue the battle in the Cassation” (13, 14, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, indirect speech in 27) “to bring out Rudy’s complete extraneity to the murder” (16, 21, 23). They are firmly convinced of his innocence (25).
This decision represents “a brick (i.e., a not insurmountable obstacle) on the road to a definitive decision” (14, 27)

Gentile (for Guede):
“It’s a verdict that we can only be lukewarm about, because it acknowledged the existence of sexual assault”. (14, 29)
or: “We’ve accepted this verdict with respect and unenthusiastically, since it recognizes the sexual assault and Rudy’s guilt, even if it in some way goes towards rehabilitating the image of this lad who[se character] has been so berated and run-down [by everybody].” (19)

Gentile and Biscotti were both satisfied with “the halving of the sentence, as it will help us in working with more peace of mind for the third-instance judgement”. (21)

Maori (for Sollecito):
Reaffirms the innocence of his client and asks that Guede tell the truth: “Sollecito’s name was said by Guede’s defence, not by him. It’s time he finally says who was with him in that house.” (13, 16, 26),
or: “Let him tell the truth, in Meredith’s name, now that he has been rewarded by the Appeal Court, let him say who was with him in Meredith’s house, because Rudy has never mentioned Raffaele Sollecito’s name.” (27)
Into the CNRmedia microphones, Maori said: “Rudy Guede must be very happy about the reduction in his sentence from 30 to 16 years’ imprisonment for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia”(18)


Comodi (in the Prosecutor’s Office):
“The prosecution’s framework has stood up firmly once again. We will wait to read the reasons for the judgment, but it appears that the conclusions of the various judges who have evaluated the case are in agreement.” (27)

Maresca and Perna (for the Kerchers):
“The Court fully recognised the sexual assault (violenza sessuale) as well as the murder-in-company (omicidio in concorso).” (13, 16, 26)
It was clear-cut for Maresca (21): “We will be awaiting the reasoning behind the mitigation. We are not satisfied with the 16 years, but the prosecution framework has been confirmed.” (13, 21, 26), or: “The prosecution framework was not modified. The penalty discount was due to both the fast-track trial and the mitigations which we will be able to evaluate only after the reasons are handed down”. (16)
The decision “confirms the work undertaken by the Prosecutor’s Office. Their reconstruction was not, in fact, altered in any way by the [second-instance] judges. It was only a case of an automatic calculation of the penalty.” (14)

“Meredith’s parents were not happy with such a light sentence.” Sixteen years is too few – when Rudy comes out, he will have his life in front of him, Meredith won’t. A brief moment of bitterness. The front of civility and respect displayed by the Kerchers in these last few years wavers for only a moment, before the willingness to respect the verdict returns. “We mustn’t confuse the reduction in the sentence with the confirmation of their responsibility, namely the presence of all three accused at the murder scene. I explained the mathematical formula to Meredith’s family and basically how the [Penal] Code provides for its application in discounting Guede’s penalty. They understood because in England there is a similar mechanism, and they hold it as important that the prosecution framework has been confirmed.” They were less able to follow, instead, how the rules will see Rudy out of prison in a few years, six perhaps, … (15)


Well-known sentencing specialist Gianluca Riitano explains:
“Article 575 of the Penal Code specifies that anyone causing the death of a person must be punished with a penalty of imprisonment of not less than 20 years. But then there are other variables that enter into the equation to work out the actual penalty. In this case, for example, we must take into consideration that there is a young man with no previous record, counting towards the generic mitigating circumstances leading to a reduction in the penalty with respect to the statutory one. In the first instance trial, no concessions were made, while aggravation was recognised. And then there is also the reduction granted when choosing the fast-track path, a third off the penalty, which in cases of murder amounts to many years.”

A similar thing happened to Annamaria Franzoni, sentenced for having killed her son Samuel, 30 years at first instance, then 16 years on appeal, confirmed in Cassation. But the Cogne mother will be able to take advantage of the [partial] pardon and have 3 years remission, which means that in a few years, perhaps only five, she will have the right of part-release (semilibertà), apart from any day release, which she could could see even earlier. Too little for killers? Gianluca Riitano asks us to consider that 16 years do not seem much but they are not so in the sum of one’s life and that “it is necessary to respect and understand our Constitution, in which punishment must have a rehabilitative function. And anyway, our prisons are not for anything else. We must not, and should not, think of punishment as a type of revenge, otherwise we will be legitimising even the death penalty.”

Even the term “life sentence” in Italy, like in many European countries, has lost its meaning. Article 22 of the Penal Code defines perpetual punishment as including the obligation of work and with night-time isolation. But the “ultimate penalty” clashes with article 27 paragraph 3 of the Constitution, and with the Gozzini law actuating it, where it is written that “the punishments must go toward to re-education of those condemned”. The Consulta (=Constitutional Court) has recognised that a life sentence “no longer carries the characteristic of ‘in perpetuity’ (Const. Crt. ruling no. 264 of 1974), seeing that there is the possibility of granting the prisoner conditional freedom after 26 years, should repentance be considered to have been shown. Further discounts are provided for by good conduct. And the life prisoner must be allowed, after 10 years, day release (permessi premio, if good conduct and not a threat to society), and part-release after 20.
(15)



Giovanni Borsini, President of the Court
“We were impartial (Siamo sereni)” (16)



AFTERMATH

Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, and Raffaele Sollecito’s father, Francesco Sollecito, have revealed that both Amanda and Raffaele have been receiving heaps of letters.

Francesco Sollecito spoke of dozens and dozens of letters that his son has received, expressing solidarity because they are convinced of his innocence. “It is not little girls writing who are infatuated with him, but professionals and ordinary people (“common folk”), including from foreign places, from Germany and Austria.”

Raffaele, incarcerated in the prison in Terni, is quite worn out (provato), he is not able to give himself any comfort on the verdict and of the fact that until the appeal he has to stay in prison. “He is, however, being well looked after by the personnel at the Old Sandy lockup,” said one of his lawyers, Luca Maori.


Ghirga said that Knox is replying to all her letters, even if only briefly. She received a visit from her mother before the latter’s departure for Seattle, who gave her a gift of a cashmere jumper (US: sweater). He said, “Amanda is quite worried and doesn’t understand why Rudy Guede, whom she barely knows, keeps on accusing her.”
(45)






References
1 – ANSA 21 December 2009
2 – Occidentale 21 December 2009
3 – Libero 19 December 2009
4 – Ultime Notizie 20 December 2009
5 – ANSA 19 December 2009
6 – Tiscali 21 December 2009
7 – ANSA VdA 21 December 2009
8 – Amalia Coletta, Notiziario 21 December 2009
9 – AGI 21 December 2009
10 – AGI 22 December 2009
11 – Unione Sarda 22 December 2009
12 – Amalia Coletta, Notiziario 22 December 2009
13 – Sole 24 Ore 23 December 2009
14 – Stampa 22 December 2009
15 – Maria Corbi, Stampa 24 December 2009
16 – Repubblica
17 – TGCOM 22 December 2009
18 – Repubblica 22 December 2009
19 – Repubblica 22 December 2009
20 – Repubblica 21 December 2009
21 – APCOM 23 December 2009
22 – ANSA 22 December 2009
23 – Angela Oliva, Pupia 22 December 2009
24 – Cronaca Qui 22 December 2009
25 – Excite Magazine 23 December 2009
26 – Italia News 23 December 2009
27 – News Roma 23 December 2009
28 – ASCA 22 December 2009
29 – MetroNews 23 December 2009
30 – Libero 21 December 2009
31 – Sabato Sera Online 22 December 2009
32 – Tam Tam 22 December 2009
33 – Fondazione 22 December 2009
34 – Voce 22 December 2009
35 – Voce 21 December 2009
36 – Ostia News 22 December 2009
37 – Ostia News 23 December 2009
38 – Doctor Sport
39 – Terni in Rete 22 December 2009
40 – Voce 22 December 2009
41 – Corriere del Ticino 22 December 2009
42 – APCOM 22 December 2009
43 – APCOM 22 December 2009
44 – Affari 23 December 2009
45 – Terni in Rete 24 December 2009


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Hooray that Kerchers are finally having a voice in media.

Donald Trump is transparent. His ex-wife, Ivana, lives in Italy and marries Italian men.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Jools wrote:
From The Mirror:

Meredith killer Foxy gets long hair slashed


By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.

Her mother Edda Mellas said: "She had lovely long hair. Now it is all cut off."

Knox, 22, is in jail in Perugia, Italy, where she is serving 26 years for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, 21.

Her mother visited American Knox - who is planning to appeal - last week before flying back to Seattle for Christmas.

Edda said: "She says she's scared this mess will not get cleared up."

She admitted the family had been so confident Knox would be cleared they had bought her Christmas gifts and a flight home.

Meanwhile, US billionaire Donald Trump called for a boycott of Italian goods over Knox's conviction.
The Mirror



Wow. Whatever next Edda?

This is interesting. There's a branch of psychotherapy that maintains many physical symptoms can be linked to subconscious inner conflicts and unexpressed emotions, seeing the physical manifestations as a metaphor for what is going on inside. So if someone will not speak about something they may develop a painful throat for which no medical cause can be discovered. It's is linked to the Medically Unexplained Symtoms notion. To me, metaphorically speaking, this harks back to the Samson idea - Amanda is fond of her classical references. She feels powerless, and her hair (traditionally seen as a symbol of female beauty) is falling out as she realises finally that she is powerless and her 'beauty' (sic) is not going to help her any more. I know it sounds flaky, but there is good evidence for this type of psychosomatic manifestation! Poor old Amanda. I wonder if the camera/world will love her so much with a masculine hair cut...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
stilicho wrote:
sam spade wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Victoria Derbyshire I emailed - said that she did well enough even though she didn't push it she didn't hit her with any hard proved facts (maybe she didn't know them). She said "convicted murderer Amanda Knox a few times" which didn't appear to phase Mellas at all. Mellas repeated the 14 hours straight interrogation line and also not a lot else. She kept saying "you know" to Victoria Derbyshire which must have been irritating. Nothing was achieved by her radio phone-in. The wealth of physical and circumstantial evidence that put those protagonists in jail is monumental. The FOA have nothing more to say unless they can bend the laws of time physics and cirumstance. Maybe they think that if they keep repeating lies incessantly people will eventually believe them. I can believe that would be the idea of Marriot PR. I guess the BBC is giving airtime politely to aggrieved americans on a subject which seems to be bothering them a lot. But the problem is the media is perpetuating the lies there isn't any media publishing the facts. I support what somebody said that the operators of this site should be given the opportunity to put things straight. I advocate that we should structure a letter to the BBC (something like a case FAQ). This will hopefully put the issue to bed and stop us having to argue again and again. Let's move on folks!


This is a very good idea. Maybe we can create a thread for anyone who wants to work on that project. I think you're right. Not everyone who gives airtime to these aggrieved Americans has taken the time to review the evidence. This creates a natural imbalance that could be corrected if, for example, someone representing the Kerchers rebutted this nonsense or was at least given the opportunity to present the facts/set the record straight. It is too bad that Maresca is not given the chance to do this in the UK.

I also think it must be painful for the Kercher family to hear Edda Mellas invading the British airwaves. I hope their radio is tuned to static.


FAQ

a: timeline
b: physical evidence
c: circumstantial evidence
d: concurrance of witness statements
e: how the trial was conducted
f: trial testimony
g: relations of written testimony and circumstance
h: the media factor
i: grounds for appeal

lots of 'bulletpoints'

nin-)

This seems like a good plan! It will put every one truly interested in facts (****) a place from which to start. One hopes this leads to intelligent discussion instead of.... ar-))
Happy New Year mul-)


I would like to see this including a matrix of those bullet points contrasted with something like:

i] used in court evidence
ii] used in judge report (whose?)
iii] used in media reports/interpretation
iv] thrown out by court
v] used by prosecutor
vi] used by legal team (AK/PL/RS/RG/MK)
vii et al] etc, etc.

Something like this would be a *huge* benefit for those like me who are still discussing the case on other forums.


This would take forever! Great idea, but I think it might be a big ask. I would like to see it too, but I don't know who would have the time to do it. I think SomeAlibi's suggestion of a Google Doc would be the way forward, with an encyclopedic moderator to just check over people's contributions for 'bleach receipt' type errors (unlikely here, but you never know) Big task.

Emerald - Agree, but I think it is just because so many new people are looking for answers post verdict. I think if I see one more poster asking about the mop and bucket I will scream!!! It is a good idea to save Michael and Skep time and trouble in particular. Amongst the 'FrumpyCat Troll of the Day' posters there are genuine ones too and I think it is a good idea to help them understand why we are so convinced that the verdicts were fair.

Catnip - thank you for your newspaper digest! Excellent painstaking work. You remain, A Legend.

_________________


Last edited by The Bard on Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 241
Location: CH
The Machine wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
The only other reasonable reason is that a big chefs knife is very intimidating to many people, and if you want to scare someone...

Of course, if he did bring it over to cook, why was this never mentioned by the defense?

Tom


I wouldn't describe scaring someone with a big chef's knife as reasonable.

I didn't say it was reasonable, but rather the reasonable reason (or rather, reasonable EXPLANATION) of why someone would bring along a large chef's knife.

If it wasn't brought there for cooking purposes, it MUST have been brought there for intimidation Why would someone with a diverse collection of far more suitable knives for murder bring a kitchen knife, except for the fact that it is more intimidating?

The defense has never suggested it was brought there for cooking purposes, therefore the only logical conclusions is that it must have been brought there to intimidate MK.

Tom


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Jools wrote:
From The Mirror:

Meredith killer Foxy gets long hair slashed


By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.

Her mother Edda Mellas said: "She had lovely long hair. Now it is all cut off."


So what? At least she still has her life. She killed Meredith Kercher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Jools wrote:
From The Mirror:

Meredith killer Foxy gets long hair slashed


By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.

Her mother Edda Mellas said: "She had lovely long hair. Now it is all cut off."


So what? At least she still has her life. She killed Meredith Kercher.



They must be desperate for "news" that will keep AK on the radar.

Remember when Britney Spears suddenly turned up with no hair? That grabbed headlines for a day or two.

Deborah Sherwood should be ashamed of herself for covering this kind of non-story and, if Edda Mellas talked to her, she too should be ashamed of herself for fraternizing with the tabloids that are allegedly responsible for "swaying" the Italian judges and jury.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Maybe we'll see pictures of the newly shorn Amanda when Edda Mellas or Curt Knox can find a buyer for the images.

Somebody must have admonished them for giving out information about Amanda's cellmate. They won't even say she is from the US. Until now, Curt and Edda were giving out all kinds of info about her. From the US, from New Orleans, jailed for drug crimes. Everything but her name.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Bernard Shepherd: No justice in Knox’s case

Dec 24 2009 By Bernard Shepherd

The conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher has left many in the legal profession uneasy.

The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court.

There is not one iota of physical evidence that places Knox at the murder scene.

The alleged murder weapon, a cooking knife, has traces of her DNA on it but was seized from her boyfriend’s house.

There is even doubt that the knife in question was the murder weapon.

But unfortunately for Knox, her trial was conducted not only in the Italian courts, but in the media.

The nature of the crime, and in particular its sexual overtones, has attracted international attention.

The victim, a British student, the accused an American caught up in an alleged love triangle, the setting a picturesque Italian village, would have furnished the plot for an international bestseller.

With much of the evidence challenged, the case rested on Knox’s character and behaviour.

Regrettably, information which should have remained confidential to the trial was routinely divulged by the Italian prosecutors, fanning the fire and prejudicing the case.

Let’s not pretend that Britain hasn’t had its share of miscarriages of justice. Sally Clarke, Stefan Kiszko and the Birmingham Six are just some who found themselves on the wrong side of a guilty conviction.

However, we do have basic safeguards in place.

Our contempt of court laws prevent the publication of information which could prejudice a trial. The drip feed of salacious information – some of it conjecture – about Knox meant she was subjected to the kind of character assassination that coloured the opinion of judge, juror and the public. Sobriquets such as “Luciferina’ (she-devil) and ‘Foxy Knoxy’ undoubtedly helped condemn Amanda Knox.

Already a transatlantic storm is brewing: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is rumoured to be set to intervene.

Frankly, it should never have got this far.

* Bernard Shepherd is president of Birmingham Law Society




Oh dear Bernard. Where do we begin with you? President of the Birmingham LAW Society??? Give me strength...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
On what grounds should our Sect'y of State, Hillary Clinton, intervene?



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Emerald wrote:
On what grounds should our Sect'y of State, Hillary Clinton, intervene?




Bernard is way behind the curve. Did he not read Cantwell's hugely backpeddling statement in easy-to-understand doublespeak, delivered through her communications officer (as reported by Andrea Vogt)?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
The Bard wrote:
Oh dear Bernard. Where do we begin with you? President of the Birmingham LAW Society??? Give me strength...


Hi Bard,

I wonder what sources Bernard Shephard used for his article?

He has no proof that information "was routinely divulged by the Italian prosecutors, fanning the fire and prejudicing the case."

I'm reliably informed that Mignini doesn't leak information. Mignini could sue Bernhard Shephard for this claim.

Amanda Knox's family and one of her lawyers shared confidential information from the prosecution's 10,000 page file with people outside Amanda Knox's circle of family and friends.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
*AHEM* [Article appropriately re-titled:]

Meredith Kercher Spending Third Christmas DEAD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
There is documented media of where the 'leaks' were. Such as interview after interview of Anne Bremner, who says she is in no way affiliated with the AK Family; yet has information which could only come to FOA from Amanda's Family.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
tom_ch wrote:
The Machine wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.


Hi Tom,

I've read nothing about Sollecito being into cooking. However, we do know he was into drugs, reading Manga magazines that featured murder and rape, and watching hard core pornography, featuring bestiality.

Well, the question was asked, and I answered.

Also, in my 20+ years of traveling to Italy (generally by motorcycle, so this may only be true of motorcyclists) and working with Italians, virtually every Italian male I know is into cooking.


Well, Tom, part of one particular alibi of the many that the dynamic duo has presented to us was that Raffaele acutally did cook fish for them for dinner that evening - at his place - and Amanda noticed blood on his hand. But perhaps they were so stoned (by their own admission) they forgot they already had dinner, or maybe they came on to a bad case of the munchies, and randomly decided to head down to Amanda's to cook yet another meal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: From Hair...to Eternity
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.


They must be desperate for "news" that will keep AK on the radar.

Remember when Britney Spears suddenly turned up with no hair? That grabbed headlines for a day or two.

Deborah Sherwood should be ashamed of herself for covering this kind of non-story and, if Edda Mellas talked to her, she too should be ashamed of herself for fraternizing with the tabloids that are allegedly responsible for "swaying" the Italian judges and jury.


As you stated, Skep...it must be a very slow news day. Just another desperate attempt to keep AK on the radar. AND, another attempt to garner sympathy for the long-suffering innocent St. Amanda.

Remember early on, when Edda was bemoaning the fact that Amanda had lost a few diopters of her vision, since being incarcerated in that dark dungeon. Ummm...did anyone EVER see a photo of AK use corrective lenses of any sort during her year-long trial? Any squinting or straining to read or see things in the distance? :shock:

I think her only "vision problem" was tunnel vision, refusing to see what she didn't want to see. (It's OBVIOUSLY a hereditary problem that runs in her family.)

Still, who amongst us does not have deep compassion for the follically-challenged?

Might we not want to put aside our pursuit of true justice for Meredith Kercher, and spend some time (and money) to focus on the real tragedy here--Amanda and her bad hair days.

There's nothing we can do to bring Amanda's hair back...but we can, as a group, rally together to help her TO STYLE whatever hair she has left. Right?

All the funds I had set aside for end-of-year giving to LESSER charities--you know, for silly cancer research, MS, AIDS, all that frivolous stuff...I will now divert all my hard-earned monies to the MOST compelling cause I can think of ; Amanda's Alopecia!

I know just the styling products for our "hair-owing" (get it? Hair-owing harrowing???) heroine:

What better brand than...
http://www.hotus.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts: 30
The Bard wrote:

Frankly, it should never have got this far


Frankly, someone shouldn't have "got" their law degree. That editorial reads as though it were written by a 14 year old.

I find it morbidly amazing that on top of all the damning evidence, Amanda Knox actually had the mark of Cain on her neck the day after she killed another human being.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
The Machine wrote:
I wonder what sources Bernard Shephard used for his article?


Looking at the specific points he is trying to make, it sounds like he got the same old Knox/Mellas press release that everyone else did.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
Living with a person can provide privileged insight into that person's character and credibility. Laura and Filomena didn't speak of Amanda's innocence. They knew better. Here's what another "roomate" said....


Amanda lives in an 8-by-12 cell that looks out at a cement wall and a little patch of sky. She can leave her room two hours a day to walk alone in a tiny yard. She's always had a roommate — currently, an illiterate gypsy, and previously, an 18-year-old who'd murdered her boyfriend and repeatedly told Amanda, "You are never getting out of here."
www.marieclaire.com (Reported one year ago.)

////


Last edited by fine on Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
Fly by Night wrote:
The Machine wrote:
I wonder what sources Bernard Shephard used for his article?


Looking at the specific points he is trying to make, it sounds like he got the same old Knox/Mellas press release that everyone else did.


Hi FBN,

I agree completely and he didn't actually bother to verify any of the information he was given.

You would think that someone who is the president of the Birmingham Law Society would have the common sense and emotional intelligence to realise that Amanda Knox's family and/or supporters are not objective and reliable sources of information.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Machine wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
The Machine wrote:
I wonder what sources Bernard Shephard used for his article?


Looking at the specific points he is trying to make, it sounds like he got the same old Knox/Mellas press release that everyone else did.


Hi FBN,

I agree completely and he didn't actually bother to verify any of the information he was given.

You would think that someone who is the president of the Birmingham Law Society would have the common sense and emotional intelligence to realise that Amanda Knox's family and/or supporters are not objective and reliable sources of information.


It may be worth sending him a polite email reminder of the importance of considering the source.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: From Hair...to Eternity
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The 411 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.


They must be desperate for "news" that will keep AK on the radar.

Remember when Britney Spears suddenly turned up with no hair? That grabbed headlines for a day or two.

Deborah Sherwood should be ashamed of herself for covering this kind of non-story and, if Edda Mellas talked to her, she too should be ashamed of herself for fraternizing with the tabloids that are allegedly responsible for "swaying" the Italian judges and jury.


As you stated, Skep...it must be a very slow news day. Just another desperate attempt to keep AK on the radar. AND, another attempt to garner sympathy for the long-suffering innocent St. Amanda.

Remember early on, when Edda was bemoaning the fact that Amanda had lost a few diopters of her vision, since being incarcerated in that dark dungeon. Ummm...did anyone EVER see a photo of AK use corrective lenses of any sort during her year-long trial? Any squinting or straining to read or see things in the distance? :shock:

I think her only "vision problem" was tunnel vision, refusing to see what she didn't want to see. (It's OBVIOUSLY a hereditary problem that runs in her family.)

Still, who amongst us does not have deep compassion for the follically-challenged?

Might we not want to put aside our pursuit of true justice for Meredith Kercher, and spend some time (and money) to focus on the real tragedy here--Amanda and her bad hair days.

There's nothing we can do to bring Amanda's hair back...but we can, as a group, rally together to help her TO STYLE whatever hair she has left. Right?

All the funds I had set aside for end-of-year giving to LESSER charities--you know, for silly cancer research, MS, AIDS, all that frivolous stuff...I will now divert all my hard-earned monies to the MOST compelling cause I can think of ; Amanda's Alopecia!

I know just the styling products for our "hair-owing" (get it? Hair-owing harrowing???) heroine:

What better brand than...
http://www.hotus.com/


I'm surprised Edda didn't have the presence of mind to add that Amanda was cutting off her hair in solidarity with a cancer patient in chemotherapy and that those beautiful tresses were being donated for a wig.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
fine wrote:
Living with a person can provide previliged insight into that person's character and credibility. Laura and Filomena didn't speak of Amanda's innocence. They knew better. Here's what another "roomate" said....


Amanda lives in an 8-by-12 cell that looks out at a cement wall and a little patch of sky. She can leave her room two hours a day to walk alone in a tiny yard. She's always had a roommate — currently, an illiterate gypsy, and previously, an 18-year-old who'd murdered her boyfriend and repeatedly told Amanda, "You are never getting out of here."
www.marieclaire.com (Reported one year ago.)

////


Did Edda dress like that for court? Leaning against the wall in that dress, she looks like a real 'professional' *wink*.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
Emerald wrote:
fine wrote:
Living with a person can provide previliged insight into that person's character and credibility. Laura and Filomena didn't speak of Amanda's innocence. They knew better. Here's what another "roomate" said....


Amanda lives in an 8-by-12 cell that looks out at a cement wall and a little patch of sky. She can leave her room two hours a day to walk alone in a tiny yard. She's always had a roommate — currently, an illiterate gypsy, and previously, an 18-year-old who'd murdered her boyfriend and repeatedly told Amanda, "You are never getting out of here."
www.marieclaire.com (Reported one year ago.)

////


Did Edda dress like that for court? Leaning against the wall in that dress, she looks like a real 'professional' *wink*.


And it says in the same article that: "Since the ordeal began, she's dropped from a size 14 to a 6." Anybody else notice Edda shrinking?

////


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Charles Mudede in the Stranger on the BBC interview, posted four days ago:

http://tinyurl.com/y8nmrru

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Emerald observes:
Quote:
There is documented media of where the 'leaks' were. Such as interview after interview of Anne Bremner, who says she is in no way affiliated with the AK Family; yet has information which could only come to FOA from Amanda's Family

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Emerald, I have enjoyed the information and observations you have shared with us in the past.
Your latest above, however has me confused.
I thought several sources including Ms (airbrush special) Bremner herself had not only acknowledged intimacy and pro bono representation of the Knox/Mellas menagerie,and also boasted of her role in the FOA assininity.

For example, from Time:
There, one of Amanda Knox's most vocal backers is attorney Anne Bremner, who has offered her counsel pro bono to the accused's family and is a spokeswoman for Friends of Amanda.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... z0auxNWwPu

and from her own self-aggrandizing website:
Anne represents "Friends of Amanda" an ad hoc group of supporters which include Amanda's friends, legal activists, community supporters, and other members of the legal community.
http://annebremner.com/Amanda_Knox.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
The Bard wrote:
Bernard Shepherd: No justice in Knox’s case

Dec 24 2009 By Bernard Shepherd

The conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher has left many in the legal profession uneasy.

The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court.

There is not one iota of physical evidence that places Knox at the murder scene.

The alleged murder weapon, a cooking knife, has traces of her DNA on it but was seized from her boyfriend’s house.

There is even doubt that the knife in question was the murder weapon.

But unfortunately for Knox, her trial was conducted not only in the Italian courts, but in the media.

The nature of the crime, and in particular its sexual overtones, has attracted international attention.

The victim, a British student, the accused an American caught up in an alleged love triangle, the setting a picturesque Italian village, would have furnished the plot for an international bestseller.

With much of the evidence challenged, the case rested on Knox’s character and behaviour.

Regrettably, information which should have remained confidential to the trial was routinely divulged by the Italian prosecutors, fanning the fire and prejudicing the case.

Let’s not pretend that Britain hasn’t had its share of miscarriages of justice. Sally Clarke, Stefan Kiszko and the Birmingham Six are just some who found themselves on the wrong side of a guilty conviction.

However, we do have basic safeguards in place.

Our contempt of court laws prevent the publication of information which could prejudice a trial. The drip feed of salacious information – some of it conjecture – about Knox meant she was subjected to the kind of character assassination that coloured the opinion of judge, juror and the public. Sobriquets such as “Luciferina’ (she-devil) and ‘Foxy Knoxy’ undoubtedly helped condemn Amanda Knox.

Already a transatlantic storm is brewing: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is rumoured to be set to intervene.

Frankly, it should never have got this far.

* Bernard Shepherd is president of Birmingham Law Society




Oh dear Bernard. Where do we begin with you? President of the Birmingham LAW Society??? Give me strength...


Do you have a source for that piece? Bernard needs a letter written to him and I'll do it. It's a disgrace that someone representing the Law Society should write a piece like that criticising the legal process of a fellow european country.

_________________
What it is is spin lent credence because it's from the mouth of a lawyer. We've seen how much gravitas they can carry merely by saying something is or is not so when often they are speaking as much rubbish as anyone else.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Contact info for SomeAlibi

http://www.birminghamlawsociety.co.uk/Contact-us.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: From Hair...to Eternity
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
The 411 wrote:
I know just the styling products for our "hair-owing" (get it? Hair-owing harrowing???) heroine:

What better brand than...
http://www.hotus.com/

I was eating an orange when I clicked on that link, and I swear I almost choked to death!!! LOL :D :lol: b-((

So, The 411, you get the prize for almost killing me today!!!

(Yesterday, Skep got it with her "Raffaele, Have Knives, Will Be the Traveling Guest Chef" comment.... )

Oh, and I'd like to make ONE more comment on poor Amanda's hair tragedies:

My violin, the smallest in the World, cries for you:

v-))


Last edited by Earthling on Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Bernard Shepherd: No justice in Knox’s case

Dec 24 2009 By Bernard Shepherd

The conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher has left many in the legal profession uneasy.

The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court.

There is not one iota of physical evidence that places Knox at the murder scene.

The alleged murder weapon, a cooking knife, has traces of her DNA on it but was seized from her boyfriend’s house.

There is even doubt that the knife in question was the murder weapon.

But unfortunately for Knox, her trial was conducted not only in the Italian courts, but in the media.

The nature of the crime, and in particular its sexual overtones, has attracted international attention.

The victim, a British student, the accused an American caught up in an alleged love triangle, the setting a picturesque Italian village, would have furnished the plot for an international bestseller.

With much of the evidence challenged, the case rested on Knox’s character and behaviour.

Regrettably, information which should have remained confidential to the trial was routinely divulged by the Italian prosecutors, fanning the fire and prejudicing the case.

Let’s not pretend that Britain hasn’t had its share of miscarriages of justice. Sally Clarke, Stefan Kiszko and the Birmingham Six are just some who found themselves on the wrong side of a guilty conviction.

However, we do have basic safeguards in place.

Our contempt of court laws prevent the publication of information which could prejudice a trial. The drip feed of salacious information – some of it conjecture – about Knox meant she was subjected to the kind of character assassination that coloured the opinion of judge, juror and the public. Sobriquets such as “Luciferina’ (she-devil) and ‘Foxy Knoxy’ undoubtedly helped condemn Amanda Knox.

Already a transatlantic storm is brewing: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is rumoured to be set to intervene.

Frankly, it should never have got this far.

* Bernard Shepherd is president of Birmingham Law Society




Oh dear Bernard. Where do we begin with you? President of the Birmingham LAW Society??? Give me strength...


Do you have a source for that piece? Bernard needs a letter written to him and I'll do it. It's a disgrace that someone representing the Law Society should write a piece like that criticising the legal process of a fellow european country.


I totally agree SA. In fact I think it not only makes him look incredibly thick, but it makes him look like he is wanting to make other members of the Law profession look thick too, by aligning them with his line 'The conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher has left many in the legal profession uneasy.' Who are these 'many' people? Do they know ANYTHING about the case? Have they read the reports, trawled through the evidence? Or are they just, stupidly, following the (US) media line on this one? Duh. I think Bernard should be told to stop embarassing himself and the profession as he clearly doesn't have a clue what he's on about. And he does write like a 14 year old! I wonder if it is the Birmingham Student Law Society?

Don't forget to post you letter here SA! And will be interested to see if you get a response...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
A while back, Mignini threatened personal liability suits against FOA. It was also indicated there could be repercussions against Amanda for the family's statements and actions.

Since that time, in interviews Anne Bremner and AK's Family are very careful to state they are not affiliated. FOA is just a bunch of concerned citizens wanting to help the Family. Which is very strange, because what help could they be without collusion and information sharing?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
The Bard wrote:
Poor old Amanda. I wonder if the camera/world will love her so much with a masculine hair cut...

The camera and the tabloids won't, but it will fit in better with the FOA storyline "Amanda: The New Joan of Arc." :P

And I agree with you about the probable psych reasons for this. Good point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
fine wrote:


And it says in the same article that: "Since the ordeal began, she's dropped from a size 14 to a 6." Anybody else notice Edda shrinking?

////


As if that weight loss is supposed to be viewed as...a hardship?!! I'd say, it was one of the silver linings for Edda, in this big "mess" --being able to reach a more healthful weight.

I put "mess" in quotes because that's Edda's own word for the situation Amanda's found herself in. It's the same old tune. All of this is what "happened TO Amanda and her family. She and the family are the victimized parties. It was a terrible injustice done TO THEM.

If this photo depicts her wearing a "size six" then I'd say that weight loss was a real blessing!

Let's remember the real suffering of Meredith's mother. I've read that she was on kidney dialysis. At least this was reported at the time of Meredith's murder. Dialysis, while life-saving, is just brutal on patients. It's typically done three times a week, and it usually just leaves the patient totally depleted at the end of the session, and then for the next day. When the patient's energy returns after 24-hours or so, they have to go back the following day for MORE DIALYSIS.
And on it goes--ad infinitum--until they die or are fortunate enough to get a kidney via transplantation.
(Just something to consider when you contemplate being an organ donor. I'm proud to say I've been a card-carrying organ donor since...the '70's!)

Hooray for Organ Donors! pp-(

On another note: over the past few evenings, I've watched a number of true TV forensic/crime solving shows. A few programs profiled some murders involving the wrongly convicted. In fact, I even watched a two-hour long "48 Hours" last night about a 15-year old convicted of a gruesome sexual murder.

Interestingly, while the murder cases differed significantly, it always impresses me that the one common denominator of the various falsely accused (who later were exonerated after serving time) is this:

They had never lied to investigators about their whereabouts, they had never changed their story, nor never changed "alibis."

Not all "one-alibi" defendants are innocent, but, how many innocents can you think of that told multiple lies, provided changing alibis? ANYONE????

Speaking of the aforementioned "mess", I gotta clean up my own post-Christmas mess--one for which *I* take FULL RESPONSIBILITY. :oops: mop-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
The 411 wrote:
fine wrote:


And it says in the same article that: "Since the ordeal began, she's dropped from a size 14 to a 6." Anybody else notice Edda shrinking?

////


As if that weight loss is supposed to be viewed as...a hardship?!! I'd say, it was one of the silver linings for Edda


Oooooooooo!

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 269
sam spade wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:

FAQ

a: timeline
b: physical evidence
c: circumstantial evidence
d: concurrance of witness statements
e: how the trial was conducted
f: trial testimony
g: relations of written testimony and circumstance
h: the media factor
i: grounds for appeal

lots of 'bulletpoints'

nin-)

This seems like a good plan! It will put every one truly interested in facts (****) a place from which to start. One hopes this leads to intelligent discussion instead of.... ar-))
Happy New Year mul-)


I started something similar focused on a presentation of the evidence; what I was constructing looked at the evidence, the defence argument, the proscution argument, and the law/science.
http://aklwei.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/ ... -a-primer/

I'm willing to work with others on a faq here, or something drafted on a wiki somewhere that could be presented in its final form here.

I did run into issues with the mop and the washer. I was trying to track down news articles from that february weekend's testimony, since Frank's site claims that testimony at the trial regarding the washer was inconclusive (i.e. nobody on the stand when asked about the washer could confirm/deny it running being warm). I know truejustice reports that this was part of the police testimony from that same weekend, but I don't know what their source was. Similarly regarding being found outside with the mop- exactly what was testified? I haven't been able to track down italian articles from that weekend that say anything about being found with the mop.

One thing that did stand out when I was reading through stuff was Sollecito's prison letter; he says it was only as they were walking down the road after leaving his apartment did Knox ask him to come and see the scene at the apartment, which is quite odd because they're already walking to the apartment to return the mop anyways!! Really, the only way to make sense of all of their conflicting statements with the presumption of innocence is that they were so totally stoned from 6pm till 2pm the next day that they couldn't keep track of anything. Which also contradicts Sollecito's statement that they didn't light up until after dinner.

But I digress..

Pat


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 241
Location: CH
Fly by Night wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
The Machine wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
So, if he was into cooking, had some good knives, and knew Amanda had crap knives (as most people, particularly students, do), then yes I could easily see him bringing his own knife over to cook dinner.


Hi Tom,

I've read nothing about Sollecito being into cooking. However, we do know he was into drugs, reading Manga magazines that featured murder and rape, and watching hard core pornography, featuring bestiality.

Well, the question was asked, and I answered.

Also, in my 20+ years of traveling to Italy (generally by motorcycle, so this may only be true of motorcyclists) and working with Italians, virtually every Italian male I know is into cooking.


Well, Tom, part of one particular alibi of the many that the dynamic duo has presented to us was that Raffaele acutally did cook fish for them for dinner that evening - at his place - and Amanda noticed blood on his hand. But perhaps they were so stoned (by their own admission) they forgot they already had dinner, or maybe they came on to a bad case of the munchies, and randomly decided to head down to Amanda's to cook yet another meal.

So, again, my question is not IF he cooked for them, but IF he cooked at the house of MK/AK!

A simple question, anyone care to answer?

WHEN is not importantant, IF is important.

Tom


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am
Posts: 129
Location: Bellingham WA
The Bard wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Bernard Shepherd: No justice in Knox’s case

Dec 24 2009 By Bernard Shepherd

The conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher has left many in the legal profession uneasy.

The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court.

There is not one iota of physical evidence that places Knox at the murder scene.

The alleged murder weapon, a cooking knife, has traces of her DNA on it but was seized from her boyfriend’s house.

There is even doubt that the knife in question was the murder weapon.

But unfortunately for Knox, her trial was conducted not only in the Italian courts, but in the media.

The nature of the crime, and in particular its sexual overtones, has attracted international attention.

The victim, a British student, the accused an American caught up in an alleged love triangle, the setting a picturesque Italian village, would have furnished the plot for an international bestseller.

With much of the evidence challenged, the case rested on Knox’s character and behaviour.

Regrettably, information which should have remained confidential to the trial was routinely divulged by the Italian prosecutors, fanning the fire and prejudicing the case.

Let’s not pretend that Britain hasn’t had its share of miscarriages of justice. Sally Clarke, Stefan Kiszko and the Birmingham Six are just some who found themselves on the wrong side of a guilty conviction.

However, we do have basic safeguards in place.

Our contempt of court laws prevent the publication of information which could prejudice a trial. The drip feed of salacious information – some of it conjecture – about Knox meant she was subjected to the kind of character assassination that coloured the opinion of judge, juror and the public. Sobriquets such as “Luciferina’ (she-devil) and ‘Foxy Knoxy’ undoubtedly helped condemn Amanda Knox.

Already a transatlantic storm is brewing: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is rumoured to be set to intervene.

Frankly, it should never have got this far.

* Bernard Shepherd is president of Birmingham Law Society




Oh dear Bernard. Where do we begin with you? President of the Birmingham LAW Society??? Give me strength...


Do you have a source for that piece? Bernard needs a letter written to him and I'll do it. It's a disgrace that someone representing the Law Society should write a piece like that criticising the legal process of a fellow european country.


I totally agree SA. In fact I think it not only makes him look incredibly thick, but it makes him look like he is wanting to make other members of the Law profession look thick too, by aligning them with his line 'The conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher has left many in the legal profession uneasy.' Who are these 'many' people? Do they know ANYTHING about the case? Have they read the reports, trawled through the evidence? Or are they just, stupidly, following the (US) media line on this one? Duh. I think Bernard should be told to stop embarassing himself and the profession as he clearly doesn't have a clue what he's on about. And he does write like a 14 year old! I wonder if it is the Birmingham Student Law Society?

Don't forget to post you letter here SA! And will be interested to see if you get a response...


Bernard Shepherd - consultant at HBJ Gateley Wareing law firm

Telephone: 0121 234 0121
Email Address: BShepherd@hbj-gw.com
Resides: Walsall
Education: St Mary's College, Rhos-on-Sea, N.Wales
Qualified: 1970
Title/Department: Consultant/Private Client/Real Estate
Specialism: Private Client/Real Estate
Interests: Football, golf, socialising, charity work, current President of Birmingham Law Society
Favourite sport - (club supported): Football - Liverpool & Walsall

Desert Island Disc
Book: Anything by John Grisham
Record: La Mer - Charles Trenet
Film: The Quiet Man

Bernard's background is in real estate law, not criminal law, so he's hardly qualified to comment on AK's prosecution in his article in the Birmingham Post. If he wants recruit law professionals from other nations to join the Birmingham Law Society he certainly is not helping his cause by bashing Italy's legal process of which he is ill-informed.

You said, "I think Bernard should be told to stop embarassing himself..."
Well put TB - Googling "Bernard Shepherd" will reveal a very red-faced photo of him. ta-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
pataz1 wrote:
I did run into issues with the mop and the washer.


Hi Pat,

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito weren't found with a mop outside the cottage. Brian made a mistake with the translation and acknowledged it on PMF. However, Knox and Sollecito both wrote about taking the mop to Sollecito's apartment.

Barbie Nadeau and John Hooper both wrote that Filomena testified that the washing machine was warm when she returned to the cottage on 2 November.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
tom_ch wrote:
So, again, my question is not IF he cooked for them, but IF he cooked at the house of MK/AK


Hi Tom,

Knox claimed that Sollecito made some pasta in her e-mail to friends on 4 November. I doubt he would have brought a chef's knife to boil some pasta.


Last edited by The Machine on Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Why do 'they' continually say there is not one iota of evidence of AK at the crime scene? She lived there. If there was absolutely nothing, wouldn't that mean cleaning of the crime scene?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
The Machine wrote:
Hi Tom,

Neither Sollecito nor Knox claimed that he had ever cooked at the cottage on Via della Pergola.


Didn't RS cook some pasta there? He talked about it in his diary. How cute and sweet Meredith was in her boyfriend's jeans. RS's next comment was unflattering towards Amanda's constant wearing of the black army type boots.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
Emerald wrote:
Why do 'they' continually say there is not one iota of evidence of AK at the crime scene? She lived there. If there was absolutely nothing, wouldn't that mean cleaning of the crime scene?


Hi Emerald,

Bernard Shepard only has a very superficial understanding of the case.

The crime scene includes Filomena's room because Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of staging the burglary in this room.

It's simply not true that there was no physical evidence of Amanda Knox in Meredith's room. Knox left a bloody footprint on the pillow under Meredith's body, Professor Vinci claimed he had found Knox's DNA on Meredith's bra and Knox tracked Meredith's blood around different parts of the cottage: the bathroom, the hallway and Filomena's room. she could only have done this if she had been in Meredith's room on the night of the murder.

Furthermore, Amanda Knox stated on four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
All I have to say to this Bernard person is ... "AMANDA IS NOT THE VICTIM!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 241
Location: CH
The Machine wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
So, again, my question is not IF he cooked for them, but IF he cooked at the house of MK/AK


Hi Tom,

Knox claimed that Sollecito made some pasta in her e-mail to friends on 4 November. I doubt he would have brought a chef's knife to boil some pasta.

Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
tom_ch wrote:
Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.


Hi Tom,

There were already knives at the cottage, so I seriously doubt that Sollecito thought it was necessary to bring a special chef's knife to make some pasta.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
tom_ch wrote:
The Machine wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
So, again, my question is not IF he cooked for them, but IF he cooked at the house of MK/AK


Hi Tom,

Knox claimed that Sollecito made some pasta in her e-mail to friends on 4 November. I doubt he would have brought a chef's knife to boil some pasta.

Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom


My experience differs from yours. I know plenty Italian men who are not seriously interested in cooking and, while a knife is needed to make most sauces from scratch, it doesn't have to be a big sharp kitchen knife to do the job.

But the important point is that RS has never stated he brought that or any other kitchen knife to the cottage at any time. Nor did his lawyers argue that he was a traveling chef. Indeed, when RS learned that MK's DNA was on the tip of his beloved cooking knife, the one he never left home without, I presume he would have shouted "case closed" and explained to one and all why and how the knife got into the cottage. He could then have explained how it got back to his place. I'm sure Laura and Filomena could have vouched for RS's cooking skills and the fabulous meal he cooked at the cottage. But none of this happened. When RS found out about the knife, he made up a "silly story" about pricking Meredith with a knife while cooking at his place.

I feel I must be missing some important point.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
pataz1 wrote:
But I digress..

Pat


I agree. I'm thinking a far easier starting point for you will be to wait for the summary of decision from the court regarding the guilty ruling for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito concerning the murder of Meredith Kercher. After that, we'll have the next summary of decision from the court regarding the confimation of the guilty ruling for Rudy Guede for the murder of Meredith Kercher. I recall that Anne Bremner refused to talk about the original guilty ruling for Rudy Guede for the murder of Meredith Kercher simply because it had no bearing on the dynamics of the original Knox/Sollecito case, but soon she'll have consider everything because they are all now directly interconnected in the appeal process. Have you read the summary for the original guilty ruling for Rudy Guede for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Pat?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
tom_ch wrote:
Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom


I know a great Italian Cookery blog where you could pose your questions about the culinary skills of young Italian males, Tom - the hostess may actually have some inside information on the topic. But be careful because any question that gives the appearance of challenging an assumption that Amanda and Raffaele were continuously at Raffaele's flat all evening and night when Meredith Kercher was murdered is going to get deleted.

I'm not sure where you're going with this - are you suggesting that Sollecito took the knife to Amanda's to cook earlier in the week? Are you trying to create some additional alibi potential for Raffaele? Recall that the trial is over and nobody ever made this argument. In fact, Raffaele's claim all along has been that Meredith came over to HIS flat earlier in the week, and that's where he accidentally poked her with the knife and got her DNA on it - before everything turned to "rubbish" for him that is. If you're suggesting an innocent reason for the transport of the knife on the night of the murder, not even Raffaele is going to buy your story.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 340
Location: UK
I suppose in the FOA and the Knox /Sollecito defence world it is quite normal to jab people with big sharp butchers knives while cooking - it happens all the time.

It is bullshit from these people that is designed to portray a false lifestyle - as if the two lovebirds spent their six days together trying to impress eachother with their culinary skills everday, when in fact it is all just lies to justify their contact with the sharp knives that were found in their possession.
I would wager Knox and Sollecito most probably survived mainly on takeaways - like most students.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 241
Location: CH
Fly by Night wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

As I previously stated, the question was asked, not by me, does someone who cooks bring a 40cm knife with them when they go to cook at someone else's house. My response, based on my own habits, is yes. No more, no less.

Please read the entire thread to get a glean of what it's about.

Tom


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Quote:
Well put TB - Googling "Bernard Shepherd" will reveal a very red-faced photo of him. ta-))
.ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) ta-))
Attachment:
barrister bernard shepherd.jpg
ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) http://www.flickr.com/photos/32350533@N03/3591935999/


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


Last edited by piktor on Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
tom_ch wrote:
Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.


Hi Tom, maybe the original question is about the knife being transported only to cook something that night, with no bad intention (of course their lawyers won't even mention the possibility of validating the presence of the knife at the murder scene).

Interestingly as per AK email, they had PASTA at late lunch...

"We talked for a while in the kitchen, how the night went, what our plans were for the day. Nothing out of the ordinary. then she went to take a shower and i began to start eating a little while i waited for my friend (Raffaele-at whose house i stayed over) to arrive at my house. He came right after i started eating and he made himself some pasta. as we were eating together meredith came out of the shower "

and in the evening PASTA (again!) "knox said it was to mop up water from the pasta spilt cooking the night before" [I don't have the source].

To much pasta, isn't it?

Edited after reading tom_ch last message.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
tom_ch wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

As I previously stated, the question was asked, not by me, does someone who cooks bring a 40cm knife with them when they go to cook at someone else's house. My response, based on my own habits, is yes. No more, no less.

Please read the entire thread to get a glean of what it's about.

Tom


Hey Tom, I read the whole thread and I am as mystified as FBN. Is there a point to this? I ask because you haven't responded to my comments. The fact is, Sollecito never made any argument about being a gourmet cook, carrying cooking knives with him, or preparing elaborate meals at the cottage. In fact, the other flatmates hardly knew him it seems.

Don't you think that someone who had merely carried a kitchen knife to his girlfriend's flat to cook a meal would be quick to remember this vital fact if it came to light that the knife had a murder victim's DNA on it?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
Zopi wrote:
then she went to take a shower and i began to start eating a little while i waited for my friend (Raffaele-at whose house i stayed over) to arrive at my house. .


Hi Zopi,

It's interesting that Amanda Knox refers to Raffaele Sollecito as her "friend" and not her boyfriend in her e-mail to her friends in Seattle. It seems she didn't want her friends to know that she had a physical relationship with Sollecito.

When she was at the police station on 5 November 2007 she must have known that the police were closing in on her and Sollecito. She wrote about her American boyfriend DJ and her feelings towards him. She even included childlike cartoon pictures of herself and DJ.

All this is at odds with what Bongiorno claimed at the trial about Knox and Sollecito being in love.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Zopi wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.


Hi Tom, maybe the original question is about the knife being transported only to cook something that night, with no bad intention (of course their lawyers won't even mention the possibility of validating the presence of the knife at the murder scene).

Interestingly as per AK email, they had PASTA at late lunch...

"We talked for a while in the kitchen, how the night went, what our plans were for the day. Nothing out of the ordinary. then she went to take a shower and i began to start eating a little while i waited for my friend (Raffaele-at whose house i stayed over) to arrive at my house. He came right after i started eating and he made himself some pasta. as we were eating together meredith came out of the shower "

and in the evening PASTA (again!) "knox said it was to mop up water from the pasta spilt cooking the night before" [I don't have the source].

To much pasta, isn't it?

Edited after reading tom_ch last message.


Raffaele remembers things a bit differently (from the diary): "So I prepared the lunch for us both".

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
piktor wrote:
Quote:
Well put TB - Googling "Bernard Shepherd" will reveal a very red-faced photo of him. ta-))
.ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) ta-))
Attachment:
barrister bernard shepherd.jpg
ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) http://www.flickr.com/photos/32350533@N03/3591935999/


Oh God love him! I think I must review my mental image of 14 year old student lawyer to elderly gent not alone in being somewhat 'smitten' with the Bambi-eyed defendant AK47.

How on EARTH did he come to write such claptrap? Lazy, lazy, lazy. Glad he's being called on it. Eternal vigilance is the price of truth!!! Kick ass SomeAlibi! And well truffled pictor!

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts: 30
Has anyone considered a topology of Those Who Think (or Argue) That Amanda is Innocent?

Some of them are obvious:

1. Family and acquaintances
2. Those paid to advocate for Amanda (lawyers, PR team)
3. Journalists who:
a. Are lazy
b. Want access to the family and/or
c. Have a simplistic notion of telling "both sides of the story"

Less obvious types:
4. Creepy people with some kind of psychosexual cathexis to Amanda
5. Trolls who just like being contrarian online
6. Would-be logicians whose minds take them down bizarre paths of reasoning ("wait - this is all about what kind of pasta sauce they were making that night"), unable to grasp the totality of an issue
7. Dyed in the wool xenophobes/europhobes

Am I missing any?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: My SAUCY Reply
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
tom_ch wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

As I previously stated, the question was asked, not by me, does someone who cooks bring a 40cm knife with them when they go to cook at someone else's house. My response, based on my own habits, is yes. No more, no less.

Please read the entire thread to get a glean of what it's about.

Tom


Preparing SOME pasta dishes CAN require the use of a 40 cm knife...
for self-defense. huh-)
I'm thinkin' about "Pasta all'arrabbiata" --sometimes you need to protect yourself against "angry " pasta. fen-)
Especially when it reaches a boiling point. ss-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Just writing to The Birmingham Post about Mr Shepherd's piece. Can anyone remember the name of the guy in the US who was quoted as saying the defendants were fairly tried, the evidence was overwhelming and the defendants lucky to get such light sentences? Or where it was published? Just so I can search on it to quote? Thanks! Will keep looking.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My SAUCY Reply
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The 411 wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

As I previously stated, the question was asked, not by me, does someone who cooks bring a 40cm knife with them when they go to cook at someone else's house. My response, based on my own habits, is yes. No more, no less.

Please read the entire thread to get a glean of what it's about.

Tom


Preparing SOME pasta dishes CAN require the use of a 40 cm knife...
for self-defense. huh-)
I'm thinkin' about "Pasta all'arrabbiata" --sometimes you need to protect yourself against "angry " pasta. fen-)
Especially when it reaches a boiling point. ss-)



And Pasta Puttanesca: if you can't pay for services rendered and need to make a quick exit.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Zopi wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.


Hi Tom, maybe the original question is about the knife being transported only to cook something that night, with no bad intention (of course their lawyers won't even mention the possibility of validating the presence of the knife at the murder scene).

Interestingly as per AK email, they had PASTA at late lunch...

"We talked for a while in the kitchen, how the night went, what our plans were for the day. Nothing out of the ordinary. then she went to take a shower and i began to start eating a little while i waited for my friend (Raffaele-at whose house i stayed over) to arrive at my house. He came right after i started eating and he made himself some pasta. as we were eating together meredith came out of the shower "

and in the evening PASTA (again!) "knox said it was to mop up water from the pasta spilt cooking the night before" [I don't have the source].

To much pasta, isn't it?

Edited after reading tom_ch last message.


Raffaele remembers things a bit differently (from the diary): "So I prepared the lunch for us both".


Yes, amazing, and I read in another blog that RS said it wasn't 'pasta' (evening) but... "Sollecito’s diary written in prison talks of a dinner of stir fry mushrooms and vegetables"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
The Bard wrote:
Just writing to The Birmingham Post about Mr Shepherd's piece. Can anyone remember the name of the guy in the US who was quoted as saying the defendants were fairly tried, the evidence was overwhelming and the defendants lucky to get such light sentences? Or where it was published? Just so I can search on it to quote? Thanks! Will keep looking.


Hi Bard,

Here it is:

"Legal scholars say Knox is lucky she didn't get a longer sentence.

The jurors, polled and interviewed after the verdict, said they were not split on the question of innocence or guilt but rather on the question of whether she should get life in prison or less.

"This is the simplest and fairest criminal trial one could possibly think of in terms of evidence," said Stefano Maffei, lecturer in criminal procedure at the University of Parma. He has also lectured at Harvard Law School, has Ph.D in law from Oxford and is currently a guest lecturer at University of Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

"There were 19 judges who looked at the facts and evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming."

The court's sentence of Knox and Sollecito was mild, Maffei said, with the jury taking into account the facts of the crime along with her clean criminal record.

He noted that a similar reduction in sentence did not happen with co-defendant Rudy Guede, even though he agreed to a fast-track trial, which reduced his sentence from life to 30 years.

Maffei has posted more extensive comments on his Web site in an essay titled "Fair Trial, Powerful Evidence, Mild Sentence: Myth and Reality of the Knox Case."

http://www.maffeistefano.it/diritto_eng.php?id=8

(Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413244_knox15.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Brilliant, as ever, Machine. Herewith letter to the Birmingham Post. I wish I had addressed specific inaccuracies in the article, but I was too angry. Emailed to letters section at : post.letters@birminghampost.net

'Sir

No Justice In The Knox Case - by Bernard Shepherd

I am dismayed to see the lack of rigor from Bernard Shepherd in his comment on the Meredith Kercher murder case recently tried in Perugia, where the defendants were found guilty by a unanimous jury after two years of painstaking work by the Italian justice system. It is clear Mr Shepherd has merely digested the aggressive PR propaganda put out by the parents of Ms Knox.

To quote Stefano Maffei, lecturer in criminal procedure at the University of Parma, who has has also lectured at Harvard Law School, has Ph.D in law from Oxford and is currently a guest lecturer at University of Pacific McGeorge School of Law:

"This is the simplest and fairest criminal trial one could possibly think of in terms of evidence. There were 19 judges who looked at the facts and evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming."

In an article by the respected court reporter Andrea Vogt, who attended every court sitting, we hear that, "The forensic evidence was presented in open court and subject to cross-examination and robust debate. Legal scholars say Knox is lucky she didn't get a longer sentence. The jurors, polled and interviewed after the verdict, said they were not split on the question of innocence or guilt but rather on the question of whether she should get life in prison or less.The court's sentence of Knox and Sollecito was mild, Maffei said, with the jury taking into account the facts of the crime along with her clean criminal record."

Perhaps Mr Shepherd should be more careful before churning out the line proffered to him by PR firms in future. His editorial made both him and the Birmingham Post look very foolish to anyone who has examined the evidence and followed the case carefully over the last two years. One should also give thought to the parents of the victim in this case, one Meredith Kercher. Mr Shepherd may think the story of her horrific murder would make a 'bestseller', but I doubt her poor parents would agree.

Sincerely

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Sundries
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
zinnia wrote:
Does anyone know if any of the 3 are left-handed? [
– Sun Dec 27 link ] XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 [2009], page 13


Hi Zinnia,

From the writing images I’ve seen posted, I’m guessing all three of them are right-handed.

If you are thinking of the dynamics of the scene, I expect you are also considering who was standing where when, amongst other things, Meredith’s larynx was crushed (the hyoid bone was broken; hence she couldn’t articulate properly when Rudy was helping her, hence he thought she was trying to say “AF”, which he wrote on the wall (in blood)).






In regard to the “donnie” posts:

equinox wrote:
How could you know so much about how Skep moderates the board, and yet claim to have read nothing about the evidence,
– Sat Dec 26 [ link ] ] XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 [2009], page 13



D’oh!

Such boundless energy and naivety of the young ones!
Unethical to send them into a discussion forum armed only with false facts, isn’t it?

In the alternative, the quality of the grass and spliffs being sold must be getting pretty low these days (or being cut with goatweed). Could they ask for a refund under the fair trading laws?




OT:
The (UW?) creative writing classes may need a module on the subconscious imagery of noms-de-plume: Donnie ‘Life is one long insane trip. Some people just have better directions’ Darko is about “A troubled teenager is plagued by visions of a large bunny rabbit that manipulates him to commit a series of crimes” [ IMDB ].

That rabbit just keeps on popping up – must be a Star Trek episode, the one about Alice and the fantastical adventures she has in a magical world after ingesting various substances: “reality-bending adventures” [ Wikipedia on Donnie Darko ].
Coincidently, “Donnie's sister Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is accepted into Harvard University, and she and Donnie decide to throw a Halloween party to celebrate while their mother, Rose, and younger sister are away. … At midnight, Donnie realizes that the 28 days have passed, and that only 6 hours remain until the end of the world.”
And also, like all student parties everywhere: “the song playing during the Halloween party is "Proud to be Loud" by Pantera”
Do the police turn up and issue a citation? I haven’t seen the film, so the allusion might be lost on me.








On building a 10,000 page FAQ

pataz1 wrote:
…I started something similar focused on a presentation of the evidence; what I was constructing looked at the evidence, the defence argument, the proscution argument, and the law/science.
– Sun Dec 27 [ link ] XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 [2009], page 13



Hi Pataz1,

Good idea!
Good luck! :)

I’ll try to help where I can, but it is a big ask.

I notice most of the law system differences you list can be covered by the difference between a coronial inquest and a (“adversarial”) criminal trial. If your country/state does not have coronial inquests, think of those special commissions set up to investigate the cause of something, say, a chemical spill, an airplane crash, a political faux-pas donations scandal, or similar.


I’d like to add a column to your FAQ for a comparative law side dealing with Supreme Court of New South Wales Practice and Procedures. American law comparisons do not help me to have much understanding, I have to say.

The closest system I’ve found so far is under Scots Law, with the procurator fiscal presenting the prosecution case in the Sheriff courts and District courts [ Wikipedia ]. The PF also is obliged to investigate suspicious deaths:

“The Procurator Fiscal has a duty to investigate all sudden and unexplained deaths, as well as deaths in suspicious circumstances. Approximately 13,500 sudden, unexplained and unexpected deaths are reported annually to the Procurator Fiscal.
Deaths are usually reported to the Procurator Fiscal by the police, a doctor or the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.” [ COPFS ]

This is very similar to how the legal structure is set-up in Perugia.

Interesting to see Italian-type names popping up here and there, as well:

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service wrote:
The Lord Advocate*, the Right Honourable Elish Angiolini QC has appointed Laura McPherson to the post of District Procurator Fiscal for Dumbarton and Campbeltown
[ COPFS ]

* The chief legal officer, and also chief public prosecutor, for Scotland [ Wikipedia ]: “The current Lord Advocate is the Rt. Hon. Elish Angiolini, QC, appointed on 5 October 2006. She is the first woman, first Procurator Fiscal, and the first solicitor to be appointed to the post.”

In her career, she “spent 8 years as a Depute Procurator Fiscal in Airdrie, prosecuting in Airdrie Sheriff Court.” [ Wikipedia ]



The terminology is very similar to Italy’s.


I must admit I have not been looking very hard. There could well be states (in the US) or provinces (in Canada) – Louisiana? Quebec? – that have an inquest system running in the criminal law sphere, to say nothing of the Mexican legal system.





In your FAQ, are you thinking of including a “motif-thread” type of thing as well? And how what the investigators were looking for changed through time, from day to day, in some cases.
I’d be interested in how “The Story” changed and survived and mutated – sort of like the “Chicken Little Effect”.


For example, the often-repeated description of Rudy as “a (small-time) drug-dealer” may have arisen from initial police conjecture and hypothesising, e.g.:

Meo Ponte wrote:
He’s a man, probably a foreigner. Not a student, though. Perhaps sells drugs* to make a living. He doesn’t belong to Meredith’s world but on the night of the 1st of November he was in her bedroom. There’s a bloody thumbprint of his on the pillowslip of the pillow found underneath the body…

– “The Fourth Man left a trace” [ Repubblica ] 17 November 2007



And, in the interests of accurate information, if the conjecture was never corrected subsequently as further evidence came to light, well, if reporters aren’t professional and ethical, why should cooks be?



* I expect that the witnesses (some of whom later became suspects) admitting to smoking marijuana led the investigators to consider the possibility that a motive might be found among their suppliers. This is not an unreasonable assumption at such an early stage of the investigations. However, it was not fixed and set in stone; also, there were other hypotheses as well.



P.S.
Oh, by the way, before I forget, the biggest and most unexpected difference between Italy and US/UK/Australian crime cases is that the investigation in Italy is apparently public (because of, I expect, the judicial examination of defendant’s rights required at each stage, and to confirm the investigation has stayed on track and not “strayed”). Here, the detectives do their investigating in private, out of the public eye, and, on TV, the US detectives do the same thing, and, after the DPP or district attorney has had a look, then the magistracy is engaged. So what is a “leak” here is in fact public knowledge in Italy, and designed to be so.

It inadvertently gives other suspects (or their lawyers) time to think up something consistent and convenient in the meantime (like Rudy’s “bad kebab”).

Doesn’t stop the defence blabbing on the side to the papers to bolster their case, though.

Further, the “contempt of court” bugbear does not (I think) logically apply after the investigation phase has completed and all parties have complete access to all evidence (unlike here, where the defence routinely have to “request production” of essential and relevant evidence from the prosecution during the trial itself). Of course, breaching the victim’s family’s rights, by giving a forensics video to a TV station without passing it by them first for approval, is a different matter.


A column headed “It seemed like a good idea at the time” might be needed. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My SAUCY Reply
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The 411 wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

As I previously stated, the question was asked, not by me, does someone who cooks bring a 40cm knife with them when they go to cook at someone else's house. My response, based on my own habits, is yes. No more, no less.

Please read the entire thread to get a glean of what it's about.

Tom


Preparing SOME pasta dishes CAN require the use of a 40 cm knife...
for self-defense. huh-)
I'm thinkin' about "Pasta all'arrabbiata" --sometimes you need to protect yourself against "angry " pasta. fen-)
Especially when it reaches a boiling point. ss-)



And Pasta Puttanesca: if you can't pay for services rendered and need to make a quick exit.


And of course, preparing Pasta Alla Cacciatora,
a 40 cm. knife can make you really look the part of a hunter, someone who can chase down the largest and wildest of game. nin-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
I urge everyone to write and complain to the Birmingham Post about that disgusting article. To describe the matter as being able to 'furnish an international bestseller' I find truly offensive to Meredith - dismissive and arrogant. Added to the ignorance of the article itself it has really got me m-))

What a horrible, lazy thing to publish at Christmas time, which Mr Shepherd doubtless spent within the bosom of his loving family. No such comfort at the Kercher household this year methinks. How dare he speak like this of Meredith murder? It's a repulsive way to discuss a murder case. Shame on him.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
The Bard wrote:
piktor wrote:
Quote:
Well put TB - Googling "Bernard Shepherd" will reveal a very red-faced photo of him. ta-))
.ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) ta-))
Attachment:
barrister bernard shepherd.jpg
ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) http://www.flickr.com/photos/32350533@N03/3591935999/


Oh God love him! I think I must review my mental image of 14 year old student lawyer to elderly gent not alone in being somewhat 'smitten' with the Bambi-eyed defendant AK47.

How on EARTH did he come to write such claptrap? Lazy, lazy, lazy. Glad he's being called on it. Eternal vigilance is the price of truth!!! Kick ass SomeAlibi! And well truffled pictor!

ta-)).................................... ta-))
Attachment:
sunflowers for you.jpg
ta-))a truffled Bernie Shepherd ta-))


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Earthling wrote:
I was eating an orange when I clicked on that link, and I swear I almost choked to death!!! LOL :D :lol: b-((

So, The 411, you get the prize for almost killing me today!!!




v-))


The Official PMF Judge hereby finds the Offending Orange, (and NOT THE
falsely accused "411") GUILTY of one charge of inducing "CWC" (Choking While Chuckling).

Be advised that the orange in question might challenge the choking charges, and may, ultimately win on a-PEEL.


Last edited by The 411 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
piktor wrote:
Quote:
Well put TB - Googling "Bernard Shepherd" will reveal a very red-faced photo of him. ta-))
.ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) ta-))
Attachment:
barrister bernard shepherd.jpg
ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) ta-)) http://www.flickr.com/photos/32350533@N03/3591935999/

How about this one:



On second thought, this guy looks too kind, sweet, and intelligent to be the "Bernard Shepherd" we're looking for.... n-(( Mua-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 269
Fly by Night wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
But I digress..

Pat


I agree. I'm thinking a far easier starting point for you will be to wait for the summary of decision from the court regarding the guilty ruling for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito concerning the murder of Meredith Kercher. After that, we'll have the next summary of decision from the court regarding the confimation of the guilty ruling for Rudy Guede for the murder of Meredith Kercher. I recall that Anne Bremner refused to talk about the original guilty ruling for Rudy Guede for the murder of Meredith Kercher simply because it had no bearing on the dynamics of the original Knox/Sollecito case, but soon she'll have consider everything because they are all now directly interconnected in the appeal process. Have you read the summary for the original guilty ruling for Rudy Guede for the murder of Meredith Kercher, Pat?


Hi-

Thanks for the response. I did read the Guede summary, and I know I'll probably have to go back and read it again at some point soon; however that is specific to Guede's case, and doesn't help clarify what was testified at the trial for Knox & Sollectio. I don't recall off the top of my head how soon the Knox/Sollecito summary will be available, but having a current understanding of the evidence that people could be pointed to until the summary is available i think would be useful for many. I think the point should also be made throughout that our understanding is incomplete due to not having access to the 10k prosecution document or the closed session testimony.

Pat


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am
Posts: 305
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I suppose in the FOA and the Knox /Sollecito defence world it is quite normal to jab people with big sharp butchers knives while cooking - it happens all the time.

It is bullshit from these people that is designed to portray a false lifestyle - as if the two lovebirds spent their six days together trying to impress eachother with their culinary skills everday, when in fact it is all just lies to justify their contact with the sharp knives that were found in their possession.
I would wager Knox and Sollecito most probably survived mainly on takeaways - like most students.


I would love to have seen an inventory of Raff's food cupboards and freezer. As an until recently single student I doubt he would have more than some pot noodles and the odd frozen pizza. Just because he is Italian does not make him master chef.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
The 411 wrote:
Earthling wrote:
I was eating an orange when I clicked on that link, and I swear I almost choked to death!!! LOL :D :lol: b-((

So, The 411, you get the prize for almost killing me today!!!


The Official PMF Judge hereby finds the Offending Orange, (and NOT THE falsely accused "411") GUILTY of one charge of inducing "CWC" (Choking While Chuckling).

Be advised that the orange in question might challenge the choking charges, and may, ultimately win on a-PEEL.

Any such a-PEEL will be FRUIT-less, I'm afraid. And this whole scenario is starting to sound like PULP-fiction to me.

I guess you'll just have to put the SQUEEZE on the Orange. sor-)

(My Dad always said, "A pun is the lowest form of humor" -- immediately after making one! LOL)


Last edited by Earthling on Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Jools wrote:
From The Mirror:

Meredith killer Foxy gets long hair slashed


By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.

Her mother Edda Mellas said: "She had lovely long hair. Now it is all cut off."

Knox, 22, is in jail in Perugia, Italy, where she is serving 26 years for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, 21.

Her mother visited American Knox - who is planning to appeal - last week before flying back to Seattle for Christmas.

Edda said: "She says she's scared this mess will not get cleared up."

She admitted the family had been so confident Knox would be cleared they had bought her Christmas gifts and a flight home.

Meanwhile, US billionaire Donald Trump called for a boycott of Italian goods over Knox's conviction.
The Mirror


All this talk about pasta today made me hungry. So I fixed myself some pasta for dinner.

To celebrate Amanda's new short bob , I made sure it was
Angel Hair pasta. la_)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Shepherding the Shepherd
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
Re: The article:
“Business Columnists
Bernard Shepherd: No justice in Knox’s case
Dec 24 2009 By Bernard Shepherd”
[ Birmingham Post ]

Shepherd wrote:
The conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher has left many in the legal profession uneasy.

This means surfer-writer and occasional media lawyer Alex Wade in The Times 08 December 2009 [ link ].


Shepherd wrote:
The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court.

This refers to Wade’s phrasing: “the evidence against Knox was flimsy at best, inchoate at worst.”

And: “whose case, had it been brought in Britain, would never have reached court.”

Plus: “If by some cruel miracle a British judge had found himself presiding over 12 good men and true, whose task it was to determine whether Knox was innocent of Kercher’s murder, it is inconceivable that he would not have made strong, telling directions to acquit.”


Shepherd wrote:
There is not one iota of physical evidence that places Knox at the murder scene.

This is Wade’s “For just as indisputable as Kercher’s dead body, found with her throat cut in her bedroom, is the fact that there is not one iota of physical evidence placing Knox at the crime scene. Niente, nada, nihil.”


Shepherd wrote:
The alleged murder weapon, a cooking knife, has traces of her DNA on it but was seized from her boyfriend’s house.

This is Wade’s: “There is a knife, yes, and it has Knox’s DNA on its handle. The knife was found at the house of Knox’s then boyfriend, Sollecito — but if she had helped him to prepare dinner, traces of her DNA on his knives would not be surprising.”


Shepherd wrote:
There is even doubt that the knife in question was the murder weapon.

This is Wade’s: “But the attorney Anne Bremner, who offered her services pro bono to Knox via Friends for Amanda, has roundly dismissed the idea that Sollecito’s is the knife that killed Kercher.”


Shepherd wrote:
But unfortunately for Knox, her trial was conducted not only in the Italian courts, but in the media.

This is Wade’s: “her outré sexuality, catalogued so faithfully by the media ever since, on November 6, 2007”

and “Those same criminal lawyers would also, had the trial been in the UK, been on safe ground in applying to have it abandoned as having been hopelessly prejudiced not merely by media coverage, but by Italian prosecutors, who routinely divulge what should be confidential pre-trial information to an all-too-eager media.


Shepherd wrote:
The nature of the crime, and in particular its sexual overtones, has attracted international attention.

So the PR campaign in the US was not really needed, after all?


Shepherd wrote:
The victim, a British student, the accused an American caught up in an alleged love triangle, the setting a picturesque Italian village, would have furnished the plot for an international bestseller.

I thought John Grisham was misreported (e.g., by [ Mirror ]) and that he was not writing a novel about the case. Perhaps I was misinformed.


Shepherd wrote:
With much of the evidence challenged, the case rested on Knox’s character and behaviour.

A pastiche of Wade’s: ““You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.” Those are words spoken by the “she-devil” Knox to Kercher on the night of the crime — only they weren’t. Instead, they are the fanciful imaginings of an Italian prosecutor, speculating before the jury about the words Knox may have uttered to Kercher.”

And: “Leaked information shows that she had had seven partners, three of whom she had slept with after her arrival in Italy (the list excluded her co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito). Heavens — on Facebook, she even included “men” as an interest.”

And: “In a society that jumps to condemn Sally Bercow’s admission of past sexual indiscretions, while agonising over the “fall” of Tiger Woods for precisely the same activities, Knox’s supposed predilection for leaving a beauty case containing a vibrator and condoms in the bathroom was all of a piece with her penchant for penning rape fantasies.”
And so on.



Shepherd wrote:
Regrettably, information which should have remained confidential to the trial was routinely divulged by the Italian prosecutors, fanning the fire and prejudicing the case.

As above, “prosecutors, who routinely divulge”.


Shepherd wrote:
Let’s not pretend that Britain hasn’t had its share of miscarriages of justice. Sally Clarke, Stefan Kiszko and the Birmingham Six are just some who found themselves on the wrong side of a guilty conviction.

––


Shepherd wrote:
However, we do have basic safeguards in place.*

This is Wade’s: “Here, contempt of court laws prevent the publication of information, from the moment of arrest or criminal charge, that may have a substantial risk of causing serious prejudice to a trial.”



Shepherd wrote:
Our contempt of court laws prevent the publication of information which could prejudice a trial. The drip feed of salacious information – some of it conjecture – about Knox meant she was subjected to the kind of character assassination that coloured the opinion of judge, juror and the public. Sobriquets such as “Luciferina’ (she-devil) and ‘Foxy Knoxy’ undoubtedly helped condemn Amanda Knox.

In addition to the prior sentence, this is Wade’s: “The piecemeal leaking of salacious information about Knox — her sexual exploits, her smoking cannabis with Sollecito, her cartwheels and prison journal extemporisations — was a disgrace that would never have been countenanced under UK law. She was subjected to a relentless, corrosive character assassination that she had never had a chance of fighting.


Shepherd wrote:
Already a transatlantic storm is brewing: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is rumoured to be set to intervene.

This refers to a “related link” embedded in Wade’s article page: “Clinton drawn into row over Knox conviction”


Shepherd wrote:
Frankly, it should never have got this far.

Hear, hear!





In conclusion, members of the jury,


In terms of communicable diseases, promiscuous students are only as healthy as their last partner. Likewise, newspaper comment writers are only as substantial and believable as their latest cribbed article.



And so, Bernard,

Despite conscientious and, no doubt, sincere changes in phrasing and timbre, when it comes to unacknowledged sources, there is a whiff of intellectual property theft in the air. Not to mention a matter of ethical dishonesty when it comes to the use of weasel words and unresearched facts.

One would almost think, in the holiday season, that the port had called before the article deadline and, out of that contest, there could, and would, be only one winner.


In terms of real property lawyers using occasional media lawyers as their source on criminal law matters, I would say they have been gazumped!


However, keep up the good work. I heartily recommend filling the void. After all, there is a dearth of light entertainment pieces at the moment, and you appear to be the right man for the job.

There was a time when Birmingham used to routinely beat London on all matters. It seems that belongs to a bygone era now.







* Couldn’t help but ask:
Such as the votes of the Birmingham Law Society members for their president?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Calculated to...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
The main purpose of Shepherd's piece (and Wade's, for that matter) was to get the "facts" spread as wide as possible through already established RSS feeds.

On that score, it was a success.

There are already embedded links on

USA Today
News Now
Newsrunner
AOL

all pointing back to his article.

Give it a couple of more days, and it will have spread
all over the web like a student's rash.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Earthling wrote:
[

(My Dad always said, "A pun is the lowest form of humor" --


Calling MY puns a "form of humor"..is being waaaaay too charitable.

Sorry about the near "choking while chuckling" episode you had earlier today. Orange juice sorry now that you read my silly post?

OK, then...
back to the real topic of this blog-CRIME,
(and not PUN-ishment.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Shepherding the Shepherd
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Catnip wrote:
Re: The article:
“Business Columnists
Bernard Shepherd: No justice in Knox’s case
Dec 24 2009 By Bernard Shepherd”
[ Birmingham Post ]

Shepherd wrote:
The conviction of Amanda Knox for the murder of fellow student Meredith Kercher has left many in the legal profession uneasy.

This means surfer-writer and occasional media lawyer Alex Wade in The Times 08 December 2009 [ link ].


Shepherd wrote:
The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court.

This refers to Wade’s phrasing: “the evidence against Knox was flimsy at best, inchoate at worst.”

And: “whose case, had it been brought in Britain, would never have reached court.”

Plus: “If by some cruel miracle a British judge had found himself presiding over 12 good men and true, whose task it was to determine whether Knox was innocent of Kercher’s murder, it is inconceivable that he would not have made strong, telling directions to acquit.”


Shepherd wrote:
There is not one iota of physical evidence that places Knox at the murder scene.

This is Wade’s “For just as indisputable as Kercher’s dead body, found with her throat cut in her bedroom, is the fact that there is not one iota of physical evidence placing Knox at the crime scene. Niente, nada, nihil.”


Shepherd wrote:
The alleged murder weapon, a cooking knife, has traces of her DNA on it but was seized from her boyfriend’s house.

This is Wade’s: “There is a knife, yes, and it has Knox’s DNA on its handle. The knife was found at the house of Knox’s then boyfriend, Sollecito — but if she had helped him to prepare dinner, traces of her DNA on his knives would not be surprising.”


Shepherd wrote:
There is even doubt that the knife in question was the murder weapon.

This is Wade’s: “But the attorney Anne Bremner, who offered her services pro bono to Knox via Friends for Amanda, has roundly dismissed the idea that Sollecito’s is the knife that killed Kercher.”


Shepherd wrote:
But unfortunately for Knox, her trial was conducted not only in the Italian courts, but in the media.

This is Wade’s: “her outré sexuality, catalogued so faithfully by the media ever since, on November 6, 2007”

and “Those same criminal lawyers would also, had the trial been in the UK, been on safe ground in applying to have it abandoned as having been hopelessly prejudiced not merely by media coverage, but by Italian prosecutors, who routinely divulge what should be confidential pre-trial information to an all-too-eager media.


Shepherd wrote:
The nature of the crime, and in particular its sexual overtones, has attracted international attention.

So the PR campaign in the US was not really needed, after all?


Shepherd wrote:
The victim, a British student, the accused an American caught up in an alleged love triangle, the setting a picturesque Italian village, would have furnished the plot for an international bestseller.

I thought John Grisham was misreported (e.g., by [ Mirror ]) and that he was not writing a novel about the case. Perhaps I was misinformed.


Shepherd wrote:
With much of the evidence challenged, the case rested on Knox’s character and behaviour.

A pastiche of Wade’s: ““You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.” Those are words spoken by the “she-devil” Knox to Kercher on the night of the crime — only they weren’t. Instead, they are the fanciful imaginings of an Italian prosecutor, speculating before the jury about the words Knox may have uttered to Kercher.”

And: “Leaked information shows that she had had seven partners, three of whom she had slept with after her arrival in Italy (the list excluded her co-accused, Raffaele Sollecito). Heavens — on Facebook, she even included “men” as an interest.”

And: “In a society that jumps to condemn Sally Bercow’s admission of past sexual indiscretions, while agonising over the “fall” of Tiger Woods for precisely the same activities, Knox’s supposed predilection for leaving a beauty case containing a vibrator and condoms in the bathroom was all of a piece with her penchant for penning rape fantasies.”
And so on.



Shepherd wrote:
Regrettably, information which should have remained confidential to the trial was routinely divulged by the Italian prosecutors, fanning the fire and prejudicing the case.

As above, “prosecutors, who routinely divulge”.


Shepherd wrote:
Let’s not pretend that Britain hasn’t had its share of miscarriages of justice. Sally Clarke, Stefan Kiszko and the Birmingham Six are just some who found themselves on the wrong side of a guilty conviction.

––


Shepherd wrote:
However, we do have basic safeguards in place.*

This is Wade’s: “Here, contempt of court laws prevent the publication of information, from the moment of arrest or criminal charge, that may have a substantial risk of causing serious prejudice to a trial.”



Shepherd wrote:
Our contempt of court laws prevent the publication of information which could prejudice a trial. The drip feed of salacious information – some of it conjecture – about Knox meant she was subjected to the kind of character assassination that coloured the opinion of judge, juror and the public. Sobriquets such as “Luciferina’ (she-devil) and ‘Foxy Knoxy’ undoubtedly helped condemn Amanda Knox.

In addition to the prior sentence, this is Wade’s: “The piecemeal leaking of salacious information about Knox — her sexual exploits, her smoking cannabis with Sollecito, her cartwheels and prison journal extemporisations — was a disgrace that would never have been countenanced under UK law. She was subjected to a relentless, corrosive character assassination that she had never had a chance of fighting.


Shepherd wrote:
Already a transatlantic storm is brewing: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is rumoured to be set to intervene.

This refers to a “related link” embedded in Wade’s article page: “Clinton drawn into row over Knox conviction”


Shepherd wrote:
Frankly, it should never have got this far.

Hear, hear!





In conclusion, members of the jury,


In terms of communicable diseases, promiscuous students are only as healthy as their last partner. Likewise, newspaper comment writers are only as substantial and believable as their latest cribbed article.



And so, Bernard,

Despite conscientious and, no doubt, sincere changes in phrasing and timbre, when it comes to unacknowledged sources, there is a whiff of intellectual property theft in the air. Not to mention a matter of ethical dishonesty when it comes to the use of weasel words and unresearched facts.

One would almost think, in the holiday season, that the port had called before the article deadline and, out of that contest, there could, and would, be only one winner.


In terms of real property lawyers using occasional media lawyers as their source on criminal law matters, I would say they have been gazumped!


However, keep up the good work. I heartily recommend filling the void. After all, there is a dearth of light entertainment pieces at the moment, and you appear to be the right man for the job.

There was a time when Birmingham used to routinely beat London on all matters. It seems that belongs to a bygone era now.







* Couldn’t help but ask:
Such as the votes of the Birmingham Law Society members for their president?


So our Shepherd is lazy as well as dishonest? It seems that he knows just how far to go to avoid the charge of plagiarism. What a clever fellow!

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Brogan wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I suppose in the FOA and the Knox /Sollecito defence world it is quite normal to jab people with big sharp butchers knives while cooking - it happens all the time.

It is bullshit from these people that is designed to portray a false lifestyle - as if the two lovebirds spent their six days together trying to impress eachother with their culinary skills everday, when in fact it is all just lies to justify their contact with the sharp knives that were found in their possession.
I would wager Knox and Sollecito most probably survived mainly on takeaways - like most students.


I would love to have seen an inventory of Raff's food cupboards and freezer. As an until recently single student I doubt he would have more than some pot noodles and the odd frozen pizza. Just because he is Italian does not make him master chef.


I knew two young male adults in France who shared an apartment. Though they revered excellent, elaborately prepared food, all they could muster themselves was pasta with ketchup and camembert. I wish I were joking. Their mothers are master chefs, however. But neither taught her son to cook.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Maybe amanda's hair loss is caused by a zinc deficiency. Yummy, what do you know about
italian prison diets? Do they serve sufficient amounts of fruits, vegetables, cereals, pasta
made of farina integrale or maybe pumpkin seeds?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
tom_ch wrote:
As I previously stated, the question was asked, not by me, does someone who cooks bring a 40cm knife with them when they go to cook at someone else's house. My response, based on my own habits, is yes. No more, no less.

Please read the entire thread to get a glean of what it's about.

Tom


Tom, I think your Google-search on "40cm knife" got you hooked up on the wrong message board.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
The Bard wrote:
stilicho wrote:

I would like to see this including a matrix of those bullet points contrasted with something like:

i] used in court evidence
ii] used in judge report (whose?)
iii] used in media reports/interpretation
iv] thrown out by court
v] used by prosecutor
vi] used by legal team (AK/PL/RS/RG/MK)
vii et al] etc, etc.

Something like this would be a *huge* benefit for those like me who are still discussing the case on other forums.


This would take forever! Great idea, but I think it might be a big ask. I would like to see it too, but I don't know who would have the time to do it. I think SomeAlibi's suggestion of a Google Doc would be the way forward, with an encyclopedic moderator to just check over people's contributions for 'bleach receipt' type errors (unlikely here, but you never know) Big task.


In the end, Bard, you're absolutely correct. The time investment is probably not worth the reward (ie. AK-supporters ignoring it anyhow). And the interest in the case is entirely dependent on the key points (arrest, first appearance at trial, verdict, appeal) which is why there's a big spike in entries even here only when one of those points is achieved.

It's very similar to a long-dormant case here where a wealthy scion of a Saskatchewan politician murdered his ex-wife and was finally released on parole (lying to the Parole Board that he intended to live out his existence quietly with his children and grand-children): http://www.leaderpost.com/news/PART+Col ... story.html

There are lots of similarities, the only variation being that new DNA evidence that has supplied fresh reasons for normally reasonable people to question the courts wherever they feel. Colin Thatcher murdered her before DNA evidence was introduced into court cases but the similarities in his denials are startling. (He never once in his book states unequivocally that he was not responsible for her death, only that he was framed--sound familiar?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I knew two young male adults in France who shared an apartment. Though they revered excellent, elaborately prepared food, all they could muster themselves was pasta with ketchup and camembert. I wish I were joking. Their mothers are master chefs, however. But neither taught her son to cook.


When I started to work in Paris, I was suffering from a culture shock. I came to Paris with the
idea that everyone in France is dedicating his life to the haute cuisine. The bank where a worked
had a canteen that served excellent food, but many of my co-workers almost every day opted for steak frites and/or couscous.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
There will be a PR push. So far what they've done has not garnered positive response. The bbc radio interview recently of Edda was a complete pr disaster. We have not heard from Curt for a while. Big names (Trump, Shepperd) have made broad sweeping statements with no substantive evidence for backup.

As a matter of fact, all I've ever heard from the FOA PR was "because I said so". Very repellent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 241
Location: CH
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Depends on the sauce involved.

Anything beyond 'sauce in the jar' would require a knife. This is my experience, not a what-if. Again, the defense did not claim hid did, nor did I. I am simply answering the question asked.

Tom

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

As I previously stated, the question was asked, not by me, does someone who cooks bring a 40cm knife with them when they go to cook at someone else's house. My response, based on my own habits, is yes. No more, no less.

Please read the entire thread to get a glean of what it's about.

Tom


Hey Tom, I read the whole thread and I am as mystified as FBN. Is there a point to this? I ask because you haven't responded to my comments. The fact is, Sollecito never made any argument about being a gourmet cook, carrying cooking knives with him, or preparing elaborate meals at the cottage. In fact, the other flatmates hardly knew him it seems.

Don't you think that someone who had merely carried a kitchen knife to his girlfriend's flat to cook a meal would be quick to remember this vital fact if it came to light that the knife had a murder victim's DNA on it?

Exactly, which implies that the knife was not brought to the house to cook, and that the only reasonable explanation for the knife to have been brought to the house was expressly for intimidation purposes (i.e. scaring MK), and didn't just happen to be 'on hand'.

Tom


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am
Posts: 305
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Brogan wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I suppose in the FOA and the Knox /Sollecito defence world it is quite normal to jab people with big sharp butchers knives while cooking - it happens all the time.

It is bullshit from these people that is designed to portray a false lifestyle - as if the two lovebirds spent their six days together trying to impress eachother with their culinary skills everday, when in fact it is all just lies to justify their contact with the sharp knives that were found in their possession.
I would wager Knox and Sollecito most probably survived mainly on takeaways - like most students.


I would love to have seen an inventory of Raff's food cupboards and freezer. As an until recently single student I doubt he would have more than some pot noodles and the odd frozen pizza. Just because he is Italian does not make him master chef.


I knew two young male adults in France who shared an apartment. Though they revered excellent, elaborately prepared food, all they could muster themselves was pasta with ketchup and camembert. I wish I were joking. Their mothers are master chefs, however. But neither taught her son to cook.


In my experience any student who is not existing on a diet of take away, Pot noodle and frozen Pizza ia a light weight.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
tom_ch wrote:
Exactly, which implies that the knife was not brought to the house to cook, and that the only reasonable explanation for the knife to have been brought to the house was expressly for intimidation purposes (i.e. scaring MK), and didn't just happen to be 'on hand'.


Hi Tom,

This is not the only reasonable explanation. It could be argued that the knife was brought to the cottage to murder Meredith. The fact that the double DNA knife caused the deep puncture wound on Meredith's neck lends credibility to this explanation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
One thing I would like FOA to answer is "Why would there not be one scintilla of Amanda's DNA in the crime scene?" She lived there. If victim Meredith Kercher's DNA was in Raffaele's apartment, though she never was there, wouldn't it make sense that Amanda's DAN would be somewhere in the crime scene?

DNA evidence says Amanda most definitely was in the proximity of the victim.

What else you got, FOA? "Because I said so" doesn't work for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Emerald wrote:
There will be a PR push. So far what they've done has not garnered positive response. The bbc radio interview recently of Edda was a complete pr disaster. We have not heard from Curt for a while. Big names (Trump, Shepperd) have made broad sweeping statements with no substantive evidence for backup.

As a matter of fact, all I've ever heard from the FOA PR was "because I said so". Very repellent.


PR has nothing to do with law. They threw all their cash at 'public relations' outside of italy. That couldn't touch the trial. They complain about press bias but they are the main instigators of "press bias". The FOA could have marshalled their cash and found a "Johnnie Cochran" but they blew it.

What's next for the FOA? So far all they have only made Marriott and themselves look ridiculous. It was a criminal trial (not showbusiness). Unless new evidence is introduced the appeal will have exactly the same results.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
ttrroonniicc wrote:

PR has nothing to do with law. They threw all their cash at 'public relations' outside of italy. That couldn't touch the trial. They complain about press bias but they are the main instigators of "press bias". The FOA could have marshalled their cash and found a "Johnnie Cochran" but they blew it.

What's next for the FOA? So far all they have only made Marriott and themselves look ridiculous. It was a criminal trial (not showbusiness). Unless new evidence is introduced the appeal will have exactly the same results.


Marriott doesn't care as long as he gets paid. When FOA quits paying their due bill, they will be a thing of the past for these professionals. Attorneys move on to the next cause du jour. So do PR firms. The Amanda Knox Family will be left alone to face the fact of their la_) being a hardened criminal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Why did Raffaele Sollecito say this in his diary?

"Nov 20 2007
(Raffaele opens the page diary on November 20 with a conviction for
him decisive) 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. "

Bongiorno: "The prosecution says this was a sex crime that evolved out of a party, but we will prove the crime scene was not a party scene. There were no empty glasses, no wine, no music. We will also show that Raffaele did not know Rudy Guede, and that the first time he saw him was in court."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Why did Raffaele Sollecito say this in his diary?

"Nov 20 2007
(Raffaele opens the page diary on November 20 with a conviction for
him decisive) 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. "

Bongiorno: "The prosecution says this was a sex crime that evolved out of a party, but we will prove the crime scene was not a party scene. There were no empty glasses, no wine, no music. We will also show that Raffaele did not know Rudy Guede, and that the first time he saw him was in court."


What strikes me about this diary entry is RS's fear of being condemned by someone he supposedly never met. Instead of saying "Whew! Sounds like they caught the killer. Now I will go free."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 340
Location: UK
Sollecito was afraid Guede would implicate him because he knew he was there when the murder took place.

He wasn't at all concerned about Patrick Lumumba being locked up in prison, as he knew he wasn't there - so therefore could not implicate him.

Only someone present at the scene and involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher would know this.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: AK trial testimony June 12th 2009 excerpt (re: 'the gift')
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
CP = Carlo Pacelli (Lumumba defence).

CP: Okay, let's talk about your memorandum of November 6.

AK: Okay.

CP: Did you, on the morning of November 6, ask the agents of the judicial
police for paper to write on?

AK: Yes.

CP: Did you also spontaneously ask for a pen?

AK: Yes.

CPL In what language did you write your memorandum?

AK: In English.

CP: When you wrote it, were the contents suggested to you by the police?

AK: No. It wasn't. I wrote it to explain my confusion to the police. Because
when I told them that I wasn't sure, and that I didn't want to sign their
declaration, and that I thought it was all a big mistake, they didn't want
to listen. When I told them that I wasn't sure, they said that I would
remember everything later, that I should be patient, and keep trying to
remember. I was feeling uncomfortable about these declarations that I
had made, so I asked for paper to explain my confusion, beacuse I really
wasn't sure.

CP: When did you write the memorandum? More or less?

AK: I don't remember.

CP: In the late morning? After you were served with an arrest warrant?
Towards midday?

AK: Well, I was still in the Questura.

CP: Yes, but in the late morning? Of the 6th?

AK: You know, there was so much confusion during the night, and so many hours
of interrogation, that my sense of time was gone.

CP: When you wrote the memorandum, were you hit by police?

AK: When?

CP: When you wrote the memorandum. Were you hit by police?

AK: No.

CP: Mistreated?

AK: No.

CP: Did the police suggest the contents?

AK: No.


CP: You gave it to them freely?

AK: Yes.

CP: Voluntarily?

AK: Yes.

CP: Listen, in this memorandum, you say that you confirm the declarations you
made the night before about what might have happened at your house with
Patrick. Why did you freely and spontaneously confirm these declarations?

AK: Because I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real.
So I wanted to say that I was confused, and that I couldn't know. But at
the same time, I knew I had signed those declarations. So I wanted to say
that I knew I had made those declarations, but I was confused and not sure.

CP: But in fact, you were sure that Patrick was innocent?

AK: No, I wasn't sure.

CP: Why?

AK: Because I was confused! I imagined that it might have happened. I was confused.

CP: Did you see Patrick on November 1, yes or no?

AK: No.

CP: Did you meet him?

AK: No.

CP: Then why did you say that you saw him, met him, and walked home with him?

AK: Because the police and the interpreter told me that maybe I just wasn't
remembering these things, but I had to try to remember.
It didn't matter if
I thought I was imagining it. I would remember it with time. So, the
fact that I actually remembered something else was confusing to me. Because
I remembered one thing, but under the pressure of the police, I forced myself
to imagine another. I was confused. I was trying to explain this confusion,
because they were making me accuse someone I didn't want to accuse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK ... it's confusing even to read - she says:

"I was no longer sure what was my imagination and what was real."

then she says:

"Because the police and the interpreter told me that maybe I just wasn't
remembering these things, but I had to try to remember."

but she also says the contents of her 'memorandum' (she told them it was a "gift") weren't suggested to her.

What is her defence here? She has contradicted herself completely just in this small section of testimony. Apparently this is still her defence.

She's saying she wasn't directed to accuse Lumumba but that she was directed to imagine what had happened. At the end of this small segment she says that they were making her accuse Lumumba. But she repeats the accusation in her memorandum later and admits that was freely given.

The police hypnotized her?

Here: "Because when I told them that I wasn't sure, and that I didn't want
to sign their declaration, and that I thought it was all a big mistake, they
didn't want to listen. When I told them that I wasn't sure, they said that
I would remember everything later, that I should be patient, and keep
trying to remember. I was feeling uncomfortable about these declarations
that I had made, so I asked for paper to explain my confusion, beacuse I
really wasn't sure."

She says that she wouldn't sign her statement from the interrogation because she thought it was all a big mistake (accusing Lumumba) - then she requests paper and pen and independently confirms the accusation ("to explain my confusion"). But she isn't confused when she "re"-accuses Lumumba. She says she is explaining but she also says she's "explaining confusion".
But the point is she independently confirms the accusation and it isn't revoked. She even relates to Edda Mellas that she had made a false accusation (for whatever reason). Lumumba was left to stew - he only got out when they picked up Guede.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 241
Location: CH
The Machine wrote:
tom_ch wrote:
Exactly, which implies that the knife was not brought to the house to cook, and that the only reasonable explanation for the knife to have been brought to the house was expressly for intimidation purposes (i.e. scaring MK), and didn't just happen to be 'on hand'.


Hi Tom,

This is not the only reasonable explanation. It could be argued that the knife was brought to the cottage to murder Meredith. The fact that the double DNA knife caused the deep puncture wound on Meredith's neck lends credibility to this explanation.

I have no doubts that it was used to murder Meredith, but rather that if the intention from the start was to murder her, another, more suitable knife would have been chosen. It's a real PITA to transport such a knife, and it's also unwieldly to use for things other than slicing, dicing, chopping and hacking. It's very intimidating visually, but not very practical for a pre-mediated murder. However, perhaps someone not too familiar with knives would chose it, AK for example.

Tom


Last edited by tom_ch on Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Seattle, Washington
Happy Birthday, Meredith. Wherever you are, you are not forgotten and in the hearts and on the minds of many who care.
dance-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 16
I read this forum thousands of times, i still haven't made my mind up! I've just finished reading "the Monster of Florence" and the way the Italian system works from the Police right through to the courts! all seems confusing to say the least!

The un edited transcript/tape recording from the 14 hour interrogation! has it ever been released?

I honestly think AK/RS will win the appeal, the way this case has been dealt with from the start, is nothing short of ridiculous!

I mean the way the forensics gathered evidence will always put doubt in my mind, know wonder people are linking this case with the Monster of Florence


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Amanda is not the victim here, Stevo. Meredith Kercher is.

Amanda submitted a hand written multipage confession implicating Patrick Lumumba. It might be easy to discount, except it contains details not yet investigated.

I don't believe AK/RS will be exonerated on appeal. Since they opted for a full trial instead of 'Fast track', the chances are very slim their sentences will be reduced.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Emerald wrote:
There will be a PR push. So far what they've done has not garnered positive response. The bbc radio interview recently of Edda was a complete pr disaster. We have not heard from Curt for a while. Big names (Trump, Shepperd) have made broad sweeping statements with no substantive evidence for backup.

As a matter of fact, all I've ever heard from the FOA PR was "because I said so". Very repellent.


PR has nothing to do with law. They threw all their cash at 'public relations' outside of italy. That couldn't touch the trial. They complain about press bias but they are the main instigators of "press bias". The FOA could have marshalled their cash and found a "Johnnie Cochran" but they blew it.

What's next for the FOA? So far all they have only made Marriott and themselves look ridiculous. It was a criminal trial (not showbusiness). Unless new evidence is introduced the appeal will have exactly the same results.

You know, I don't think even hiring a "Johnnie Cochran" could have saved the Butchers of Pergola. Because I think the Italian jury system actually has some darn fine checks-and-balances built into it. The presence of professional judges on the jury, for one. The inability of the system to be much influenced by outside forces, for another. And even perhaps the non-unanimity requirement.

Does anyone else find themselves, these days, wondering if the Italian system is better than ours (USA), in some ways? And if we could learn a thing or three from their system?

I for one have been googling USA unanimous jury system and learning more about it. How it evolved, why we have it, what suggestions there are for improving it.

It sure worked great for OJ, though, what? :D (just kidding)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 516
Stevo wrote:
I read this forum thousands of times, i still haven't made my mind up! I've just finished reading "the Monster of Florence" and the way the Italian system works from the Police right through to the courts! all seems confusing to say the least!

The un edited transcript/tape recording from the 14 hour interrogation! has it ever been released?

I honestly think AK/RS will win the appeal, the way this case has been dealt with from the start, is nothing short of ridiculous!

I mean the way the forensics gathered evidence will always put doubt in my mind, know wonder people are linking this case with the Monster of Florence



Hello Stevo,

Are you confusing a 14 hour “fairy tale interrogation” with the 2 hour 45 minute session that is accepted by the defence Solicitors of AK as have actually taken place on the night/morning of Nov 5/6.

This is confirmed on video and in the court transcripts of AK; also available on this site if you would care to take the trouble to look and see with your own eyes.

"CORRECTION OF TYPO = 2 hours 45 minutes"


Last edited by Hammerite on Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:10 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
Stevo wrote:
I read this forum thousands of times, i still haven't made my mind up! I've just finished reading "the Monster of Florence" and the way the Italian system works from the Police right through to the courts! all seems confusing to say the least!

The un edited transcript/tape recording from the 14 hour interrogation! has it ever been released?

I honestly think AK/RS will win the appeal, the way this case has been dealt with from the start, is nothing short of ridiculous!

I mean the way the forensics gathered evidence will always put doubt in my mind, know wonder people are linking this case with the Monster of Florence

Stevo,

It seems like you will doubt any instance of a system. No instance is perfect. The Italian system is complicated and confusing -- but then, so is the US system for outsiders, and the UK system for outsiders, etc. etc.

The only thing one need check is that the system has "worked well enough" in any given case.

It can mess up in any given case, yes. However, if you were truly being intellectually honest with the evidence, you would realize that the Butchers of Pergola case was not such a one.

Unlike similar notorious cases in the US (OJ, Robert Blake, etc.), the system worked, and I for one am grateful.

There will be no win on appeal, and as Emerald states, and for the reason she states, very little chance of sentence reduction.

The Butchers' sentence reductions will depend very heavily on their own behavior, rehabilitation, etc. from this point on. Which is as it should be (and as it would be in the US as well, by the way).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 16
Emerald wrote:
Amanda is not the victim here, Stevo. Meredith Kercher is.

Amanda submitted a hand written multipage confession implicating Patrick Lumumba. It might be easy to discount, except it contains details not yet investigated.

I don't believe AK/RS will be exonerated on appeal. Since they opted for a full trial instead of 'Fast track', the chances are very slim their sentences will be reduced.


I understand Meredith and her family are the victims!

All i'm saying is, the way evidence was gathered, the illegal way the 14 hour interrogation was conducted , plus the damn right stupid theories that came from the prosecution during the investigation, on top of all the media coverage, has raised doubts over the way it was handled.

I want worthy justice for MK, i just think the process of how it was concluded, warrants scrutiny!


Last edited by Stevo on Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 - Happy Birthday, Meredith!!!
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
Apparently today is Meredith's 24th Birthday (I didn't see it mentioned, sorry if I missed it)...

There's a wonderful post over at TJMK today:

[ http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... home_city/ ]

[ or: http://bit.ly/5WnbcD ]

There are videos of the beautiful city Meredith was from and loved. Enjoy!

And Happy Birthday, Meredith!!! :D tt-) dm-) ghu-)) mul-)


p.s. I find it also kind of interesting that there are no birthdays on PMF today.... as if the Lord wants to leave this day just for Mez.... which is not to say that if your birthday actually IS today, you shouldn't speak up, we will all wish you a Happy Birthday too!!! Truly... it's just interesting that no one registered here has that birthday, YET anyway.... :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
Stevo wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Amanda is not the victim here, Stevo. Meredith Kercher is.

Amanda submitted a hand written multipage confession implicating Patrick Lumumba. It might be easy to discount, except it contains details not yet investigated.

I don't believe AK/RS will be exonerated on appeal. Since they opted for a full trial instead of 'Fast track', the chances are very slim their sentences will be reduced.


I understand Meredith and her family are the victims!

All i'm saying is, the way evidence was gathered, the illegal way the 14 hour interrogation was conducted , plus the damn right stupid theories that came from the prosecution during the investigation, on top of all the media coverage, has raised doubts over the way it was handled.

I want worthy justice for MK, i just think the process of how it was concluded, warrants scrutiny!

Stevo:

What are the hours of this "14-hour interrogation" that you speak of? Truly, I'd like to know.

You see, here on PMF, we don't just accept assertion. We demand evidence of claims.

We've provided timelines here over and over again that AK was interrogated only from about 11 pm Nov 5th until 1:45 am Nov 6th, when she "confessed" to being at the crime scene, was labeled a suspect, and the interrogation broken off in order to bring in a lawyer or prosecutor.

That adds up to a little less than 3 hours. Not 14 hours.

Yes, over the course of days (Nov 2nd - Nov 6th), AK was interrogated over many hours, as a witness.

How does that jibe with your assertion of a 14-hour interrogation? Are you talking about a 14-hour-straight interrogation as a suspect? As an accused person? Or what?

Please, provide the links to the evidence of your assertion. And also, explain here, fully and with links and evidence, what hours you are asserting she was interrogated for 14 straight hours. Exactly and precisely.

Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
Stevo wrote:
The un edited transcript/tape recording from the 14 hour interrogation! has it ever been released?


There was no 14 hour interrogation. If you had read this forum thousands of times, you would have known this.

Amanda Knox was first questioned as a witness not as a suspect on 5 November 2007. The police were under no obligation to record this interview.

Mignini stated the following in an interview with Claudio Paglieri:

Claudio Paglieri: "You didn’t record it?"

Mignini: "No. I usually do when for example I am in my office. I recorded the declarations of her roommates and of the witnesses. But that night, we were at the police station, there was agitation, and we had to go and arrest Lumumba, who had just been accused by Amanda. Lumumba was later cleared thanks to me."

Stevo wrote:
I honestly think AK/RS will win the appeal, the way this case has been dealt with from the start, is nothing short of ridiculous!

I mean the way the forensics gathered evidence will always put doubt in my mind, know wonder people are linking this case with the Monster of Florence


I've been reliably informed that the most likely scenario at the appeal is that Amada Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's sentences will be confirmed.

Dr. Stefanoni's forensic investigation and her findings were independently reviewed by Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the scientific police, in 2008. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable. He also praised the way Dr. Stefanoni and her team carried out the investigation.

Incidentally, Doug Preston's afterword in The Monster of Florence contains numerous factual errors. I'd take anything he says with a hefty pinch of salt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Berlin Kreuzberg
Highscores: 3
ttrroonniicc wrote:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZKaxvAISaQk/R0rce_QTJ2I/AAAAAAAAAzA/Ey-N8aB2ygg/s320/sollecito_e_knox.jpg

I found 1 more photo of RS and AK that morning. I get the impression there is only video footage of them 'canoodling'. These other shots look to be of better quality than video footage would be IMO. In this shot they are on their way away from the scene. This could be in the car journey where Filomena and her boyfriend had noticed their strange aspect (they checked their car to see whether anything had been planted in it - was this because they suspected that RS was transporting a knife?) In this shot they are somewhat relieved to be getting away and are unaware of the camera. RS shows relief but still much tension. AK is looking away lost in her own thoughts and looking stunned. You can see the width of the coat hood here. To me AK's face shows intensity of not of grief but of something different. A very intense look - mental cogs whirring away. Anyway - people complain about too much "cod" psychological analysis but there is such a wealth of material.

One other thing - I thought RS had his own car - an audi. Where was it that morning. Why did they walk from his apartment to the cottage?

http://www.claudiocaprara.it/mediamanag ... erugia.jpg

Another new one (to me at least) ... Soll's stooped aspect. Is he holding the knife against his stomach? AK showing her obvious tiredness when losing track of the cameras (absolutely no sleep).

http://www.lasestina.unimi.it/lasestina ... lecito.jpg

What is the reason for Soll's hunch? I thought it could be tension - but it could be something else. His right hand could be supporting the knife. He's holding his stomach in. It was a 30cm long kitchen knife. A possibility for consideration. Soll. always carried a knife. He even carried a knife into the questura.

AK : Not a 'hickey' and looks like a bruised lip.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mqKZSZYw_HQ/S ... a+mark.bmp

(recently posted here) - remonstration - she's looking at him challenging 'you did something wrong' (something) - maybe: why didn't you give me the scarf? .... he's got his hand out (explaining something). What could they be arguing about just after hearing about the murder of a close friend - being close witnesses to the discovery of the body - what? You wouldn't be engaging in argument (about what) - you'd be in shock.

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/bin/128.$p ... magine.jpg

Here Knox looks in shock - Soll. looks like he's going to cry.- and it's not grief.

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/w ... lecito.jpg

Soll. and Knox a day later:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/1 ... 68x471.jpg


About the question why he didn't use his car...why should he? The cottage is just around the corner. Would be a waste of sprit.

The dangerous thing about interpreting pictures is, that one can interprete too much into them and find and see in them whatever one expects to find.
Let someone take many pictures of you in a short time and show them to people who don't know you and let them interprete those pictures. You will be surprised.
I have no doubt about their guilt but i think we should take care not to overinterprete pictures. Images are snapshots that capture the gestures and facial expressions of a moment, of a second. How meaningful is a second? I am not talking about the big picture, i am only talking about interpreting every single movement, every touch, every gesture.
I would never rely on a picture and the meaning that might be captured in it.

One example is the photograph of them sitting in the car of Filomena and her boyfriend...they are just looking. I cant find anything suspicious in the way they look. I hope you get my point ;)


Last edited by anne on Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
The Pain of Meredith Kercher Family: "Nobody will return Mez"

There are some protagonists in the events of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia who have always remained in the shadows. They never issued scalding statements, have not been involved in scandals or controversies. They are, Meredith’s parents, John and Arline, who today have issued some statements to the weekly magazine Gente, to remember their missed daughter. Both continue to keep Mez bedroom tidy, as it was when the English student left for Perugia: "In Meredith’s bedroom, we have left everything as it was. It is not a sanctuary but it is a constant reminder. Whenever I pass her room is like my child could return at any moment, as if she was still around."

For this reason the parents, despite the insistence of relatives and friends, they don’t want to leave the house where Meredith grew up, "If we left how would Mez find us? I know, is a stupid childish thought. In this damn story, we are the only ones who have received a life sentence,” says the mother Arline. Her two brothers, John Jr., and Lyle, stated that they have not felt anger or hate when the reading of the sentence to 26 and 25 years of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: "No one will bring her back, no one will return Mez. Now the pain is what above all, continues to occupy our hearts. They say that time lightens the pain, that it heals the wounds. Not true, is not like that."

John the father seems almost absent, when questioned he only has words of pride for his missing daughter: "Mez was a good girl, cheerful. She was a beautiful person. This makes me mad, destroys me. I’m not able to think that a person so beautiful, who no one could hate, was removed from the world."
By: Alessio Cappuccio.Cronaca e Attualita
=======

For Meredith on her day r-(( r-(( r-(( . R.I.P.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:22 pm
Posts: 140
Location: WA, USA
Highscores: 7
gh-))
Happy Birthday Mez
You will always be in my heart, and I've never met you.You've touched so many hearts, and Lord only knows how many more you would have touched if you had been allowed to live out what would have been an amazing life. I celebrate my Grandmother's birthday on Jan 1st every year even though she has been gone quite a long time. I will think of you with her, sharing a spiced eggnog and some leftover rum cake. You would make fine company with her.


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Kercher crime, Meredith’s mother speaks: “We are the only ones condemned to a life sentence”
MILAN - "In Meredith’s room, we left everything as it was. Is not a sanctuary but it is a constant remembrance. Every time I pass her room is like my child could return at any moment, as if she was still here."

Speaking in an interview with GENTE on newsstands Monday, is Arline, the mother of Meredith Kercher. The mother of the student killed in Perugia November 2, 2007 describes her emotions after the ruling of conviction for Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede.
"We are the only ones who have received a life sentence" is her outburst.

GENTE magazine --released a preview of the interview-- it presents "unpublished photos” of Meredith as a child and as a teenager. "Many are asking - continued Arline Kercher to GENTE - why don’t you move house, but I say: If we go how will Mez find us? I know it's a stupid thought. In this damn story we are the only ones who received a life sentence." "When Meredith left for Italy - the mother said - she was delighted. She called every day, she told us of Perugia, and her friends. She was happy."
Adds Meredith’s brother, Lyle, "in Perugia, when the conviction was handed down for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, I thought 'no one will return Meredith'. They asked me if we were happy with the verdict but we are not judges, is not up to us to judge."
"The point - said John Jr., another Mez’s brother - is that there are no winners in this bloody story. Nobody won."
Stephanie, who was very close to her sister, concluded: "Meredith will always be with us, she will never leave our hearts. On December 28 would’ve been her birthday: and for us her birthday we celebrate it, every year with a toast. A toast for Mez!
Corriere.it


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Quote:
i just think the process of how it was concluded, warrants scrutiny!


Good! So start it. You are in the right place for doing so: there is really a lot of material about the process on this forum.

I also encourage you to widen the object of your scrutiny.
The work of the U.S. mainstream media and American news coverages, for example. I suggest you to include them in your scrutiny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 340
Location: UK
anne wrote:
I have no doubt about their guilt but i think we should take care not to overinterprete pictures. Images are snapshots that capture the gestures and facial expressions of a moment, of a second. How meaningful is a second? I am not talking about the big picture, i am only talking about interpreting every single movement, every touch, every gesture.
I would never rely on a picture and the meaning that might be captured in it.



Anne,
What I would say regarding your charge of people 'over interpreting' images falls down flat when one considers the hundreds and possibly thousands of images in existence of Amanda Knox smiling, grinning, smirking and laughing in the courtroom, repeatedly captured at different times and on EVERYDAY while being on trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
This is nothing short of downright disrespectful to the victim to say the least and can hardly be considered as one image captured while Knox was caught unawares.
The shots of Knox taken outside the crime scene were taken by multiple press photographers,they can't all be portraying false and misleading images.
The camera never lies in instances like this.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
equinox wrote:
gh-))
Happy Birthday Mez
You will always be in my heart, and I've never met you.You've touched so many hearts, and Lord only knows how many more you would have touched if you had been allowed to live out what would have been an amazing life. I celebrate my Grandmother's birthday on Jan 1st every year even though she has been gone quite a long time. I will think of you with her, sharing a spiced eggnog and some leftover rum cake. You would make fine company with her.


Happy Celebration of the birth of Meredith Kercher, 24 years ago today!

You know, I'm not one who pays attention to astrology.

I mean the fact that OJ Simpson and Amanda Knox were born on the same day is just a coincidence, right? eee-)

BUT, this HowStuffWorks astrological portrait for Meredith on her birthday is quite accurate in the details. Take a look at this!



"A Capricorn born on December 28 has a style all their own. Self-possessed and intelligent, they have great social skills, including the ability to make anyone feel at home. They take pride and enjoyment in performing everyday tasks, believing it is through the minor events that character is formed and tested. They generally have a happy outlook.

Capricorn Information for December 28
You should embrace:
Political correctness, sociability, terms

You should avoid:
Dissemblers*, carnal appetites, betrayal

Friends and Lovers

People born on this date have a great capacity for friendship. They understand
their own character best through relationships. They need the emotional support of a partner and often marry early. They are happiest in a committed
relationship that offers emotional equilibrium; playing the field has little allure for them.

Children and Family

People born on this date are model sons and daughters. They are devoted to home and family."
________________________________________________________________________
*Dissembler: one who disguises or conceals one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.
Hmmmmm. Wonder if Meredith knew any dissemblers??? :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Berlin Kreuzberg
Highscores: 3
Maybe this is a bit OT but i am a bit annoyed about the way you keep saying that people around 20 have no abillity to cook apart from noodles or pizza.
This is not true.
During my apprenticeship some years ago (i am 25 now) i've had my own flat but also lived in a residental student home during the weeks of full-time vocational school.
The people there were a tender age between 16 to 27 and came from all over germany and also from other countries.
Even the youngest of them cooked during the weekends (in the week we ate at the hospital cantine - superb food, inclusive in the rent) but we also cooked occasionally during the week. Things like indian risotto with vegetables, Pasta with white wine sauce and tuna, Schnitzel Cauliflower potatoas, trout filled with tomatoes, rosemary potatoes, Baked Camembert with lingonberries....and so on and all different kinds of salat.
Just a few days ago i cooked a 4 kg goose filled with apple, orange, walnut, marjoram, raisin and rum plus dumplings and apple-red cabbage and lingonberries. I have my own herb garden.

I don't know whether eating habbits in other countries are as you explain but my very own expirience with people from all around the world of the age between 16 to 27 is that most of them know how to cook.
My old classmates and I even already cooked at the age of 11. We learned that at home (in my case from a full-time working single mother) and at school. My brother baked a poppy-seed cake at the age of 9 eventhough it was hard and salty.

Rant over.


Last edited by anne on Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Berlin Kreuzberg
Highscores: 3
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
anne wrote:
I have no doubt about their guilt but i think we should take care not to overinterprete pictures. Images are snapshots that capture the gestures and facial expressions of a moment, of a second. How meaningful is a second? I am not talking about the big picture, i am only talking about interpreting every single movement, every touch, every gesture.
I would never rely on a picture and the meaning that might be captured in it.



Anne,
What I would say regarding your charge of people 'over interpreting' images falls down flat when one considers the hundreds and possibly thousands of images in existence of Amanda Knox smiling, grinning, smirking and laughing in the courtroom, repeatedly captured at different times and on EVERYDAY while being on trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
This is nothing short of downright disrespectful to the victim to say the least and can hardly be considered as one image captured while Knox was caught unawares.
The shots of Knox taken outside the crime scene were taken by multiple press photographers,they can't all be portraying false and misleading images.
The camera never lies in instances like this.


I am on this board since a very long time eventhough i havn't posted from the beginning. But i guess that it is and always was clear what my position is and where i stand. As i said, i am not talking about the big picture, i am talking about picking pictures and to say: "Look, she stares out of the window. This is very suspicious"
You didn't get my point.

ps. I find your reply as an accusation against me. Have i ever said a single word about cameras lying? No? Good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
The 411 wrote:
equinox wrote:
gh-))
Happy Birthday Mez
You will always be in my heart, and I've never met you.You've touched so many hearts, and Lord only knows how many more you would have touched if you had been allowed to live out what would have been an amazing life. I celebrate my Grandmother's birthday on Jan 1st every year even though she has been gone quite a long time. I will think of you with her, sharing a spiced eggnog and some leftover rum cake. You would make fine company with her.


Happy Celebration of the birth of Meredith Kercher, 24 years ago today!

You know, I'm not one who pays attention to astrology.

I mean the fact that OJ Simpson and Amanda Knox were born on the same day is just a coincidence, right? eee-)

Hey, take care there, I was born July 11 ... whew! ... missed the 'bad day' by 2 days, plus "7-11" is lucky, right? :)

But that is weird, they were born exactly 40 years apart. I hadn't realized that.

The 411 wrote:
BUT, this HowStuffWorks astrological portrait for Meredith on her birthday is quite accurate in the details. Take a look at this!



"A Capricorn born on December 28 has a style all their own. Self-possessed and intelligent, they have great social skills, including the ability to make anyone feel at home. They take pride and enjoyment in performing everyday tasks, believing it is through the minor events that character is formed and tested. They generally have a happy outlook.

Capricorn Information for December 28
You should embrace:
Political correctness, sociability, terms

You should avoid:
Dissemblers*, carnal appetites, betrayal

Friends and Lovers

People born on this date have a great capacity for friendship. They understand
their own character best through relationships. They need the emotional support of a partner and often marry early. They are happiest in a committed
relationship that offers emotional equilibrium; playing the field has little allure for them.

Children and Family

People born on this date are model sons and daughters. They are devoted to home and family."
________________________________________________________________________
*Dissembler: one who disguises or conceals one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.
Hmmmmm. Wonder if Meredith knew any dissemblers??? :(

Interesting. How much all that fit her!

I'd also like to mention in passing that December 28th is the Third Day of Kwanzaa, on which is celebrated the principle of Ujima.

From a book I'm reading:

"Ujima means working together and looking after each other.... It reminds families and the community to work toward what is best for everyone.... [The family] can find out about one another's problems, and help to solve them together." (p 18 A World of Holidays: Kwanzaa by DB Walton)

I just thought that was interesting. Of course, every day's principle would apply to Meredith (Faith, Purpose, etc.), but it just seems like if I had to pick a Kwanzaa principle that fit her best, Working Together (Collective Work and Responsibility) would be it.

She just seems like someone that anyone could go to for help with a problem.

By the way, thanks to Jools for posting that beautiful picture from Gente of Stephanie and Meredith. God, it breaks my heart. r-((


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
anne wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
anne wrote:
I have no doubt about their guilt but i think we should take care not to overinterprete pictures. Images are snapshots that capture the gestures and facial expressions of a moment, of a second. How meaningful is a second? I am not talking about the big picture, i am only talking about interpreting every single movement, every touch, every gesture.
I would never rely on a picture and the meaning that might be captured in it.



Anne,
What I would say regarding your charge of people 'over interpreting' images falls down flat when one considers the hundreds and possibly thousands of images in existence of Amanda Knox smiling, grinning, smirking and laughing in the courtroom, repeatedly captured at different times and on EVERYDAY while being on trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
This is nothing short of downright disrespectful to the victim to say the least and can hardly be considered as one image captured while Knox was caught unawares.
The shots of Knox taken outside the crime scene were taken by multiple press photographers,they can't all be portraying false and misleading images.
The camera never lies in instances like this.


I am on this board since a very long time eventhough i havn't posted from the beginning. But i guess that it is and always was clear what my position is and where i stand. As i said, i am not talking about the big picture, i am talking about picking pictures and to say: "Look, she stares out of the window. This is very suspicious"
You didn't get my point.

ps. I find your reply as an accusation against me. Have i ever said a single word about cameras lying? No? Good.

I can see your point, Anne. I too think individual pictures can be over-interpreted, and rarely interpret photos myself. Even sightings of injuries on necks, etc., can be so tricky. What if it's just dirt on the lens or something?

And I also see DF2K's point. Over time, over many many pictures, yes a portrait of a person does come through. One day's smirking would mean little; Amanda smirked all the time in court. It was very rude toward the victim of this awful crime, I think. But then "That' just Amanda!" as her Mom would say. But if that's "who she is," that also tells you something about whether she could commit this crime.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Berlin Kreuzberg
Highscores: 3
Earthling wrote:
anne wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
anne wrote:
I have no doubt about their guilt but i think we should take care not to overinterprete pictures. Images are snapshots that capture the gestures and facial expressions of a moment, of a second. How meaningful is a second? I am not talking about the big picture, i am only talking about interpreting every single movement, every touch, every gesture.
I would never rely on a picture and the meaning that might be captured in it.



Anne,
What I would say regarding your charge of people 'over interpreting' images falls down flat when one considers the hundreds and possibly thousands of images in existence of Amanda Knox smiling, grinning, smirking and laughing in the courtroom, repeatedly captured at different times and on EVERYDAY while being on trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
This is nothing short of downright disrespectful to the victim to say the least and can hardly be considered as one image captured while Knox was caught unawares.
The shots of Knox taken outside the crime scene were taken by multiple press photographers,they can't all be portraying false and misleading images.
The camera never lies in instances like this.


I am on this board since a very long time eventhough i havn't posted from the beginning. But i guess that it is and always was clear what my position is and where i stand. As i said, i am not talking about the big picture, i am talking about picking pictures and to say: "Look, she stares out of the window. This is very suspicious"
You didn't get my point.

ps. I find your reply as an accusation against me. Have i ever said a single word about cameras lying? No? Good.

I can see your point, Anne. I too think individual pictures can be over-interpreted, and rarely interpret photos myself. Even sightings of injuries on necks, etc., can be so tricky. What if it's just dirt on the lens or something?

And I also see DF2K's point. Over time, over many many pictures, yes a portrait of a person does come through. One day's smirking would mean little; Amanda smirked all the time in court. It was very rude toward the victim of this awful crime, I think. But then "That' just Amanda!" as her Mom would say. But if that's "who she is," that also tells you something about whether she could commit this crime.


I fully agree on that. In context of the big picture it does indeed give us a portrait of her personality. But as you said and as i meant, the individual picture is the danger. We do know they are guilty but we shouldn't interprete every single one of them (pics) with the end result that we naturally will always find something in it because of our belief.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Birthday Message To Meredith
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am
Posts: 129
Location: Bellingham WA
Dear Meredith,

I am thinking once again of that horrible November day in the cottage in Perugia in which your life was so cruelly and senselessly taken from you. I wistfully send my tears to rain gently, softly onto the sacred earth that cradles your still form; yet that dark mist is vanishing now as I think of that blessed December day you emerged into the world to embark on a journey filled with yearning and learning and laughter. A journey filled with the joy of embracing family, the joy of making friends, the joy of exploring the world, the joy of mastering history and studying languages. Your birthday is a day for family and friends to celebrate the many wonderful memories they have of you. And another day of many, many to come in which your spirit lives on in the hearts of all who have been touched by the story of your life and the beautiful photos your family has shared. Your radiant smile will be cherished forever.

Rest In Peace,
A Caring Soul


Last edited by Rebel on Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Personal observation....

AK's Family life was waaaaaay dysfunctional when she was growing up. She learned to hide it in public. For instance, the pretense of Curt/Edda getting along so well. At least that's what we're supposed to 'see' in interviews, photos and court appearances.

It's all too contrived. Curt is a control freak. Edda is very intimidated by him.

Amanda was a caged animal at home. She got a little freedom and went totally nuts. Excessive EVERYthing.

ETA.... the public pictured Amanda is the mask.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Wait a minute! Time Out. Now I'm confused.

Prior to today, I had somehow remembered Meredith's birthday being in February 1986. Just now, I went to confirm my suspicion.
I discovered
TJMK has a caption of Meredith's 21st birthday party in FEBRUARY 2007.
There are hundreds/thousands of websites that list her birthday in February 1986.

In fact, earlier this month, even Michael quoted Wiki:

Michael wrote:Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher was born in February 1986 in Southwark, London, England, and lived in Coulsdon, South London. She attended the University of Leeds. She had been part of the ERASMUS student exchange programme, and had gone to Italy to complete her degree course.

WIKIPEDIA


SKEP wrote:
She would have been 24 in February 2010.

Which date is right? Why such a discrepancy about her birth date?
Why is there...once again, such misinformation covering every aspect of this case???

To confuse things further, I think Rudy's birthday is December 26th...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
ttrroonniicc wrote:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZKaxvAISaQk/R0rce_QTJ2I/AAAAAAAAAzA/Ey-N8aB2ygg/s320/sollecito_e_knox.jpg

I found 1 more photo of RS and AK that morning. I get the impression there is only video footage of them 'canoodling'. These other shots look to be of better quality than video footage would be IMO. In this shot they are on their way away from the scene. This could be in the car journey where Filomena and her boyfriend had noticed their strange aspect (they checked their car to see whether anything had been planted in it - was this because they suspected that RS was transporting a knife?) In this shot they are somewhat relieved to be getting away and are unaware of the camera. RS shows relief but still much tension. AK is looking away lost in her own thoughts and looking stunned. You can see the width of the coat hood here. To me AK's face shows intensity of not of grief but of something different. A very intense look - mental cogs whirring away. Anyway - people complain about too much "cod" psychological analysis but there is such a wealth of material.

One other thing - I thought RS had his own car - an audi. Where was it that morning. Why did they walk from his apartment to the cottage?

http://www.claudiocaprara.it/mediamanag ... erugia.jpg

Another new one (to me at least) ... Soll's stooped aspect. Is he holding the knife against his stomach? AK showing her obvious tiredness when losing track of the cameras (absolutely no sleep).

http://www.lasestina.unimi.it/lasestina ... lecito.jpg

What is the reason for Soll's hunch? I thought it could be tension - but it could be something else. His right hand could be supporting the knife. He's holding his stomach in. It was a 30cm long kitchen knife. A possibility for consideration. Soll. always carried a knife. He even carried a knife into the questura.

AK : Not a 'hickey' and looks like a bruised lip.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mqKZSZYw_HQ/S ... a+mark.bmp

(recently posted here) - remonstration - she's looking at him challenging 'you did something wrong' (something) - maybe: why didn't you give me the scarf? .... he's got his hand out (explaining something). What could they be arguing about just after hearing about the murder of a close friend - being close witnesses to the discovery of the body - what? You wouldn't be engaging in argument (about what) - you'd be in shock.

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/bin/128.$p ... magine.jpg

Here Knox looks in shock - Soll. looks like he's going to cry.- and it's not grief.

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/w ... lecito.jpg

Soll. and Knox a day later:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/1 ... 68x471.jpg


anne wrote:
About the question why he didn't use his car...why should he? The cottage is just around the corner. Would be a waste of sprit.


I have wondered why he didn't use his car. He was intent on hijacking a car the night before. Guede was intent on hiring a car.


anne wrote:
The dangerous thing about interpreting pictures is, that one can interprete too much into them and find and see in them whatever one expects to find.


They are confirmed killers. The pictures are interesting in retrospect. You will not find such obvious photographs. The press serve a purpose.

anne wrote:
Let someone take many pictures of you in a short time and show them to people who don't know you and let them interprete those pictures. You will be surprised.


The still pictures published were taken in context.


anne wrote:
I have no doubt about their guilt but i think we should take care not to overinterprete pictures.


Why would you try to interpret those pictures to be as common as "family snapshots". Do you think elements of the press conspired with the police and then the police conspired with the judiciary? Who named them guilty? I think the pictures show their guilt.


anne wrote:
Images are snapshots that capture the gestures and facial expressions of a moment, of a second. How meaningful is a second? I am not talking about the big picture, i am only talking about interpreting every single movement, every touch, every gesture.
I would never rely on a picture and the meaning that might be captured in it.


How uncommon were those pictures. You would like to believe that murderers would automatically be found. Who pointed the finger of accusation at those two first? Maybe it was the press. Then maybe that was the police (re: "frank sfarzo - 'spies' at the questura). But no - it was the postal police. They were automatically labelled suspects. Their story did not fit being discovered at the crime scene with the washing machine running standing over a mop bucket one of them with mop in hand (surprised). Then arrogant Soll. phoned the police from a side room they went into a side room (for some reason). He was told to phone back when he phoned the police (again) because the police knew he was doing something. Soll. was so arrogant he had phoned his police person sister (no longer police after trying to influence the trial) to ask advice - to "save him"). Before he pathetically phoned the real police. The real police were already there but Soll. had told AK they weren't the real police. They were automatically suspects. Rich Soll. no problems should happen to Soll. so the powerful Soll. the masterful. Always through his life until the point where he found himself with AK and Meredith Kercher killed. Then lots more police arrived and they were asked to stand around a lot. That is where they were photographed in the bright sunlight outside the cottage.

anne wrote:
One example is the photograph of them sitting in the car of Filomena and her boyfriend...they are just looking. I cant find anything suspicious in the way they look. I hope you get my point ;)


anne wrote:
I have no doubt about their guilt


What are you trying to say?


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:40 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:25 am
Posts: 129
Location: Bellingham WA
The 411 wrote:
Wait a minute! Time Out. Now I'm confused.

Prior to today, I had somehow remembered Meredith's birthday being in February 1986. Just now, I went to confirm my suspicion.
I discovered
TJMK has a caption of Meredith's 21st birthday party in FEBRUARY 2007.
There are hundreds/thousands of websites that list her birthday in February 1986.

In fact, earlier this month, even Michael quoted Wiki:

Michael wrote:Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher was born in February 1986 in Southwark, London, England, and lived in Coulsdon, South London. She attended the University of Leeds. She had been part of the ERASMUS student exchange programme, and had gone to Italy to complete her degree course.

WIKIPEDIA


SKEP wrote:
She would have been 24 in February 2010.

Which date is right? Why such a discrepancy about her birth date?
Why is there...once again, such misinformation covering every aspect of this case???

To confuse things further, I think Rudy's birthday is December 26th...


Wikipedia currently states:

Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, known to her friends as "Mez", was born on 28 December 1985 in Southwark, London, England, and lived in Coulsdon, South London.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Berlin Kreuzberg
Highscores: 3
ttrroonniicc wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZKaxvAISaQk/R0rce_QTJ2I/AAAAAAAAAzA/Ey-N8aB2ygg/s320/sollecito_e_knox.jpg

I found 1 more photo of RS and AK that morning. I get the impression there is only video footage of them 'canoodling'. These other shots look to be of better quality than video footage would be IMO. In this shot they are on their way away from the scene. This could be in the car journey where Filomena and her boyfriend had noticed their strange aspect (they checked their car to see whether anything had been planted in it - was this because they suspected that RS was transporting a knife?) In this shot they are somewhat relieved to be getting away and are unaware of the camera. RS shows relief but still much tension. AK is looking away lost in her own thoughts and looking stunned. You can see the width of the coat hood here. To me AK's face shows intensity of not of grief but of something different. A very intense look - mental cogs whirring away. Anyway - people complain about too much "cod" psychological analysis but there is such a wealth of material.

One other thing - I thought RS had his own car - an audi. Where was it that morning. Why did they walk from his apartment to the cottage?

http://www.claudiocaprara.it/mediamanag ... erugia.jpg

Another new one (to me at least) ... Soll's stooped aspect. Is he holding the knife against his stomach? AK showing her obvious tiredness when losing track of the cameras (absolutely no sleep).

http://www.lasestina.unimi.it/lasestina ... lecito.jpg

What is the reason for Soll's hunch? I thought it could be tension - but it could be something else. His right hand could be supporting the knife. He's holding his stomach in. It was a 30cm long kitchen knife. A possibility for consideration. Soll. always carried a knife. He even carried a knife into the questura.

AK : Not a 'hickey' and looks like a bruised lip.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mqKZSZYw_HQ/S ... a+mark.bmp

(recently posted here) - remonstration - she's looking at him challenging 'you did something wrong' (something) - maybe: why didn't you give me the scarf? .... he's got his hand out (explaining something). What could they be arguing about just after hearing about the murder of a close friend - being close witnesses to the discovery of the body - what? You wouldn't be engaging in argument (about what) - you'd be in shock.

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/bin/128.$p ... magine.jpg

Here Knox looks in shock - Soll. looks like he's going to cry.- and it's not grief.

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/w ... lecito.jpg

Soll. and Knox a day later:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/1 ... 68x471.jpg


anne wrote:
About the question why he didn't use his car...why should he? The cottage is just around the corner. Would be a waste of sprit.


I have wondered why he didn't use his car. He was intent on hijacking a car the night before. Guede was intent on hiring a car.


anne wrote:
The dangerous thing about interpreting pictures is, that one can interprete too much into them and find and see in them whatever one expects to find.


They are confirmed killers. The pictures are interesting in retrospect. You will not find such obvious photographs. The press serve a purpose.

anne wrote:
Let someone take many pictures of you in a short time and show them to people who don't know you and let them interprete those pictures. You will be surprised.


The still pictures published were taken in context.


anne wrote:
I have no doubt about their guilt but i think we should take care not to overinterprete pictures.


Why would you try to interpret those pictures as being any different than "family snapshots". Do you think elements of the press conspired with the police and then the police conspired with the judiciary? Who named them guilty? I think the pictures show their guilt.


anne wrote:
Images are snapshots that capture the gestures and facial expressions of a moment, of a second. How meaningful is a second? I am not talking about the big picture, i am only talking about interpreting every single movement, every touch, every gesture.
I would never rely on a picture and the meaning that might be captured in it.


How uncommon were those pictures. You would like to believe that murderers would automatically be found. Who pointed the finger of accusation at those two first? Maybe it was the press. Then maybe that was the police (re: "frank sfarzo - 'spies' at the questura).

anne wrote:
One example is the photograph of them sitting in the car of Filomena and her boyfriend...they are just looking. I cant find anything suspicious in the way they look. I hope you get my point ;)


anne wrote:
I have no doubt about their guilt


What are you trying to say?


Oh dear, what is your problem now? I am treated as if i was a FOA spy just because i add an opinion. If one wants to understand it wrong one will understand it wrong.
Did i EVER mention a conspiracy? Did i EVER say that the press manipulated pictures? Did i EVER give the impression of not believing in their guilt?
They are convicted murderers, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't stay objective.
If one starts, with the knowledge in mind of them being convicted murderers, to pick pictures like the one in the car or them in front of the house holding a hand up or whatever and read every switch of the mouth or every movement of the body as a sign of guilt than that is not objective anymore. We know they are guilty so everything they do is guilty. Where does it start and where does it end?

I am NOT talking about smirking in court through the whole trial.

Earthling understood what i have meant to say. It was no more than that so please stop to have a go at me as if i was something ugly.

Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1032
Quote:
Oh dear, what is your problem now? I am treated as if i was a FOA spy just because i add an opinion. If one wants to understand it wrong one will understand it wrong.
Did i EVER mention a conspiracy? Did i EVER say that the press manipulated pictures? Did i EVER give the impression of not believing in their guilt?
They are convicted murderers, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't stay objective.
If one starts, with the knowledge in mind of them being convicted murderers, to pick pictures like the one in the car or them in front of the house holding a hand up or whatever and read every switch of the mouth or every movement of the body as a sign of guilt than that is not objective anymore. We know they are guilty so everything they do is guilty. Where does it start and where does it end?

I am NOT talking about smirking in court through the whole trial.

Earthling understood what i have meant to say. It was no more than that so please stop to have a go at me as if i was something ugly.


can't be bothered reading it tiresome badly presented - waste of time

yes i think you're FOA I don't want go engage with you - out
I am retiring from posting about this case - waste of time arguing - case proved
they were convicted - I am 100% sure they are guilty

go and get some therapy or analyse statistics


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Berlin Kreuzberg
Highscores: 3
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:
Oh dear, what is your problem now? I am treated as if i was a FOA spy just because i add an opinion. If one wants to understand it wrong one will understand it wrong.
Did i EVER mention a conspiracy? Did i EVER say that the press manipulated pictures? Did i EVER give the impression of not believing in their guilt?
They are convicted murderers, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't stay objective.
If one starts, with the knowledge in mind of them being convicted murderers, to pick pictures like the one in the car or them in front of the house holding a hand up or whatever and read every switch of the mouth or every movement of the body as a sign of guilt than that is not objective anymore. We know they are guilty so everything they do is guilty. Where does it start and where does it end?

I am NOT talking about smirking in court through the whole trial.

Earthling understood what i have meant to say. It was no more than that so please stop to have a go at me as if i was something ugly.


can't be bothered reading it tiresome badly presented - waste of time

yes i think you're FOA I don't want go engage with you - out
I am retiring from posting about this case - waste of time arguing - case proved
they were convicted - I am 100% sure they are guilty

go and get some therapy or analyse statistics


HELLO?? Whats wrong now?! This is ridiculous.
I feel as if i just got hit on the head.
I am disappointed about getting insulted.

Edit:

Wow, i must say that you are very much mistaken.
You are 100 % sure they are guilty? So am I. Believe it or not.
After what you've just said to me i don't really care anymore but i just want to make clear that i find it sad that you jump to a conclusion so fast without even taking the time to read my posts proberly and time to think about what i have written before answering.
You don't need to agree with me but i at least expect you to understand what you are not agreeing with and not to insult me for something i never thought nor said.
You just insulted me very hard and i find it truly disrespectful at the moment.
Sorry if i sounded harsh in my last post but you didn't understand what i was saying anyway.
I don't want to fight but i very much have something against unrighteousness and even more so if its unrighteousness towards me.


Last edited by anne on Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:11 am 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
anne wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Quote:
Oh dear, what is your problem now? I am treated as if i was a FOA spy just because i add an opinion. If one wants to understand it wrong one will understand it wrong.
Did i EVER mention a conspiracy? Did i EVER say that the press manipulated pictures? Did i EVER give the impression of not believing in their guilt?
They are convicted murderers, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't stay objective.
If one starts, with the knowledge in mind of them being convicted murderers, to pick pictures like the one in the car or them in front of the house holding a hand up or whatever and read every switch of the mouth or every movement of the body as a sign of guilt than that is not objective anymore. We know they are guilty so everything they do is guilty. Where does it start and where does it end?

I am NOT talking about smirking in court through the whole trial.

Earthling understood what i have meant to say. It was no more than that so please stop to have a go at me as if i was something ugly.


can't be bothered reading it tiresome badly presented - waste of time

yes i think you're FOA I don't want go engage with you - out
I am retiring from posting about this case - waste of time arguing - case proved
they were convicted - I am 100% sure they are guilty

go and get some therapy or analyse statistics


HELLO?? Whats wrong now?! This is ridiculous.
I feel as if i just got hit on the head.
Wow, i am speechless and disappointed about getting insulted.

Hi Anne,
Generally speaking it's true that scrutinizing pictures can be a time-wasting exercise as different people can read any "switch of the mouth or every movement of the body as a sign of guilt than that is not objective anymore". But it is also true that some of the pictures are quite revealing, for example, what do you make of Knox and Sollecito laughing happily while shopping for lingerie right after Meredith was killed? Do you find this normal, "just Amanda being Amanda"? I don't.
While I tend not to give much significance to some pictures, I think that other shots are quite revealing.

But everybody is entitled to their own opinion and I don't believe that minimizing the value contribution of pictures necessary reveals a pro-FOA attitude ;)

Happy Holidays !

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Quote:
If one starts, with the knowledge in mind of them being convicted murderers, to pick pictures like the one in the car or them in front of the house holding a hand up or whatever and read every switch of the mouth or every movement of the body as a sign of guilt than that is not objective anymore. We know they are guilty so everything they do is guilty. Where does it start and where does it end?


I think I agree with you Anne. Although maybe many of those who make comments like about pictures and suggesting details, are in fact not willing to put up a trial on those. But I think I is useful to emphasize our need to separatie judgement from convinciment/interpretation.
What you said reminds me the quote from Seneca's Medea " ... aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit " - meaning: because you stated a right verdict, it doesn't mean you were right.

Before the rightness of the verdict/answer, what is more important is the process of giving an assessment, of judgement/reasoning, to be right you have to start consider fully the other (opposite) point of view and not start with a chosen hypothesys, not just see a right answer or right connection. What matters more is not right conclusions, but right, solid grounds for conclusion. Flimsy or biased arguments/starting points weaken the objectivity of the whole reasoning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 pm
Posts: 173
Location: Berlin Kreuzberg
Highscores: 3
nicki wrote:
anne wrote:

HELLO?? Whats wrong now?! This is ridiculous.
I feel as if i just got hit on the head.
Wow, i am speechless and disappointed about getting insulted.

Hi Anne,
Generally speaking it's true that scrutinizing pictures can be a time-wasting exercise as different people can read any "switch of the mouth or every movement of the body as a sign of guilt than that is not objective anymore". But it is also true that some of the pictures are quite revealing, for example, what do you make of Knox and Sollecito laughing happily while shopping for lingerie right after Meredith was killed? Do you find this normal, "just Amanda being Amanda"? I don't.
While I tend not to give much significance to some pictures, I think that other shots are quite revealing.

But everybody is entitled to their own opinion and I don't believe that minimizing the value contribution of pictures necessary reveals a pro-FOA attitude ;)

Happy Holidays !


Hey Nicki :)

About your question about shopping for lingerie. It wasn't the fact that they were buying underwear that annoyed me but the fact that they were laughing while doing so and talking about a fun night. I also find and found their behaviour highly suspicious.

Thanks for taking the shock away. Your post helped me to calm down and find my smile again!

Happy hollidays to you as well :)

Im off to bed. its late.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am
Posts: 305
Anne, I did state that in my experience students live on a diet of noodles, Pizza and take away. My experience is based on being a single student, living alone as a single man and working in an area with a large student population. The less money and time you spend on food the more money and time you have for a social life. I was not making a sweeping statement on all 20yr olds, I was pretty handy in the kitchen myself as a teenager. I had two hard working parents that provided for me financially and took my turn preparing the family meal to lighten their load.

The whole Raff cooking thing was based around some FOA based explanation for Merediths DNA being on the knife. I actually don't care if he was a brilliant cook or could not boil an egg without burning the water. I don't really care about the quantity of DNA recovered from the knife it was the reaction of both Raff and Amanda to the possibility that there was DNA on the knife that says the knife has significance.

I partly agree with you on the photo issue as many of the press shots are single pictures selected from a large number taken in the same shoot and selected by a picture editor. I would point out however that there are far to many of Amanda looking less than concerned given the gravity of the situation. If you consider her facial expressions in the candid shots with some of her other reported behavior at the time they do not show her in a favorable light. Like a lot of stuff in this case it is not a single thing but a combination of things that builds the picture.

This is a board were people can express their own opinions and ideas, as such we have to expect that not everyone will agree with our personal point of view. In the end all that is really important is that all of the professionals investigating and prosecuting the case did their job and the right verdict was reached. I believe they did and that the three people responsible for Merediths murder are now facing up to the consequences of their actions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts: 30
That must have been one very bad moment for AK and RS when they realized they had locked the door with AK's desk lamp in the crime scene room.

Was the presence of this lamp ever explicitly brought up at trial? How did the defense try to explain it away?

Quite clearly it was used to clean the crime scene and thoughtlessly swiped clean itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:22 pm
Posts: 140
Location: WA, USA
Highscores: 7
Rebel wrote:
The 411 wrote:
Wait a minute! Time Out. Now I'm confused.

Prior to today, I had somehow remembered Meredith's birthday being in February 1986. Just now, I went to confirm my suspicion.
I discovered
TJMK has a caption of Meredith's 21st birthday party in FEBRUARY 2007.
There are hundreds/thousands of websites that list her birthday in February 1986.

In fact, earlier this month, even Michael quoted Wiki:

Michael wrote:Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher was born in February 1986 in Southwark, London, England, and lived in Coulsdon, South London. She attended the University of Leeds. She had been part of the ERASMUS student exchange programme, and had gone to Italy to complete her degree course.

WIKIPEDIA


SKEP wrote:
She would have been 24 in February 2010.

Which date is right? Why such a discrepancy about her birth date?
Why is there...once again, such misinformation covering every aspect of this case???

To confuse things further, I think Rudy's birthday is December 26th...


Wikipedia currently states:

Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, known to her friends as "Mez", was born on 28 December 1985 in Southwark, London, England, and lived in Coulsdon, South London.


This Mirror interview with Mez' family from June of this year states that Meredith's birthday is Dec 28th.

Quote:
Meanwhile, they will cherish her for ever in their hearts – and plan a quiet celebration of her life every year on her birthday, December 28,

Lyle says: “We will definitely raise a glass to Mez every year.”

Arline adds with a sad sigh: “We will carry Meredith around with us all the time. She’s still so much a part of our lives. We will never forget her. Never.”



beer-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
Jools wrote:
From The Mirror:

Meredith killer Foxy gets long hair slashed


By Deborah Sherwood 27/12/2009

EXCLUSIVE:

Jailed killer Amanda "Foxy" Knox has had her hair cut short because it was falling out due to stress. She was so shocked by her hair loss she asked a prison hairdresser to give her a short bob.

Her mother Edda Mellas said: "She had lovely long hair. Now it is all cut off."

Knox, 22, is in jail in Perugia, Italy, where she is serving 26 years for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, 21.

The Mirror

What is Edda talking about! From all the pictures we've seen, Amanda usually wears her hair short. Nothing has changed. I also completely missed the photos of the "lovely long hair". Below the shoulder doesn't qualify in my books.

... I actually had to look

http://www.france24.com/en/files/imagec ... 62-2-0.jpg


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:25 pm
Posts: 198
Hi folks, back from the Christmas festivities and trying to catch up here. I was following Stevo's very interesting posts, but seem to have lost him at the stage where his account of the 14 hours interrogation was questioned. Did he ever answer the questions put forward regarding this timing? Just curious.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2265
bilko wrote:
Hi folks, back from the Christmas festivities and trying to catch up here. I was following Stevo's very interesting posts, but seem to have lost him at the stage where his account of the 14 hours interrogation was questioned. Did he ever answer the questions put forward regarding this timing? Just curious.


Hi Bilko,

Stevo has so far declined to answer any of the questions regarding his erroneous claim of a 14 hour interrogation. I'd like him to cite his source(s) and to inform us what time the interrogation started and finished.

The claim that Amanda Knox was questioned for 14 hours must have come from Amanda Knox and she doesn't have the best track record when it comes to telling the truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 362
Jester wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

I think there is even more: Doesn't our body, if confronted with a potentially lethal situation, produce adrenaline? or some hormons that make us fearless, stronger and to a certain extent painless?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1347
Jester wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

If Meredith was on her stomach and trying to get up, there wouldn't be much she could do unfortunately. She wouldn't have both hands available or else she would fall back down. Besides the stabbing took only seconds I am sure. I don't want to get too much into details but there are multiple ways how the last part of the attack could have happened. I am not saying the prosecution scenario is not true but I think there are other ways that could have been possible. Perhaps only 2 or even only 1 person doing that final attack.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
martin wrote:
Jester wrote:

I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

I think there is even more: Doesn't our body, if confronted with a potentially lethal situation, produce adrenaline? or some hormons that make us fearless, stronger and to a certain extent painless?


Fight or flight ... the innate response to fear - basic animalistic response. It triggers adrenaline, which suppresses pain perception. My experience of serious, unexpected pain is that shortly before it happens, there's a sensation of slow motion and an intellectual awareness of injury, but pain is not felt until much later. I think there's also a decision (reaction) that a nonlethal injury, like a cut to the hand, is preferable to a mortal cut. For example, if we are falling, some part of us is going to hit the ground. We make a decision to put out a hand, knowing that we could break the hand or arm, because it's preferable to a face plant. We are prepared to accept the lesser injury in the hopes that it will eliminate the more serious injury ... instinct.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

If Meredith was on her stomach and trying to get up, there wouldn't be much she could do unfortunately. She wouldn't have both hands available or else she would fall back down. Besides the stabbing took only seconds I am sure. I don't want to get too much into details but there are multiple ways how the last part of the attack could have happened. I am not saying the prosecution scenario is not true but I think there are other ways that could have been possible. Perhaps only 2 or even only 1 person doing that final attack.

It's hard to say. I guess I've been thinking about more frenzied attacks, and they always involve cuts to the victims hands. A threat of a knife, where the victim may believe that it is only used to subdue, could result in a victim not fighting back. However, given the number of injuries described, I highly doubt any healthy young woman would simply give in and let it happen. That makes no sense. After the first cut of the knife, any normal person would begin to either struggle for the knife, or flee, if they could.

Personally, I have never considered this to be a single assailant murder as there does not seem to be any theory, based on evidence, to support it.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1347
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

If Meredith was on her stomach and trying to get up, there wouldn't be much she could do unfortunately. She wouldn't have both hands available or else she would fall back down. Besides the stabbing took only seconds I am sure. I don't want to get too much into details but there are multiple ways how the last part of the attack could have happened. I am not saying the prosecution scenario is not true but I think there are other ways that could have been possible. Perhaps only 2 or even only 1 person doing that final attack.

It's hard to say. I guess I've been thinking about more frenzied attacks, and they always involve cuts to the victims hands. A threat of a knife, where the victim may believe that it is only used to subdue, could result in a victim not fighting back. However, given the number of injuries described, I highly doubt any healthy young woman would simply give in and let it happen. That makes no sense. After the first cut of the knife, any normal person would begin to either struggle for the knife, or flee, if they could.

Personally, I have never considered this to be a single assailant murder as there does not seem to be any theory, based on evidence, to support it.

There are certainly 3 attackers. I was only speaking of the last fatal part of the attack. One person claims to be in the toilet, and another one claimed to be in the kitchen. I am just saying multiple scenarios are possible for the final attack.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
Jester wrote:
... After the first cut of the knife, any normal person would begin to either struggle for the knife, or flee, if they could.

Personally, I have never considered this to be a single assailant murder as there does not seem to be any theory, based on evidence, to support it.


Hi Jester,

A scream being heard indicates mortal danger, i.e., refusing to submit.

Given a broken hyoid bone, and stabs to the throat, this already indicates
a minimum of two well-orchestrated people (one working on the throat -- albeit two hands might not be enough --, the other holding the arms etc), and more likely (in practice) to be three people.

Given at least two knives, then definitely at least three people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: CATALOGUE OF BOOK MENTIONS 1
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
Sufficient time has gone by that mentions of (aspects) of the case are starting to seep into the third layer of knowledge (i.e., published hard-copy books).

Here are four of them, thanks to Amazon’s search function:
  • an American psychology book (which has horrified parents, according to one comment);
  • a travel book recording how Perugia has also been wounded;
  • a policing handbook citing how the press linked MySpace stuff to criminal allegations (by publishing them side by side);
  • and “Unca Donald’s” remark about the fashion for writing prison memoirs.

Offered under the light of “character through relationship”, and Anne’s astute observations about interpreting single photos applies (to text, in this case).

I actually remember when the biggest news items from Perugia really were about truffles, and the awards for “Best Truffle Hound”!
Ah, days of innocence.



CATALOGUE OF BOOK MENTIONS 1

(1) Psychology

THE NARCISSISM EPIDEMIC: LIVING IN THE AGE OF ENTITLEMENT (HARDCOVER)
~ Jean M. Twenge Ph.D., W. Keith Campbell Ph.D.
[ Amazon ]

page 142:
… Vanity seems harmless and often is, but vanity often occurs with self-centeredness, which causes so many of the negative behaviors associated with narcissism. College student Amanda Knox, accused of murdering her roommate, wrote in her jailhouse diary, “When I have an hour of outside time I sit with my face in the sun so I can get a tan. I have received letters from fellow inmates and admirers telling me that I am hot and they want to have sex with me.”





(2) Travel

UMBRIA AND MARCHE (FOOTPRINT ITALIA) (PAPERBACK)
by Julius Honnor
[ Amazon UK ]

page 41:

Found under her duvet with her throat cut in November 2007, Meredith Kercher was a 21-year-old British student studying at the Università per Stranieri in Perugia. The international media circus that has accompanied the murder case has shaken a region unaccustomed to being in the news at all, except when local television reports the latest truffle finds. Famous for its murders in medieval times, Perugia had seemed such a peaceful place in the 20th century. Whether the Kercher case will have any long-lasting effect on the city remains to be seen. For the time being it has brought an unwanted notoriety and a loss of innocence.





(3) Identity and Personality in Public on the Web

HANDBOOK OF POLICING (PAPERBACK)
~ Tim Newburn
[ Amazon ]

page 587:
From the chapter “Policing cybercrime: emerging trends and future challenges”
From the section “Invasion of privacy and theft of identity”

However, the dangers of assuming that one’s “private” identities [in Facebook and MySpace] are protected in cyberspace were most graphically illustrated in the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, accused of the sexual assault and murder of Leeds University student, Meredith Kercher, in Perugia, Italy in November 2007. Before the couple were even arrested and formally charged, [page 588] the press reproduced text and images from the MySpace pages (including pictures of them individually posing with weapons) and linked this content to the police allegations against them.





(4) cynical journalistic commentary on the zeitgeist

I PENSIERI DI ORACOLO - RACCOLTA 2007/2008 (ITALIAN EDITION) (PAPERBACK)
~ SERGIO MACCARI
“Thoughts from the Oracle”
[ Amazon ]
– a journalistic approach, halfway between Socrates and Donald Duck (Zio Paperino), expressing his opinions of the events of 2007-2008

page 50 (translation):

No 80
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox are investigated for the murder of an English student in Perugia. In prison, they’re writing their memoirs. We ask ourselves, will they end up on TV?

Rubbish TV presents: “Project ERASMUS: everything about University and students’ free time”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
bilko wrote:
Hi folks, back from the Christmas festivities and trying to catch up here. I was following Stevo's very interesting posts, but seem to have lost him at the stage where his account of the 14 hours interrogation was questioned. Did he ever answer the questions put forward regarding this timing? Just curious.



Hiya Bilko,

Stevo did a runner, I reckon.

He skedaddled as soon as he heard Yummi mention the "W" word (=work).

Must be a student, don't you think?

Either that, or it was time for his afternoon nap.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
From reading some psychology, I seem to recall that females were more inclined to flee, males more inclined to fight. Perhaps, in order for everyone to better understand the situation, we need to hypothesize a gender neutral scenario.

Suppose that a 20 year old guy was attacked in his bedroom by someone with a knife. The first reaction would be to grab the wrist of the person holding the knife and use strength to push it away. Nails would be dug into the skin, anything to weaken the arm holding the knife. If the knife was flicked at a guys neck, he would react. If a guy had his head shoved into the wall, he would do everything to retaliate. Now for the gender neutral part. A female student in a foreign country would do exactly the same thing. If a guy has 43 injuries, including cuts and bruises, but not a single cell indicating any defensive action, would there be any question that they guy had been restrained by more than one person?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

If Meredith was on her stomach and trying to get up, there wouldn't be much she could do unfortunately. She wouldn't have both hands available or else she would fall back down. Besides the stabbing took only seconds I am sure. I don't want to get too much into details but there are multiple ways how the last part of the attack could have happened. I am not saying the prosecution scenario is not true but I think there are other ways that could have been possible. Perhaps only 2 or even only 1 person doing that final attack.

It's hard to say. I guess I've been thinking about more frenzied attacks, and they always involve cuts to the victims hands. A threat of a knife, where the victim may believe that it is only used to subdue, could result in a victim not fighting back. However, given the number of injuries described, I highly doubt any healthy young woman would simply give in and let it happen. That makes no sense. After the first cut of the knife, any normal person would begin to either struggle for the knife, or flee, if they could.

Personally, I have never considered this to be a single assailant murder as there does not seem to be any theory, based on evidence, to support it.

There are certainly 3 attackers. I was only speaking of the last fatal part of the attack. One person claims to be in the toilet, and another one claimed to be in the kitchen. I am just saying multiple scenarios are possible for the final attack.


I don't believe that one was in the kitchen. She knew too much about the crime scene to have stood in the kitchen. The other was in the bathroom most likely before the murder, as there was no blood in that bathroom. He was also at the crime scene, although we are to believe that he was so traumatized that he needed to go dancing rather than call for help. That puts all three of them in the bedroom at the time of the murder.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
I've tried to make several posts, but it logs out when I click 'submit'.

This is a test.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Thank you, Catnip for those published nuggets. Interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 158
Jester wrote:
From reading some psychology, I seem to recall that females were more inclined to flee, males more inclined to fight. Perhaps, in order for everyone to better understand the situation, we need to hypothesize a gender neutral scenario.

Suppose that a 20 year old guy was attacked in his bedroom by someone with a knife. The first reaction would be to grab the wrist of the person holding the knife and use strength to push it away. Nails would be dug into the skin, anything to weaken the arm holding the knife. If the knife was flicked at a guys neck, he would react. If a guy had his head shoved into the wall, he would do everything to retaliate. Now for the gender neutral part. A female student in a foreign country would do exactly the same thing. If a guy has 43 injuries, including cuts and bruises, but not a single cell indicating any defensive action, would there be any question that they guy had been restrained by more than one person?

No. And the position they put her in, would have made it impossible to use her legs, twist turn, etc. There's no doubt that she was being restrained by more than one attacker.
Anne: I understood your comments about the photos. Taken one by one, they can seem innocent enough and easily misinterpreted. If we look at all the photographs together, it appears we can more than just speculate about character.
I, too, had feelings like this but, seeing the pictures side by side really produces a frightening realization of how cold and calculating this crime was.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1347
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

If Meredith was on her stomach and trying to get up, there wouldn't be much she could do unfortunately. She wouldn't have both hands available or else she would fall back down. Besides the stabbing took only seconds I am sure. I don't want to get too much into details but there are multiple ways how the last part of the attack could have happened. I am not saying the prosecution scenario is not true but I think there are other ways that could have been possible. Perhaps only 2 or even only 1 person doing that final attack.

It's hard to say. I guess I've been thinking about more frenzied attacks, and they always involve cuts to the victims hands. A threat of a knife, where the victim may believe that it is only used to subdue, could result in a victim not fighting back. However, given the number of injuries described, I highly doubt any healthy young woman would simply give in and let it happen. That makes no sense. After the first cut of the knife, any normal person would begin to either struggle for the knife, or flee, if they could.

Personally, I have never considered this to be a single assailant murder as there does not seem to be any theory, based on evidence, to support it.

There are certainly 3 attackers. I was only speaking of the last fatal part of the attack. One person claims to be in the toilet, and another one claimed to be in the kitchen. I am just saying multiple scenarios are possible for the final attack.


I don't believe that one was in the kitchen. She knew too much about the crime scene to have stood in the kitchen. The other was in the bathroom most likely before the murder, as there was no blood in that bathroom. He was also at the crime scene, although we are to believe that he was so traumatized that he needed to go dancing rather than call for help. That puts all three of them in the bedroom at the time of the murder.

Of course she would have ran back to the bedroom as soon as she heard the scream or the struggle. Just like Rudy said he ran to the bedroom when he heard the scream. They know exactly what happened there. I don't see why it can't be one person who was responsible for the final attack when Meredith was attacked from behind. Only one scream was heard and it seems to have gone very fast. Besides one knife was put aside for a reason. I don't believe they stood around to take a break after the killing. I think they ran away immediately. So the knife was put aside to restrain Meredith or to grab the other knife. Possible one person involved, maybe 2 or 3 but I am very doubtful about 3 at the final stage. This is just my opinion of course.


Last edited by max on Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
There are certainly 3 attackers. I was only speaking of the last fatal part of the attack. One person claims to be in the toilet, and another one claimed to be in the kitchen. I am just saying multiple scenarios are possible for the final attack.


I don't believe that one was in the kitchen. She knew too much about the crime scene to have stood in the kitchen. The other was in the bathroom most likely before the murder, as there was no blood in that bathroom. He was also at the crime scene, although we are to believe that he was so traumatized that he needed to go dancing rather than call for help. That puts all three of them in the bedroom at the time of the murder.



Plus, the third one claimed to be on the computer at home at the time, watching Amelie.

I've never understood why -- the claims must serve a purpose, yet they don't make sense on their own, or in context. As if the participants didn't care what they were making up (or perhaps, thought they remembered) -- it sounds a bit like a "Hey, Dude" state of being (I've made a pun on the Beatles :) - time for my nap: full Moon and midnight, and all of that.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Okay, so far.

I don't really remember what profound things I tried to post earlier.

Her's some new revelations which will not change life as we know it......

There should be pressure marks on Meredith where she was held or tied.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Catnip wrote:
Plus, the third one claimed to be on the computer at home at the time, watching Amelie.

I've never understood why -- the claims must serve a purpose, yet they don't make sense on their own, or in context. As if the participants didn't care what they were making up (or perhaps, thought they remembered) -- it sounds a bit like a "Hey, Dude" state of being (I've made a pun on the Beatles :) - time for my nap: full Moon and midnight, and all of that.)


FOA has tried to liken Amanda to the frisky, childlike Amelie, who has a short 'bob' haircut. Maybe Amanda is trying to emulate Amelie's appearance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
Catnip wrote:
Jester wrote:
... After the first cut of the knife, any normal person would begin to either struggle for the knife, or flee, if they could.

Personally, I have never considered this to be a single assailant murder as there does not seem to be any theory, based on evidence, to support it.


Hi Jester,

A scream being heard indicates mortal danger, i.e., refusing to submit.

Given a broken hyoid bone, and stabs to the throat, this already indicates
a minimum of two well-orchestrated people (one working on the throat -- albeit two hands might not be enough --, the other holding the arms etc), and more likely (in practice) to be three people.

Given at least two knives, then definitely at least three people.


Did the prosecutor address which person broke her windpipe, or was that attributed to Rudy during the trial?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
Amanda most likely cut her hair because she feels like she has no identity, and wants to look like she did when she first arrived in Italy so she can attempt to recapture a memory of her former life. Edda should stop being so dramatic about Amanda's decisions.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am
Posts: 305
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the prosecution senario start with Amanda getting the drop on Meredith and banging Meredith's head against the wall a couple of times. Also martial arts is fine but how many of us would imagine being attacked in our own home by a group of people we knew and did not consider a threat. Out on the street you switch on and are aware of danger but Meredith was at home in her comfort zone. There were four people in the villa, three of them knew what was about to happen, Meredith didn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
tigger3498 wrote:
Just wanted to say to Skep and Michael: I am glad you never chill when the "dude" trolls appear. There is nothing I dislike more than an intelligent conversation flushed right down the crapper when someone interjects the word "dude"!.
I, too, loved Catnip's description about Lancelotti's meaningless, one line, "not" thought provoking posts...........Sorry, Lancelotti, if a person senses they are going to die, they have nothing to lose by fighting. Once that knife is used, the victim will fight with everything they have. It would be ridiculous to look at the situation any other way.....


I completely agree with this. In my limited knowledge of knife attacks, I do know that victims usually have numerous cuts on their hands, some from grabbing the blade of the knife. No one stands still while they are cut with a knife unless they are unable to do anything.

If Meredith was on her stomach and trying to get up, there wouldn't be much she could do unfortunately. She wouldn't have both hands available or else she would fall back down. Besides the stabbing took only seconds I am sure. I don't want to get too much into details but there are multiple ways how the last part of the attack could have happened. I am not saying the prosecution scenario is not true but I think there are other ways that could have been possible. Perhaps only 2 or even only 1 person doing that final attack.

It's hard to say. I guess I've been thinking about more frenzied attacks, and they always involve cuts to the victims hands. A threat of a knife, where the victim may believe that it is only used to subdue, could result in a victim not fighting back. However, given the number of injuries described, I highly doubt any healthy young woman would simply give in and let it happen. That makes no sense. After the first cut of the knife, any normal person would begin to either struggle for the knife, or flee, if they could.

Personally, I have never considered this to be a single assailant murder as there does not seem to be any theory, based on evidence, to support it.

There are certainly 3 attackers. I was only speaking of the last fatal part of the attack. One person claims to be in the toilet, and another one claimed to be in the kitchen. I am just saying multiple scenarios are possible for the final attack.


I don't believe that one was in the kitchen. She knew too much about the crime scene to have stood in the kitchen. The other was in the bathroom most likely before the murder, as there was no blood in that bathroom. He was also at the crime scene, although we are to believe that he was so traumatized that he needed to go dancing rather than call for help. That puts all three of them in the bedroom at the time of the murder.

Of course she would have ran back to the bedroom as soon as she heard the scream or the struggle. Just like Rudy said he ran to the bedroom when he heard the scream. They know exactly what happened there. I don't see why it can't be one person who was responsible for the final attack when Meredith was attacked from behind. Only one scream was heard and it seems to have gone very fast. Besides one knife was put aside for a reason. I don't believe they stood around to take a break after the killing. I think they ran away immediately. So the knife was put aside to restrain Meredith or to grab the other knife. Possible one person involved, maybe 2 or 3 but I am very doubtful about 3 at the final stage. This is just my opinion of course.


Her windpipe was crushed. I suspect that happened before the fatal stab wound. Therefore, the scream was not a result of being stabbed. I think the scream came before the crushed windpipe, and perhaps early in the attack ... perhaps at the beginning.

Does it really matter if one person ran away after the attack and murder? Which of the three do you think left?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
Catnip wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
There are certainly 3 attackers. I was only speaking of the last fatal part of the attack. One person claims to be in the toilet, and another one claimed to be in the kitchen. I am just saying multiple scenarios are possible for the final attack.


I don't believe that one was in the kitchen. She knew too much about the crime scene to have stood in the kitchen. The other was in the bathroom most likely before the murder, as there was no blood in that bathroom. He was also at the crime scene, although we are to believe that he was so traumatized that he needed to go dancing rather than call for help. That puts all three of them in the bedroom at the time of the murder.



Plus, the third one claimed to be on the computer at home at the time, watching Amelie.

I've never understood why -- the claims must serve a purpose, yet they don't make sense on their own, or in context. As if the participants didn't care what they were making up (or perhaps, thought they remembered) -- it sounds a bit like a "Hey, Dude" state of being (I've made a pun on the Beatles :) - time for my nap: full Moon and midnight, and all of that.)


It might be a propensity to avoid telling the truth for fear of getting in trouble ... and years of practice at giving an answer that avoids the truth leaves it sounding like "full moon and dudes".


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
Emerald wrote:
Okay, so far.

I don't really remember what profound things I tried to post earlier.

Her's some new revelations which will not change life as we know it......

There should be pressure marks on Meredith where she was held or tied.

43 injuries, including multiple bruising.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
Emerald wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Plus, the third one claimed to be on the computer at home at the time, watching Amelie.

I've never understood why -- the claims must serve a purpose, yet they don't make sense on their own, or in context. As if the participants didn't care what they were making up (or perhaps, thought they remembered) -- it sounds a bit like a "Hey, Dude" state of being (I've made a pun on the Beatles :) - time for my nap: full Moon and midnight, and all of that.)


FOA has tried to liken Amanda to the frisky, childlike Amelie, who has a short 'bob' haircut. Maybe Amanda is trying to emulate Amelie's appearance?


Do I hear "breakdown" in Amanda's future?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
Brogan wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the prosecution senario start with Amanda getting the drop on Meredith and banging Meredith's head against the wall a couple of times. Also martial arts is fine but how many of us would imagine being attacked in our own home by a group of people we knew and did not consider a threat. Out on the street you switch on and are aware of danger but Meredith was at home in her comfort zone. There were four people in the villa, three of them knew what was about to happen, Meredith didn't.


With 43 injuries, I suspect that even someone in their own home would have a fight or flight response long before ...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 2364
What I find strange is that Amanda arrived at the cottage, front door wide open, yet she didn't check any of the rooms in the house before stripping down and jumping in the shower. She knew that everyone was away except Meredith. If Meredith wasn't home (presumably Amanda called out to whomever she thought was taking out the trash), who did she think left the front door wide open?

Most people, if they find the front door wide open, or something unusual about their own home, check all the rooms to make sure everything is okay. I do that when I accidentally leave the patio door unlocked. She says Filomina's bedroom door was open, Raffaele says it was closed. Since the room wasn't locked, why wouldn't she have opened the door to better understand why the front door was wide open?

I think that's one of the first points that got everyone's attention. For anyone to arrive home and find their front door wide open, and then completely ignore it, is pretty much inconceivable.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
I do just want to mention that "fight or flight" is over-simplistic. There is at least one other response to extreme danger and that is to freeze. It is very common and it is well documented. It is also at least in part a response to a large dump of adrenaline, particularly where the person is not used to that: and it is a also a survival mechanism along the lines of "playing dead" that you see in some animals. It is particularly common where the victim sees no route of escape and no possibility of winning a fight.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am
Posts: 1347
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Of course she would have ran back to the bedroom as soon as she heard the scream or the struggle. Just like Rudy said he ran to the bedroom when he heard the scream. They know exactly what happened there. I don't see why it can't be one person who was responsible for the final attack when Meredith was attacked from behind. Only one scream was heard and it seems to have gone very fast. Besides one knife was put aside for a reason. I don't believe they stood around to take a break after the killing. I think they ran away immediately. So the knife was put aside to restrain Meredith or to grab the other knife. Possible one person involved, maybe 2 or 3 but I am very doubtful about 3 at the final stage. This is just my opinion of course.


Her windpipe was crushed. I suspect that happened before the fatal stab wound. Therefore, the scream was not a result of being stabbed. I think the scream came before the crushed windpipe, and perhaps early in the attack ... perhaps at the beginning.

Does it really matter if one person ran away after the attack and murder? Which of the three do you think left?

The prosecution scenario stated that the scream occured during the first stab. I think they all ran away. Maybe Rudy a bit later than the others, but that is not really my point to defend a certain scenario. I know all 3 are involved and responsible for what happened, but for the final fatal attack I am just not sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
There's no interest on the net except for the eclectic sites such as this. Right after the verdict, lots of 'hit and run'.

I think the majority of people are trusting the Italian justice system. It was open to the public. Not trying to hold a clandestine trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 158
Jester wrote:
What I find strange is that Amanda arrived at the cottage, front door wide open, yet she didn't check any of the rooms in the house before stripping down and jumping in the shower. She knew that everyone was away except Meredith. If Meredith wasn't home (presumably Amanda called out to whomever she thought was taking out the trash), who did she think left the front door wide open?

Most people, if they find the front door wide open, or something unusual about their own home, check all the rooms to make sure everything is okay. I do that when I accidentally leave the patio door unlocked. She says Filomina's bedroom door was open, Raffaele says it was closed. Since the room wasn't locked, why wouldn't she have opened the door to better understand why the front door was wide open?

I think that's one of the first points that got everyone's attention. For anyone to arrive home and find their front door wide open, and then completely ignore it, is pretty much inconceivable.

Yes, this is like a "duh" moment isn't it? Pretty much what made me doubt their innocence. Doubtful that many young women would even enter the home if the door was open as they would be afraid that someone was still in the house. In fact, someone left our front door open the other night and the first thing we did was to enter and check all the closets, etc.......Even with my husband and adult son in the house, my heart was still beating very fast and I was concerned someone may have come into the house. Amanda's story doesn't wash, period. If she was so concerned, she would have gone back to Raf's apt straight away and brought him back with her. But, she had nothing to fear if she was the perpetrator.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Not only stripping for shower, but having to walk naked down the hall afterward.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Jester wrote:
What I find strange is that Amanda arrived at the cottage, front door wide open, yet she didn't check any of the rooms in the house before stripping down and jumping in the shower. She knew that everyone was away except Meredith. If Meredith wasn't home (presumably Amanda called out to whomever she thought was taking out the trash), who did she think left the front door wide open?

Most people, if they find the front door wide open, or something unusual about their own home, check all the rooms to make sure everything is okay. I do that when I accidentally leave the patio door unlocked. She says Filomina's bedroom door was open, Raffaele says it was closed. Since the room wasn't locked, why wouldn't she have opened the door to better understand why the front door was wide open?

I think that's one of the first points that got everyone's attention. For anyone to arrive home and find their front door wide open, and then completely ignore it, is pretty much inconceivable.



Maybe you all have seen this youtube channel put together by one of the Amanda Knox supporters?

There is a six minute crime scene video just of the bathroom; how Amanda saw it when she came home to take a shower. How could she miss that bloody footprint? If I'm not mistaken, the outside part of the sink has a pinkish hue.

I certainly wouldn't take a shower in there had I just come home to an open front door, but the FOAK's want everyone to believe otherwise. Check it out.

Also, on this same youtuber's channel we have some actual crime scene video of the inside of Sollecito's apartment - it's a mess, and unfortunately no shots of his kitchen to further assess his culinary talents! sun-)

YOUTUBE

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Emerald wrote:
Not only stripping for shower, but having to walk naked down the hall afterward.


Yeah, but like, she was still like stoned from the night before, and couldn't remember what happened. So blood in the bathroom...walk around naked....WHATEVER. It was good shit maaaan...so good she forgot EVERYTHING. So it was, like, normal for her to walk around in a blood soaked house. Dude. And you know what? Shit happens.


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

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
LOL, Bard! All day every day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 625
This nonsense about her hair falling out is just a cover. What Edda isn't telling the world is that they are going to be auctioning off locks of Helen, I mean, Amanda's hair to her admirers at the next fundraiser.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: HAIR-RAISING MONEY MAKING SCHEME
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
Corrina wrote:
This nonsense about her hair falling out is just a cover. What Edda isn't telling the world is that they are going to be auctioning off locks of Helen, I mean, Amanda's hair to her admirers at the next fundraiser.


Corrina:
The very same thought crossed my mind.
(i.e., "locks for loot")
I must confess--I even checked
Ebay. To my astonishment, I found
it listed there
sold under the
heading:
"AMANDA'S PERFECT HAIR"
Here's the description, I swear, verbatim...
"Description: Although everyone else keeps telling Amanda how wonderful her long thick hair is, she decides that she doesn't like it." eee-)

THE TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION, folks!! ss-)

http://catalog.ebay.com/Amandas-Perfect-Hair-
Linda-Milstein-1993-Reinforced-Hardcover-/1189839?_
fifpts=1&_pcatid=4&_refkw=Amanda+hair&_trksid=
p3286.c0.m504


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 625
I nearly fell off my chair, 411. Nothing would surprise me out of the people that surround the convicted murderer of Meredith Kercher. Perhaps Donald Trump can do away with the combover and have a decent rug made out of all that long, lovely hair.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:18 pm
Posts: 267
Jester wrote:
Amanda most likely cut her hair because she feels like she has no identity, and wants to look like she did when she first arrived in Italy so she can attempt to recapture a memory of her former life. Edda should stop being so dramatic about Amanda's decisions.


Exactly. Amanda went to a PROFESSIONAL HAIRDRESSER for a 'new look' for crying out loud. It's not like she lopped it off herself with a prison spork or shaved it Britney-style.

She got a new hairdo that her mom doesn't seem to like. Boo hoo. Which of us ladies hasn't regretted a spontaneous decision in the stylist's chair? At least Amanda got hers FREE (at the Italian people's expense!) and didn't shell out $50 for her Amelie bob!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Dec 9 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 158
The Bard wrote:
Emerald wrote:
Not only stripping for shower, but having to walk naked down the hall afterward.


Yeah, but like, she was still like stoned from the night before, and couldn't remember what happened. So blood in the bathroom...walk around naked....WHATEVER. It was good shit maaaan...so good she forgot EVERYTHING. So it was, like, normal for her to walk around in a blood soaked house. Dude. And you know what? Shit happens.

So funny! :lol:


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 [ 3464 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 4 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 


24,628,070 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group