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

Last visit was: Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:51 pm It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:51 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 6437 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Just so you know, Bruce informs me that the reason I left some flowers at the cottage was because I was needy and wanted you all to suck up to me to impress my own ego.

Bruce is too stupid to recall I signed it from all at PMF / TJMK and marked the occasion so we could all be part of that simple and easy action.

What an inadequate and pathetic man.

_________________
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: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:16 pm
Posts: 9
Fiona wrote:

If people have it to hand, well and good. But the onus is on you. You can search for that type of thing without joining this board and I wonder why you did? Not that I object to your joining, of course: but so far you have stated your position and have asked for facts which are surely relevant to coming to your conclusion after the conclusion has been reached. Do you see anything wrong with that, at all?


The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.

Quote:
There are many who reach conclusions on the basis of incomplete knowledge: indeed most of us who came late to this case are in that position. But speaking for myself, I would certainly not make as strong a statement as you did in saying you are an "unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito". Because that is really not the point. Perhaps you expressed yourself badly and what you meant to say was that, based on what you have read so far, you are inclined to believe them innocent of this horrible murder. Perhaps it is possible that further reading will lead you to modify your position.


It is possible, but very unlikely, given my current beliefs. What it would require is that I would have to come across something very surprising. And given that my current "incomplete" knowledge already includes the contents of the Micheli and Massei reports, Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, (now) Mignini and Comodi's appeal document, IIP, TJMK (as of a year ago),FOA, and most media reports on the case from the three countries involved (not to mention numerous discussions here and elsewhere), the chances of my discovering some shocking new fact in e.g. the documents relating to Guede's Cassazione appeal are fairly slim.

That said, if I do find something surprising, I'm willing to notice.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: SomeAlibi / Mr Kercher asks for the truth
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am
Posts: 177
norbertc wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce Fisher has PM'd me on JREF to say that he has no respect for me. I am heartbroken. Welling up.


Hello,

I posted that the case is now firmly in the hands of the appeals court; so we might as well change the subject to tennis. That was mostly a joke inspired by my helplessness. I know that posting on the Internet about the appeal is not going to affect its outcome.

It's pure speculation, but Mr. Fisher's nasty little PM suggests to me that he considers you a danger. If I remember correctly, you have been on site in Perugia and communicated with Rude Guede by mail. Like certain Air Force pilots say, "When there's a lot of flak, it means you're over the target." So, Fisher wants to shut you down.

You never know, but it's possible that your personal appeal could be the one little thing that motivates Guede to forget about a useless Strassbourg appeal and focus on rehabilitation. Telling the full truth would be a huge first step towards rebuilding his life - and being released from jail early. So, I'm just suggesting that you follow your heart and (perhaps) continue to attempt to persuade Rudy to tell the full truth: for the sake of his own future, for the Kerchers, and for justice.

The FOA is expressing huge relief and excitement about yesterday's appeal court decisions. They feel energized. And that's fine. They were also very excited on the very day that Knox's sentence was pronounced last December. Let's stay focused on the hunt for the complete truth.

N.


Yes, SomeAlibi seems to be giving headaches to FOAKers. His hard work produces results which are anything but 'plastic'.

"Telling the full truth" (see bolded above) would help Guede to begin to rebuild his life, give him a chance to make a choice for truth and to live from now forward in integrity.

It would also be a push towards rehabilitation for the two convicted accomplices currently in appeal.

Most importantly, in the recent Mirror article, John Kercher has asked for the truth. If Guede's previous words of regret for Meredith's fate, and in support
of the person that she was, held any sincerity (or even if they didn't), begin again Rudy. Take that step to care for yourself, to care for others, to care for Meredith and her family, and tell the truth.

Mr Kercher's words:

"...

Ultimately, however, we would like to know the truth. Meredith was such a loved person by everyone – she was someone who cared about others.
The major question of why did this happen to her is constantly on our minds.

..."

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/12/18/we-will-never-forget-our-murdered-daughter-meredith-kercher-by-her-dad-john-115875-22790628/#ixzz18bBIK6lg




RIP Meredith Remembered Always



jw


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

If people have it to hand, well and good. But the onus is on you. You can search for that type of thing without joining this board and I wonder why you did? Not that I object to your joining, of course: but so far you have stated your position and have asked for facts which are surely relevant to coming to your conclusion after the conclusion has been reached. Do you see anything wrong with that, at all?


The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.

Quote:
There are many who reach conclusions on the basis of incomplete knowledge: indeed most of us who came late to this case are in that position. But speaking for myself, I would certainly not make as strong a statement as you did in saying you are an "unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito". Because that is really not the point. Perhaps you expressed yourself badly and what you meant to say was that, based on what you have read so far, you are inclined to believe them innocent of this horrible murder. Perhaps it is possible that further reading will lead you to modify your position.


It is possible, but very unlikely, given my current beliefs. What it would require is that I would have to come across something very surprising. And given that my current "incomplete" knowledge already includes the contents of the Micheli and Massei reports, Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, (now) Mignini and Comodi's appeal document, IIP, TJMK (as of a year ago),FOA, and most media reports on the case from the three countries involved (not to mention numerous discussions here and elsewhere), the chances of my discovering some shocking new fact in e.g. the documents relating to Guede's Cassazione appeal are fairly slim.

That said, if I do find something surprising, I'm willing to notice.



Have you read both their diaries and the contemporaneous media reports where particularly Raffaele was interviewed? The inconsistencies, numerous ones, in those documents are a major clue to me as to their guilt. They are internally badly inconsistent. Why did Amanda and Raffaele speak of their "panic" about the closed door but then when the police turned up, Amanda said it was normal for Meredith to lock her door? Why do they both swear blind they will never touch dope again when Amanda says in testimony she had one joint that night? Why did they both give details of having seen the body and its positioning when neither of them were within line of sight when the door was open? Why does Amanda ask her email contacts to bear with her and that she will explain things really slowly in minute detail in a strange echo of her language to the police some days later to be patient with her? Why does Amanda's email of 2,900 words contain no words of shock or regret about Meredith's death, but go on to about 10 pages into the minutiae of her alibi? Why does Raffaele say that the explanation for Meredith's DNA on the knife is that he touched her hand when once preparing food yet it left no mark when Meredith was never at his flat and he contends he never transported his knife to their flat? Why, when Rudy Guede was arrested and Raffaele's father and uncle were celebrating that fact, does Raffaele say that he is "not 100% happy" and fears that the Ivorian of 22 years will "make up strange things" given that he apparently doesn't know this person in a city of 160,000 people?

This stuff is a *clue*. Open your eyes.

_________________
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: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
komponisto wrote:

The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.


That is quite breathtaking in its arrogance. Not much I can say in face of that, really


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Fiona wrote:
stilicho wrote:
stint7 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
I've had multiple posts moved in my little sojourn and two warnings so far. I am at a loss to differentiate my posts from those that remain from the groupies side.


Absolutely

Your timely example illustrates precisely the point I try to make.

Not only are the posts that get moved inordinately biased to favor the fanatical FOAKer frame of reference, but the suspensions and bannings are even more flawed to favor FOAKers.



The JREF moderating team should be ashamed at letting that thread continue as long as it has.


I agree with this. As I said yesterday, I do not see it as a JREF thread at all. It is a disgrace and the moderation of it is also a disgrace.


I have no doubt one or more moderators are part of the "cause". It is the only explanation for the nonstop vacuous drivel going on there.

. ham-) b-(( ham-) b-(( ham-) b-(( ham-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
Fiona wrote:
komponisto wrote:

The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.


That is quite breathtaking in its arrogance. Not much I can say in face of that, really


It's just FOA troll strategy number 29. Not really worth engaging IMHO.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2225
SomeAlibi wrote:
komponisto wrote:
Fiona wrote:

If people have it to hand, well and good. But the onus is on you. You can search for that type of thing without joining this board and I wonder why you did? Not that I object to your joining, of course: but so far you have stated your position and have asked for facts which are surely relevant to coming to your conclusion after the conclusion has been reached. Do you see anything wrong with that, at all?


The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.

Quote:
There are many who reach conclusions on the basis of incomplete knowledge: indeed most of us who came late to this case are in that position. But speaking for myself, I would certainly not make as strong a statement as you did in saying you are an "unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito". Because that is really not the point. Perhaps you expressed yourself badly and what you meant to say was that, based on what you have read so far, you are inclined to believe them innocent of this horrible murder. Perhaps it is possible that further reading will lead you to modify your position.


It is possible, but very unlikely, given my current beliefs. What it would require is that I would have to come across something very surprising. And given that my current "incomplete" knowledge already includes the contents of the Micheli and Massei reports, Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, (now) Mignini and Comodi's appeal document, IIP, TJMK (as of a year ago),FOA, and most media reports on the case from the three countries involved (not to mention numerous discussions here and elsewhere), the chances of my discovering some shocking new fact in e.g. the documents relating to Guede's Cassazione appeal are fairly slim.

That said, if I do find something surprising, I'm willing to notice.



Have you read both their diaries and the contemporaneous media reports where particularly Raffaele was interviewed? The inconsistencies, numerous ones, in those documents are a major clue to me as to their guilt. They are internally badly inconsistent. Why did Amanda and Raffaele speak of their "panic" about the closed door but then when the police turned up, Amanda said it was normal for Meredith to lock her door? Why do they both swear blind they will never touch dope again when Amanda says in testimony she had one joint that night? Why did they both give details of having seen the body and its positioning when neither of them were within line of sight when the door was open? Why does Amanda ask her email contacts to bear with her and that she will explain things really slowly in minute detail in a strange echo of her language to the police some days later to be patient with her? Why does Amanda's email of 2,900 words contain no words of shock or regret about Meredith's death, but go on to about 10 pages into the minutiae of her alibi? Why does Raffaele say that the explanation for Meredith's DNA on the knife is that he touched her hand when once preparing food yet it left no mark when Meredith was never at his flat and he contends he never transported his knife to their flat? Why, when Rudy Guede was arrested and Raffaele's father and uncle were celebrating that fact, does Raffaele say that he is "not 100% happy" and fears that the Ivorian of 22 years will "make up strange things" given that he apparently doesn't know this person in a city of 160,000 people?

This stuff is a *clue*. Open your eyes.


Komponisto doesn't have the requisite common sense or emotional intelligence to understand that the above facts are clues. I wouldn't waste your time trying to have a rational discussion with him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scope of Appeal
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
The Machine wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
Raffaele still has the lying about getting the phone call from his father at the relevant time that night.
The lack of an alibi, given that his computer does not back up his story of being home working on it.
The lie about how long he was sleeping in the morning (though that speaks to clean-up and general issues of truthfulness rather than directly to the murder.)
And the subsequent changing stories about that alibi, before he clammed up.
The sighting of him out with Amanda when he claimed to be home.
Possibly the cigarette butt in the common room - unless he claimed to have been smoking on an earlier visit (I assume he was asked about it at some point, but don't know.)
The footprint on the bathmat.
And with the admission of materials from Rudy's trials, a witness putting him in the house at the time (I believe)
And also probably the forensic information about how many people were involved, details about how many needed to do what was done.
It may be that Amanda and Rudy could not have physically acted alone.
And given the rest of the corroborating materials, if a third party was present, it is pretty clear who that would have been.

So, if for some reason the bra strap were to be excluded, and the knife that was found in his apartment, it seems to me that the case is probably still strong enough.
Perhaps not as strong as against Amanda, but I think sufficient.


Sollecito also left a bare bloody footprint in the hallway.


There are far too many indications of Sollecito's involvement with both the crime and the coverup to decouple the charges against him from those against Knox. Some observers still don't understand why changing your statement to the police or getting caught lying (phone call from father, the broken pipe/flooded apartment tale, saying you were sleeping when proved you weren't, etc) is evidence of guilt. Sollecito undeniably spent four full days telling the police "rubbish" until he finally withdrew his alibi for Knox.

His words alone are sufficient to convict him. All the rest is proved by police investigators with absolutely no help from Biff.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:16 pm
Posts: 9
Fiona wrote:
komponisto wrote:

The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.


That is quite breathtaking in its arrogance. Not much I can say in face of that, really


My opinion is indeed very strong, but I would respectfully suggest that there is a distinction between having strong beliefs and being arrogant. Beliefs are what we think is true; if a belief is strong, that means one would have to come across extremely surprising data in order to relinquish it. Arrogance, by contrast, is a form of rudeness, a social faux pas. To say that having strong beliefs is arrogant amounts to saying that disagreement is rude.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
komponisto wrote:
Fiona wrote:
komponisto wrote:

The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.


That is quite breathtaking in its arrogance. Not much I can say in face of that, really


My opinion is indeed very strong, but I would respectfully suggest that there is a distinction between having strong beliefs and being arrogant. Beliefs are what we think is true; if a belief is strong, that means one would have to come across extremely surprising data in order to relinquish it. Arrogance, by contrast, is a form of rudeness, a social faux pas. To say that having strong beliefs is arrogant amounts to saying that disagreement is rude.


Aren't we glad you're the world's greatest boy scout and a believer to boot.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:16 pm
Posts: 9
The Machine wrote:

Komponisto doesn't have the requisite common sense or emotional intelligence to understand that the above facts are clues. I wouldn't waste your time trying to have a rational discussion with him.


What would a supporter of Knox and Sollecito have to do to convince you that they were worth engaging in a rational discussion?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
komponisto wrote:
The Machine wrote:

Komponisto doesn't have the requisite common sense or emotional intelligence to understand that the above facts are clues. I wouldn't waste your time trying to have a rational discussion with him.


What would a supporter of Knox and Sollecito have to do to convince you that they were worth engaging in a rational discussion?



Answer my post would be a start?

_________________
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: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 266
stilicho wrote:
stint7 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
I've had multiple posts moved in my little sojourn and two warnings so far. I am at a loss to differentiate my posts from those that remain from the groupies side.


Absolutely

Your timely example illustrates precisely the point I try to make.

Not only are the posts that get moved inordinately biased to favor the fanatical FOAKer frame of reference, but the suspensions and bannings are even more flawed to favor FOAKers.


I don't speak for Fiona or other JREF'rs but only for myself. I am a regular visitor to that board and have contributed there now for almost four years.

That single thread is an embarrassment to everything that scepticism stands for. It is continously "bumped" with inane ramblings or rehashed nonsense. It has become a thoroughfare for guiding visitors to advocacy sites since they have no real traffic of their own. None of the Knox groupies bothered to properly translate any of the appeals documents, nor have those in possession of the primary documentation bothered to release it (unless it was intended to muddy the waters).

Now that we discover that none of the elements of the staged break-in are going to be re-evaluated, the prospects of any reduction of sentence are dimmer than ever. Did any of the groupies, even those with case information, acknowledge this or bring it to anyone's attention prior to the Saturday session? That might have been worthwhile knowing to avoid the continuous bleating about "lone wolf" scenarios.

At least monthly, I send an example of the problem and a solution (moving it properly to Conspiracy Theories or locking it entirely) to the Moderators. The thread has become so vacuous and counter-productive that none of the qualified medical or scientific experts at the JREF (and there are many) will stoop to offer any opinion whatsoever.

The JREF moderating team should be ashamed at letting that thread continue as long as it has.


Well said: staged break-in is key to this crime. It is all in the very early Micheli sentence which talks about staged break in and the fact that AK (although not on trial in that fast track 1st degree for Guede) had to be the person who lets RG in.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
komponisto wrote:
The Machine wrote:

Komponisto doesn't have the requisite common sense or emotional intelligence to understand that the above facts are clues. I wouldn't waste your time trying to have a rational discussion with him.


What would a supporter of Knox and Sollecito have to do to convince you that they were worth engaging in a rational discussion?


You mean a supporter of their innocence. Not a supporter of the individuals themselves.

Their defence teams are doing the best job they can arguing for their innocence. There's not much more that can be added to that.

It would be worth engaging in discussion with Knox supporters (Sollecito really doesn't have any) who acknowledge that aspects of the case not under re-evaluation are very unlikely to be discarded in this appeal or the final appeal. These include the bullet points I provided and the lengthy analysis provided by Catnip. And to acknowledge that those elements that are being re-evaluated or introduced as new evidence could just as easily confirm guilt or be ruled irrelevant.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
The Machine wrote:
The prosecutors are confident that Knox and Sollecito will remain in prison:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eview.html


Worthwhile quotes:

Mignini wrote:
The review was granted because the jury needed help to interpret the findings as they are difficult to understand. I don't see how it is a victory for the defence, as the methods were not criticised in the ruling.


Comodi wrote:
[This] independent review will just confirm the excellent work carried out by the police scientific unit.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 604
Quote:
I wonder on what date "The Bard" thinks Meredith Kercher died? Funny how groupthink can work....

EDIT apologies - I hadn't noticed I'd got the name wrong. I had mistakenly thought that people were referring to the date and not the name. My mistake.


Conspiracy! Mutiny! How dare you Looney? You planned this didn't you, throw the whole case off by tricking us into thinking Amanda died! And you expect us to think this was a.... SIMPLE MISTAKE??? HA!!!!!!!! We ALLLL know that it is one of your devious plots to make us all think Amanda is the victim (see, not only was she falsely accused, but now she was killed too!) I demand an apology to Katody!!!!!!! (why Katody? I dont know, it seems its the in thing now to demand everyone apologize to her)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Fiona wrote:
komponisto wrote:

The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.


That is quite breathtaking in its arrogance. Not much I can say in face of that, really


It's called trolling. There are a number of people likely to be offended by that statement here, especially those who are Italian or who belong to the legal profession.

Paraphrased Troll Statement wrote:
The legal profession (especially in Italy) is composed of people unable to discern a good argument from a bad one. It amuses me to see how stupid people think.


I'll use my immaculate powers of clairvoyance to predict a permanent ban in 5...4...3...2...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
komponisto wrote:
Fiona wrote:
komponisto wrote:

The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.


That is quite breathtaking in its arrogance. Not much I can say in face of that, really


My opinion is indeed very strong, but I would respectfully suggest that there is a distinction between having strong beliefs and being arrogant. Beliefs are what we think is true; if a belief is strong, that means one would have to come across extremely surprising data in order to relinquish it. Arrogance, by contrast, is a form of rudeness, a social faux pas. To say that having strong beliefs is arrogant amounts to saying that disagreement is rude.


You seriously don't get what is arrogant about this? Seriously?

(Hint: it is nothing at all to do with the strength of your belief nor the nature of it)

(Second hint: see stilicho's paraphrase of your statement)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
lauowolf wrote:
DLW wrote:
(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 19 DEC-family lawyers of Raffaele Sollecito are considering legal action against Annamaria Artegiani, lay judge in the first instance to the young pugliese, for his book in which reference is made to the story of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
According to the advocate Luca Maori, one of the defenders of the reminder, ' ' the book violates the secret chambers ''. '' For this-he added-next week we will assess the judicial initiatives be taken ''. (Google trans) ANSA



Oh that is rich, coming from the Leak the Video of the Crime Scene Family.

[Edited, cos I always notice things as soon as I see my words posted, regardless of how much I look at it first. Sigh]


Anna Maria Artegiani is an intresting person. Her profession: mystical painter.
She's a real Perugian artist. She has critiques from those whom I consider among the highest artists on themes of contemplation, meditation and mystical/orientalistic philosophies, among them Franco Battiato.

http://www.annamariaartegiani.it/index.html

*

P.s.
I am slighlty upset about the Court's ruling, since I consider it against the code and not right in principle. I will maybe try to put down a few thoughts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
stilicho wrote:
Fiona wrote:
komponisto wrote:

The documents I asked about are ancillary to the question of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. I already have more than enough information on that. I didn't ask where to find the Massei report, or Knox and Sollecito's appeal documents, for example.

My reason for wanting to read them was not because I thought they would contain important new information about whether Knox and Sollecito are guilty, but because I wanted to see how superficially convincing these documents seem, including those arguing for positions I know to be wrong, in order to form an opinion on how likely the appeal judges are to be able to distinguish good from bad arguments. In other words, they were relevant to the question of whether Knox and Sollecito are likely to be found innocent, not whether they are innocent.


That is quite breathtaking in its arrogance. Not much I can say in face of that, really


It's called trolling. There are a number of people likely to be offended by that statement here, especially those who are Italian or who belong to the legal profession.

Paraphrased Troll Statement wrote:
The legal profession (especially in Italy) is composed of people unable to discern a good argument from a bad one. It amuses me to see how stupid people think.


I'll use my immaculate powers of clairvoyance to predict a permanent ban in 5...4...3...2...



Komponisto, time for the compost heap. You have overstayed your welcome. Thanks for stopping by. If you post again, you will be permanently banned. Reason: You are a pompous bore.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Christmas Cabin Fever Crisis
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
The Bard wrote:
Thanks Hammer.

To be honest, British stiff upper lip and Blitz spirit aside, thinks are pretty rough here. Poor Mr Bard is still in excruciating pain, and the horse strength pain-killers seem to be weakening in efficacy. Food supplies running low (seriously!) and we have run out of beer. Can't get out of the house due to snow. To raise morale I have raided the Christmas champagne supplies, since it looks like Christmas is cancelled. It's like the last days of the Reich here. All hope abandoned, Young Bard in a slough of despond, and Mungo weeping as he can't get the handle right on his hay basket. He is on the point of giving up and eating it.

So, no idea what the future holds. Will Mr Bard ever get better, or is this it? Will we starve? Or will the next snowfall, forecast for today, see us entombed forever? How long can a teenage boy survive on rice and tuna before his kills his parents? Who knows.

So things not good Hammer. The country is in
lock down. And the fam are slowly going mad...


Hang in there, Bard & Famiglia!

Attention....all ye UK people with cabin fever : at a time like this...you've got to think outside the box....or rather, OUTSIDE THE BOTTLE.

Here's what to do when you're stuck at home and all the beer has all been drunk... and you're all ready to crawl the walls...

Here's a post-beer activity for the fam, one that's creative, calming and Christmassy...

Best of all--it's about ANGELS, but not a mention of la_)

For your listening pleasure, here's your an anti-boredom activity for you from the 411...



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
stilicho wrote:

I'll use my immaculate powers of clairvoyance to predict a permanent ban in 5...4...3...2...

I now understand Michael's troll radar: me me me me me me. Yer outta here! stup-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Curt ~n~ Edda will NEVER accept Amanda is guilty. These interviews are idiotic and tiresome. The only thing they achieve is keeping the aggrieved ones in limbo.

What is Ted Simon referring tto about the written confession? Was that even mentioned in the appeal hearing?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
Yummi wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
DLW wrote:
(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 19 DEC-family lawyers of Raffaele Sollecito are considering legal action against Annamaria Artegiani, lay judge in the first instance to the young pugliese, for his book in which reference is made to the story of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
According to the advocate Luca Maori, one of the defenders of the reminder, ' ' the book violates the secret chambers ''. '' For this-he added-next week we will assess the judicial initiatives be taken ''. (Google trans) ANSA



Oh that is rich, coming from the Leak the Video of the Crime Scene Family.

[Edited, cos I always notice things as soon as I see my words posted, regardless of how much I look at it first. Sigh]


Anna Maria Artegiani is an intresting person. Her profession: mystical painter.
She's a real Perugian artist. She has critiques from those whom I consider among the highest artists on themes of contemplation, meditation and mystical/orientalistic philosophies, among them Franco Battiato.

http://www.annamariaartegiani.it/index.html

*

P.s.
I am slighlty upset about the Court's ruling, since I consider it against the code and not right in principle. I will maybe try to put down a few thoughts.




Beautiful stuff there.
Thanks


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
Tara wrote:
Corriere dell'Umbria:


ORIGINAL ITALIAN:
Quote:
La decisione dopo un’ora e mezzo di camera di consiglio.

PERUGIA19.12.2010 Il primo round, per dirla in termini pugilistici, se lo aggiudicano le difese. La corte d’assise d’appello (presidente Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, a latere Massimo Zanetti) ha deciso la riapertura parziale del dibattimento ed ha scelto i due periti che dovranno svolgere gli accertamenti e le valutazioni genetiche. I due consulenti di ufficio, che sono stati invitati per il 15 gennaio in aula per il giuramento, sono il professor Stefano Conti e la professoressa Carla Vecchioni entrambi dell’università La Sapienza di Roma. La perizia è limitata ai reperti 165b (il gancetto del reggiseno della povera Meredith Kercher) e il reperto 36 (il coltello da cucina lungo 31 centimetri, sequestrato in casa di Raffaele Sollecito). Su quest’ultimo, con un esame irripetibile, la biologa Patrizia Stefanoni della Polizia Scientifica di Roma ha trovato il dna di Meredith, che non era mai stata a casa di Raffaele. Sul gancetto, sempre la Stefanoni, ha rinvenuto il dna di Raffaele. Se non sarà possibile effettuare una nuova perizia (e sul coltello non è possibile perché la Stefanoni ha “raschiato” tutta la sostanza biologica disponibile, tanto da aver spiegato di aver deciso: “O la va, o la spacca”) i due periti dovranno valutare la bontà o meno della metodologia seguita dalla biologa e se la lettura dei risultati è stata corretta, attendibile, in linea con i parametri stabiliti dalla comunità scientifica internazionale. Per quel che riguarda il gancetto dovranno verificare se c’è stata la paventata “contaminazione” e verificare se la lettura dei risultati è stata fatta correttamente. “Allo stato” - hanno spiegato i giudici nell’ordinanza con la quale hanno respinto tutte le richieste di nullità che erano state avanzate dalle difese degli imputati - non c’è bisogno di altre perizie. La corte si è riservata una eventuale decisione all’esito dell’istruttoria dibattimentale. Che sarà arricchita anche dall’escussione di sette testimoni: quelli che la difesa di Raffaele Sollecito ha indicato in funzione, per dirla così, anti Curatolo. Quest’ultimo è il clochard che ha raccontato in aula di aver visto, la sera del delitto tra le 21.30 e le 23, Amanda e Raffaele in piazza Grimana (i due ex fidanzati sostengono che a quell’ora erano a casa di lui in corso Garibaldi). E aggiunge di ricordare il particolare - è uno dei testi “a scoppio ritardato” (che raccontano a distanza di mesi, cioè, quello che sanno) - perché quella sera c’erano molti giovani in attesa dei pullman in piazza Grimana. I sette testimoni sono titolari di discoteche, direttore della Siae, gestori dei pullman navetta per i locali della periferia, che affermano come quella sera le discoteche fossero chiuse. Ecco i loro nomi: Rita Pucciarini, Giorgio Brughini, Mauro Mandarini, Arturo Ciasullo, Massimo Bevilacqua, Gaetano e Rosa Ini. La corte ha preso anche altre due decisioni importanti: la sospensione dei termini della custodia cautelare in carcere dei due detenuti per i 90 giorni relativi al deposito della sentenza di primo grado (in pratica i termini della custodia cautelare scadranno tre mesi più tardi, intorno a settembre 2011) e ha respinto, invece, la richiesta di esecutività delle provvisionali a carico degli imputati nei confronti della famiglia Kercher. Non entreranno nel processo, almeno allo stato, né l’ergastolano Mario Alessi (che dice di aver avuto, smentito dall’interessato, la “confessione” di Rudy Hermann Guede che scagionerebbe i due ex fidanzatini), né il detenuto per reati di mafia Luciano Aviello (che sostiene di sapere che gli assassini di Mez sarebbero suo fratello Antonio e un albanese di nome Florio). Evidentemente la corte giudica la loro attendibilità molto scarsa. La procura (il pg Giancarlo Costagliola e il pm Manuela Comodi) e le parti civili (Francesco Maresca, Serena Perna, Carlo Pacelli, Letizia Magnini) avevano chiesto di respingere tutte le richieste con tutta una serie di motivazioni. Per l’accusa pubblica e privata le richieste o apparivano ininfluenti o superflue. Alla chiusura dell’udienza il presidente Pratillo Helmann ha augurato a tutte le parti (compresi gli imputati): “Buon Natale e buon anno”. Prossima udienza il 15 di gennaio per il giuramento dei periti

Elio Clero Bertoldi


Corriere


*

My translation:

The decision after an hour and a half of deliberation.

PERUGIA19.12.2010
The first round, to put it in boxing terms, has been won by the defenses. The Court of Appeal (President Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, alongsside Massimo Zanetti) decided the partial reopening of the trial hearing and appointed the two experts who are to perform assessments and genetic evaluations.

The two judiciary-appointed consultants, who were invited by January 15 for the swearing in the court room, are Professor Stefano Conti and Professor Carla Vecchiotti both of the University “La Sapienza” of Rome. The report shall be limited to findings 165b (the hook of poor Meredith Kercher's bra) and exhibit 36 (the 31 cm long kitchen knife, seized at the house of Raffaele Sollecito). On the latter, with a non repeatable test, the biologist Patrizia Stefanoni of Scientific Police in Rome had found the DNA of Meredith, who had never been at Raffaele’s house. The same Stefanoni has found the DNA of Raffaele on the clasp.

If a further study can’t be performed (and it is not possible to do that on the knife because Stefanoni had "scraped" all the available biological substance, so as to have been said to have decided: "Either go, or nothing") the two experts will evaluate the goodness, or otherwise, of the methodology used by the biologist and if the reading of results was correct, reliable, in line with the parameters set by the international scientific community.

As for the hook they should verify whether there was the dreaded "contamination" and check if the reading of the results was done correctly. "At the present state" - the judges explained in the ruling in which the courts have rejected all the other requests for nullification and that had been submitted by the defenses of the two accused – “there is no need for further experts opinion”.

The court has reserved the choice of a possible decision on the outcome of the investigation hearing. Which will be enriched by the interrogation of seven new witnesses, whom Raffaele Sollecito's defense has called in - to put it this way - anti Curatolo operation. The latter is the homeless man who said in court that he saw Amanda and Raffaele the night of the murder between 21:30 and 23 in Grimana square (the two ex-boyfriends say that at that time they were at his house in Corso Garibaldi). And he adds to remember the detail – he is one of the "delayed burst" witnesses (those who tell about months later what they know) - because that evening there were many young people waiting for the bus in the square Grimana. The seven witnesses are owners of clubs, director of SIAE, the operators of local bus shuttle from center to suburb areas, claiming that night clubs were closed that night. Their names are: Rita Pucciarini, Giorgio Brughini, Mauro Mandarins, Arturo Ciasullo, Massimo Bevilacqua, Gaetano and Rosa Ini.

The court also took two important decisions: the suspension of counting the pre-trial detention in prison of the two inmates for the 90 days waiting prior to the filing of appeal of the decision of first instance (in practice the terms of detention will expire three months later than scheduled, around September 2011) and they rejected, however, the request for the provisional enforceability against the accused submitted by the Kercher family.

They will not enter into the process - at least at the present moment - nor the lifer convict Mario Alessi (who claims he received, albeit denied by him, the "confession" of Rudy Hermann Guede which exonerated the two former sweethearts), or the prisoner for crimes of mafia Aviello Luciano (who maintains he knows the murderers would be his brother Anthony and an Albanian named Florio). Obviously the court considers their credibility is very low.

The prosecutor (the pg Giancarlo Costagliola and pm Manuela Comodi) and the plaintiffs (Francesco Maresca, Serena Perna, Carlo Pacelli, Letizia Magnini) had asked to dismiss all defensive requests with a number of reasons. For the public and private prosecutions, claims appeared either irrelevant or superfluous.

At the close of the hearing, chairman Pratillo Helmann wished all parties (including the defendants), "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year." Next hearing on January 15 for the swearing in of experts

Elio Clero Bertoldi


Last edited by Yummi on Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
SomeAlibi wrote:
Just so you know, Bruce informs me that the reason I left some flowers at the cottage was because I was needy and wanted you all to suck up to me to impress my own ego.

Bruce is too stupid to recall I signed it from all at PMF / TJMK and marked the occasion so we could all be part of that simple and easy action.

What an inadequate and pathetic man.


And the reason Bruce set up his injustice blog may be the same: he is needy and wants people to suck up to him. I have no reason to think it is true, but why not? Bruce could be projecting his own neuroses onto you, SA. I guess it rankles him that you are actually doing things that matter at personal expense. What has Bruce done? Recruited Steve Moore and apparently written a self-published book. Let's wish him luck on that.

Incidentally, I have just learned that some anonymous opiner on The Telegraph article comments page thinks I have "jumped ship." Nothing could be further than the truth. ?Not that I matter in the larger scheme of things. I am just one individual among many.

I also found it sad, in rereading Doug Preston's very telling comment that he begins by saying he is "most disturbed" by the people he calls anti-Amanda. Really? 'Cuz I am most disturbed by the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher and secondly by unprecedented attempts to misinform the public. Next to Meredith's death, the rest is noise. Just noise.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 604
Looneytoons at JREF:
Quote:
(Just out of interest to you, I don't post about the Kercher case anywhere else but JREF - therefore I don't know what you mean by "my" "guilter/innocentisti blogs").


The ones you stalk and post about on an hourly basis, you dumbfuck.

(Sorry Skep and Michael, I know there are some who understandably do not like reading cursewords, but I could not find a more fitting descriptor than that one at this time)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Solange305 wrote:
Quote:
(Just out of interest to you, I don't post about the Kercher case anywhere else but JREF - therefore I don't know what you mean by "my" "guilter/innocentisti blogs").


The ones you stalk and post about on an hourly basis, you dumbfuck.

(Sorry Skep and Michael, I know there are some who understandably do not like reading cursewords, but I could not find a more fitting descriptor than that one at this time)



Solange, we need an equivalent for OT - something like ASWI - Alert Swear Words Imminent - because while I absolutely understand people's dislike for swearwords and I absolutely support that they shouldn't have to read them, to be honest I bite my tongue all the time. I am horribly anglo-saxon in my expressions in real-life and I enjoy and appreciate a jolly good swear. This case makes me want to go positively off the deep end sometimes and I think I'm slightly losing my mind being quite so responsible.

_________________
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: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Please note that komponisti has been banned, for posting after being asked to refrain from posting. Just another troll. They come and go, signifying nothing, all sounding depressingly the same.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Please note that komponisti has been banned, for posting after being asked to refrain from posting. Just another troll. They come and go, signifying nothing, all sounding depressingly the same.



In the mayfly like duration of his or her existence, I thought his or her reply to my points about the diary were incredibly weak. There really is no helping these people is there? Oh well. Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. Some of the comments are coq au vin. Some are just pure cock.

SORRY! :)

_________________
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: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Please, someone unplug this ninkompoopoonisto!

THANK YOU

Attachment:
we needed the fresh air.jpg

after Monet


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


Last edited by piktor on Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 604
SomeAlibi wrote:

Solange, we need an equivalent for OT - something like ASWI - Alert Swear Words Imminent - because while I absolutely understand people's dislike for swearwords and I absolutely support that they shouldn't have to read them, to be honest I bite my tongue all the time. I am horribly anglo-saxon in my expressions in real-life and I enjoy and appreciate a jolly good swear. This case makes me want to go positively off the deep end sometimes and I think I'm slightly losing my mind being quite so responsible.



Good idea! Although I promise not to make a habit of it, when I do feel a little swear or two coming on, I will post at the top "Alert Swear Words Imminent"! You have officially been warned eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Please note that komponisti has been banned, for posting after being asked to refrain from posting. Just another troll. They come and go, signifying nothing, all sounding depressingly the same.



In the mayfly like duration of his or her existence, I thought his or her reply to my points about the diary were incredibly weak. There really is no helping these people is there? Oh well. Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. Some of the comments are coq au vin. Some are just pure cock.

SORRY! :)


Cock and bull, coq au vin, whatever...
Komponisti was one of the weaker trolls I have seen of late. The pretext of coming for documents followed by hanging around and frenetic posting. What's with that?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
piktor wrote:
Please, someone unplug this ninkompoopoonisto!



Who? Me? I will not be displugmerated! I fight for my survival!

Oh :)

_________________
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.


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
IMO, because I'm not legal expert......

The current ruling doesn't seem unusual. Isn't that what the appeal process is for? To review any and all evidence which could be contentious?

In spite of the poignant statements by John Kercher, the US media still does not 'get it'. This is a trial for justice for the victim, Meredith Kercher. It's not about picking on la_) .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Please note that komponisti has been banned, for posting after being asked to refrain from posting. Just another troll. They come and go, signifying nothing, all sounding depressingly the same.



In the mayfly like duration of his or her existence, I thought his or her reply to my points about the diary were incredibly weak. There really is no helping these people is there? Oh well. Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. Some of the comments are coq au vin. Some are just pure cock.

SORRY! :)


Cock and bull, coq au vin, whatever...
Komponisti was one of the weaker trolls I have seen of late. The pretext of coming for documents followed by hanging around and frenetic posting. What's with that?



And not posting with a consistent name from other boards. Rather telling that innit? Why can't they just carry across their IDs so we know who we are talking to?

I have to say however: displugmerated joins parachutine as me best made up words of 2010 though :)

_________________
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.


Last edited by SomeAlibi on Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
piktor wrote:
Please, someone unplug this ninkompoopoonisto!


Done! I tried the gentle approach, simply asking Kompo not to post or I would enforce a permanent ban. As Kompo came geared up for another round of frenetic posting, he did not see my post. He posted; I got rid of his post and banned him, as promised. Perhaps I should have kept it. It was reminiscent of the writings of nearly every other troll who has chosen a moniker that begins with K. It's very odd, really. They like to take a well-formed argument and break it up into manageable sound bites so they don't have to go to the trouble of actually thinking. Then they make one sentence replies to the sound bites of their own choosing, cherry-picking so to speak.

Anyway, I would have thought Kompo would have been far too busy reading the documents he requested to post non-stop. Funny how that works as well. Every time someone is given a pile of documents to read, they become instant graduates of a speed-reading course, ready to discuss.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 158
Highscores: 1
Xmas singalong...

Swine will wear pearls, Water will run uphill, Madonna Ciccone will put on her pants, FOAKers will learn to read and the Queen will eat pie from her crown...



Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
piktor wrote:
Please, someone unplug this ninkompoopoonisto!


Done! I tried the gentle approach, simply asking Kompo not to post or I would enforce a permanent ban. As Kompo came geared up for another round of frenetic posting, he did not see my post. He posted; I got rid of his post and banned him, as promised. Perhaps I should have kept it. It was reminiscent of the writings of nearly every other troll who has chosen a moniker that begins with K. It's very odd, really. They like to take a well-formed argument and break it up into manageable sound bites so they don't have to go to the trouble of actually thinking. Then they make one sentence replies to the sound bites of their own choosing, cherry-picking so to speak.

Anyway, I would have thought Kompo would have been far too busy reading the documents he requested to post non-stop. Funny how that works as well. Every time someone is given a pile of documents to read, they become instant graduates of a speed-reading course, ready to discuss.


Your swift action is much appreciated. r-(( r-(( r-((


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

I also found it sad, in rereading Doug Preston's very telling comment that he begins by saying he is "most disturbed" by the people he calls anti-Amanda. Really? 'Cuz I am most disturbed by the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher and secondly by unprecedented attempts to misinform the public. Next to Meredith's death, the rest is noise. Just noise.


I have to tell you ConstableJohn and Lady Preston stylistically sound very much alike.

Preston pops up pontificating about whatever and ConstableJohn disappears from JREF.

Preston disappears and up pops ConstableJohn from his "9 hour drive" from wherever, tired and whatever, ready again to pompousificate at his JREF post.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
wtf)

KOMO 4 (ABC) NEWS IN SEATTLE:

Quote:
Knox family: Amanda free from prison by next Christmas?

The family of Amanda Knox is beginning to hope that the former Seattle college student could be released from prison by next Christmas after an Italian court ordered a review of evidence in her murder trial...

and,

Amanda's father, Curt Knox, was even more hopeful in an interview with KOMO News on Sunday morning.

"We believe, once that independent review takes place, that she will be able to come home, 'cause they'll let her go," he said.

He said he understands that the review could be completed as early as next spring, and Mellas said the family is hopeful that Amanda could be out of prison by Christmas 2011...

and,

The court ruling essentially re-opens the case. Two experts will review DNA evidence after they are sworn in on Jan. 15.

Knox's team won another important battle. A statement she signed just after the killing, with no access to a lawyer, was thrown out by the court...


Ted Simon's soundbite from this morning's program filled in that last bit but the video isn't up yet.
KOMO4 NEWS SEATTLE

Nothing about Rudy Guede.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Tara wrote:
wtf)

KOMO 4 (ABC) NEWS IN SEATTLE:

Quote:
Knox family: Amanda free from prison by next Christmas?

The family of Amanda Knox is beginning to hope that the former Seattle college student could be released from prison by next Christmas after an Italian court ordered a review of evidence in her murder trial...

and,

Amanda's father, Curt Knox, was even more hopeful in an interview with KOMO News on Sunday morning.

"We believe, once that independent review takes place, that she will be able to come home, 'cause they'll let her go," he said.

He said he understands that the review could be completed as early as next spring, and Mellas said the family is hopeful that Amanda could be out of prison by Christmas 2011...

and,

The court ruling essentially re-opens the case. Two experts will review DNA evidence after they are sworn in on Jan. 15.

Knox's team won another important battle. A statement she signed just after the killing, with no access to a lawyer, was thrown out by the court...


Ted Simon's soundbite from this morning's program filled in that last bit but the video isn't up yet.
KOMO4 NEWS SEATTLE

Nothing about Rudy Guede.


Let's say the weeping judges acquit.

The state will immediately appeal and the little angels go back to their cages until the appeal is heard by the Supreme Court. It might be Christmastime when they are finally out when and if the Court ratifies the acquittal. Just not next Christmas. It would take several years for the Supremes to hear the case. Guede was on a fast track process and the Supremes took a whole year before they heard his case.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
piktor wrote:
Tara wrote:
wtf)

KOMO 4 (ABC) NEWS IN SEATTLE:

Quote:
Knox family: Amanda free from prison by next Christmas?

The family of Amanda Knox is beginning to hope that the former Seattle college student could be released from prison by next Christmas after an Italian court ordered a review of evidence in her murder trial...

and,

Amanda's father, Curt Knox, was even more hopeful in an interview with KOMO News on Sunday morning.

"We believe, once that independent review takes place, that she will be able to come home, 'cause they'll let her go," he said.

He said he understands that the review could be completed as early as next spring, and Mellas said the family is hopeful that Amanda could be out of prison by Christmas 2011...

and,

The court ruling essentially re-opens the case. Two experts will review DNA evidence after they are sworn in on Jan. 15.

Knox's team won another important battle. A statement she signed just after the killing, with no access to a lawyer, was thrown out by the court...


Ted Simon's soundbite from this morning's program filled in that last bit but the video isn't up yet.
KOMO4 NEWS SEATTLE

Nothing about Rudy Guede.


Let's say the weeping judges acquit.

The state will immediately appeal and the little angels go back to their cages until the appeal is heard by the Supreme Court. It might be Christmastime when they are finally out when and if the Court ratifies the acquittal. Just not next Christmas. It would take several years for the Supremes to hear the case. Guede was on a fast track process and the Supremes took a whole year before they heard his case.


The local television media's coverage of this case has always been partial and ill-informed. Why change now? Reading press releases is what they do best. High winds in Enumclaw and other critical local events got more coverage and higher billing.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: UK
I don't recall this detail about the statement anywhere else. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking on Ted's part...?

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am
Posts: 301
the knife remains significant even without the DNA because both Biff and Anita made it so, they both fitted it into their narratives, Biff with his pricking Mez story and Anita sleeping knife pressing story. They both know how significant the knife is. Add to that Anita's brutal description of how Mez died before the post mortem results where released. This was the base line I used for deciding that I think they are guilty when I joined the board.

They where convicted because multiple arrows pointed to the guilty verdict if you remove a couple of arrows you still have multiple arrows pointing to a guilty verdict.

Bard, Sorry to here about Mr Bard, having suffered long term lower back pain all I can say is Dihydracodine and beer, nom nom nom. I also suffer random spontanious leg cramps that last for anything up to an hour and are incredibly painful but have been desribed by my children as comedy gold, kid's the little rat bags that they are cope better than we think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Emerald wrote:
Curt ~n~ Edda will NEVER accept Amanda is guilty. These interviews are idiotic and tiresome. The only thing they achieve is keeping the aggrieved ones in limbo.

What is Ted Simon referring tto about the written confession? Was that even mentioned in the appeal hearing?


I don't expect the Melloxes to accept their daughter's guilt. I doubt any parents could ever really reconcile themselves to the fact that their kid is a sex murderer.

At issue is their decision to publicly air out their laundry as though they were actually proud of what Amanda did and want everyone to know all about it. That's the sick part of the whole Mellox/Marriott circus. It's intended to glorify the criminal and to belittle the victim, the crime, the Italian criminal system, and anything or anyone else that gets in their way.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Tara wrote:
wtf)

KOMO 4 (ABC) NEWS IN SEATTLE:

Quote:
Knox family: Amanda free from prison by next Christmas?

The family of Amanda Knox is beginning to hope that the former Seattle college student could be released from prison by next Christmas after an Italian court ordered a review of evidence in her murder trial...

and,

Amanda's father, Curt Knox, was even more hopeful in an interview with KOMO News on Sunday morning.

"We believe, once that independent review takes place, that she will be able to come home, 'cause they'll let her go," he said.

He said he understands that the review could be completed as early as next spring, and Mellas said the family is hopeful that Amanda could be out of prison by Christmas 2011...

and,

The court ruling essentially re-opens the case. Two experts will review DNA evidence after they are sworn in on Jan. 15.

Knox's team won another important battle. A statement she signed just after the killing, with no access to a lawyer, was thrown out by the court...


Ted Simon's soundbite from this morning's program filled in that last bit but the video isn't up yet.
KOMO4 NEWS SEATTLE

Nothing about Rudy Guede.


Now this is almost exactly the kind of story seen right around the time of the verdict. What statement did Knox sign just after she killed Meredith? Did she sign something while buying cleaning supplies down at the general store?

Not a mention of the elements of the staged break-in that are not been re-evaluated.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
piktor wrote:
Tara wrote:
wtf)

KOMO 4 (ABC) NEWS IN SEATTLE:

Quote:
Knox family: Amanda free from prison by next Christmas?

The family of Amanda Knox is beginning to hope that the former Seattle college student could be released from prison by next Christmas after an Italian court ordered a review of evidence in her murder trial...

and,

Amanda's father, Curt Knox, was even more hopeful in an interview with KOMO News on Sunday morning.

"We believe, once that independent review takes place, that she will be able to come home, 'cause they'll let her go," he said.

He said he understands that the review could be completed as early as next spring, and Mellas said the family is hopeful that Amanda could be out of prison by Christmas 2011...

and,

The court ruling essentially re-opens the case. Two experts will review DNA evidence after they are sworn in on Jan. 15.

Knox's team won another important battle. A statement she signed just after the killing, with no access to a lawyer, was thrown out by the court...


Ted Simon's soundbite from this morning's program filled in that last bit but the video isn't up yet.
KOMO4 NEWS SEATTLE

Nothing about Rudy Guede.


Let's say the weeping judges acquit.

The state will immediately appeal and the little angels go back to their cages until the appeal is heard by the Supreme Court.
It might be Christmastime when they are finally out when and if the Court ratifies the acquittal. Just not next Christmas. It would take several years for the Supremes to hear the case. Guede was on a fast track process and the Supremes took a whole year before they heard his case.


______________

Hmmm. This is a dilemma. If you set Amanda free she'll be in New York City the next day on the Oprah Show. And she ain't likely to be sailin' back to Byzantium any time soon. You keep her in prison for years after being found NOT GUILTY by a court of law it appears to be illegal imprisonment. So.........what do the authorities do? Place her under house arrest, monitored with an electronic bracelet? Maybe Yummi or Popper can explain.

///


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 3971
Location: London
YUMMI:

knows the murderers would be his brother Anthony and an Albanian named Florio). Obviously the court considers their credibility is very low.

____________________________________________________________________________

And an Albanian called Florio, ha ha ha!

An Indian called Singh, a Muslim called Mohamed, an English guy called Fred Smith and a Chinaman called Chin.

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
I'm so sorry, Bard, about your travails. :( . I'm hoping that there is some relief, just around the corner.

It's a deluge here, in Los Angeles. When the rain comes, it's horrendous. Nothing, and no-one, is equipped to deal with it. Driving? I drive a Range Rover, which serves me well, but, even so, there have been moments, when I feel like I'm in a canoe. I'm looking for reasons not to go out, but...that will not be possible, for various reasons. ( and, I have to say, Los Angeleans are NOT the best drivers here, in the rain :)...

So Kompost was here today, gone tomorrow. b-)) Excellent. He/she was a complete waste of space. I can only believe he/she was one of those on the suspended list elsewhere, and the need to spew, is just out of their control.

Have mostly just been reading, and always learning.

I just want to say, to all of you, THANK YOU. For all your input, which I enjoy so much. For making it so easy for me, to find and read the links, ( we won't discuss my lack of Techie skills) the wonderful photos, and the updates. If there's any new news, translations, breaking news, PMF is THE place. And, usually, always a laugh, to brighten the day. hugz-)

Piktor, your pictures are just so beautiful. I know I give an audible gasp, when I see them. And, hoping that all the animals are warm and cozy, in this awful weather. bu-)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
capealadin wrote:
I'm so sorry, Bard, about your travails. :( . I'm hoping that there is some relief, just around the corner.

It's a deluge here, in Los Angeles. When the rain comes, it's horrendous. Nothing, and no-one, is equipped to deal with it. Driving? I drive a Range Rover, which serves me well, but, even so, there have been moments, when I feel like I'm in a canoe. I'm looking for reasons not to go out, but...that will not be possible, for various reasons. ( and, I have to say, Los Angeleans are NOT the best drivers here, in the rain :)...

So Kompost was here today, gone tomorrow. b-)) Excellent. He/she was a complete waste of space. I can only believe he/she was one of those on the suspended list elsewhere, and the need to spew, is just out of their control.

Have mostly just been reading, and always learning.

I just want to say, to all of you, THANK YOU. For all your input, which I enjoy so much. For making it so easy for me, to find and read the links, ( we won't discuss my lack of Techie skills) the wonderful photos, and the updates. If there's any new news, translations, breaking news, PMF is THE place. And, usually, always a laugh, to brighten the day. hugz-)

Piktor, your pictures are just so beautiful. I know I give an audible gasp, when I see them. And, hoping that all the animals are warm and cozy, in this awful weather. bu-)



I'm just as glad that non-Kompos is gone.
If people have the patience to post links for visitors, that's a kindness and I'm glad it gets done.
But if someone has their mind completely made up, and not really anything to add, why bother.

Sounds as if you're having the same storm down south that is making thing exciting here in Berkeley.
I have a half-grown cat, and it's his first winter.
Wet has been a wonderful discovery, but tonight he raced in, entirely fluffed out in battle-readiness.
As near as I can figure it out, he was freaked by the wind.

I'd complain about the rain and thunder and it may even get down to freezing sometime, except that then I look at the BBC news and feel all wimpy.
Hope Bard's champagne is holding out.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 3971
Location: London
A lot from that type of league seem to make up these names to try and sound Italiabn, while at the same time being anything but friendly towardss Italians
lauowolf wrote:
capealadin wrote:
I'm so sorry, Bard, about your travails. :( . I'm hoping that there is some relief, just around the corner.

It's a deluge here, in Los Angeles. When the rain comes, it's horrendous. Nothing, and no-one, is equipped to deal with it. Driving? I drive a Range Rover, which serves me well, but, even so, there have been moments, when I feel like I'm in a canoe. I'm looking for reasons not to go out, but...that will not be possible, for various reasons. ( and, I have to say, Los Angeleans are NOT the best drivers here, in the rain :)...

So Kompost was here today, gone tomorrow. b-)) Excellent. He/she was a complete waste of space. I can only believe he/she was one of those on the suspended list elsewhere, and the need to spew, is just out of their control.

Have mostly just been reading, and always learning.

I just want to say, to all of you, THANK YOU. For all your input, which I enjoy so much. For making it so easy for me, to find and read the links, ( we won't discuss my lack of Techie skills) the wonderful photos, and the updates. If there's any new news, translations, breaking news, PMF is THE place. And, usually, always a laugh, to brighten the day. hugz-)

Piktor, your pictures are just so beautiful. I know I give an audible gasp, when I see them. And, hoping that all the animals are warm and cozy, in this awful weather. bu-)



I'm just as glad that non-Kompos is gone.
If people have the patience to post links for visitors, that's a kindness and I'm glad it gets done.
But if someone has their mind completely made up, and not really anything to add, why bother.

Sounds as if you're having the same storm down south that is making thing exciting here in Berkeley.
I have a half-grown cat, and it's his first winter.
Wet has been a wonderful discovery, but tonight he raced in, entirely fluffed out in battle-readiness.
As near as I can figure it out, he was freaked by the wind.

I'd complain about the rain and thunder and it may even get down to freezing sometime, except that then I look at the BBC news and feel all wimpy.
Hope Bard's champagne is holding out.



A lot from that league seem to make up these names to try and sound Italian, while at the same time in fact being anything but friendly towards Italians.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 3971
Location: London
Hello I'm new to the case my name is Georgio Sconvolta, my mother's mother's mother's granddad was Italian, ole. As yet I have no opinion but I have seen that girl aged 5 cuddling the bambino so she cannot be the 1, excuse my poor English I've only been living in America all my life (aged 73).
I have been to her house and everyone was just wonderful, Mr Stefano Moore was sat at the end of the sofa doing a stand-up show and we threw coins into Mr Mellas' cap, not the Sunday best one but the other one with the greasy inner lining. It's not true what they say about the gentlemano Girlanda, he has three kids and wears nice suits, I'm not just saying this because I am a salesman for Brylcreem but I should not say too much moore, sorry I meant more, we are all independent, excuse my English I've only been studying it 5 years as mother used to beat, how you say, mi ha picchiato con un pezzo di legno, excuse my English and made me work from the age of 6, but she's in a home now, never mind.

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
The sobs of relief from Edda, Amanda and Raffaele, remind me of the saying: Be careful what you wish for, it just may come true.

I believe there is more than enough evidence and DNA forensics, even without the knife and bra clasp, to finally uphold the conviction. Even if nothing conclusive was found on Raff, he is Amanda's alibi. So, was he simply a voyeur? Please.

I don't know how it will effect the appeals, if Rudy does testify. I know I would love to hear from him. It may ties up some odds and ends. I imagine that uneasy lies the breast, Amanda and Raff, just THINKING that Rudi might testify. They have never said anything, pertaining to his guilt. I imagine they have always worried about him. After all, two's company, three's a crowd. Rudy has the least to lose, and, I believe, if he's gone down, he's taking those two with him. He must be furious at all the attention Amanda has been getting. In his appeal trial, he called them * The assasins*.

I hope your letter resonates something in Rudy, Some Alibi. I know the feeling is, that Rudy will lie. He has, after all, lied before. But some things I believe have credence. The arguement over money, that he used the towels, that he ran out of there, panicked. There is no way, he hung around, cleaning and faking the break in. That took some time to do, and he was at the disco, a short time later.

I have to say, I believe the Judge has given them a little bit, but it is prolonging the agony for them. The end result will be the same. Worse, actually, because they won't be able to hang their hats on * Contamination, * etc. This will hopefully remove all doubt, and the Knox/Mellas camp may wish the requests had been denied. Ignorance is bliss. I imagine the let down to them, will be the worst. Reality will have a crushing, final blow.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
capealadin wrote:
So Kompost was here today, gone tomorrow. b-)) Excellent. He/she was a complete waste of space. I can only believe he/she was one of those on the suspended list elsewhere, and the need to spew, is just out of their control.


Here's someone with the same nick, the same use of italics, and the same point of view:

http://lesswrong.com/user/komponisto

EDIT:

Here's the whole tiresome "logic" he or she used:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_ ... _internet/

It's so close to the style of writing seen by Kevin Lowe on the JREF that I'd be very surprised if they didn't know one another well.

The starting point is that criminal investigations are sort of like "first past the post". In other words, if H9, SomeAlibi, and I all committed a crime somewhere, but only my DNA was discovered there then the other two miscreants must be released. It doesn't matter that H9 and SomeAlibi constructed detailed alibis that contradicted one another. The "first past the post" system employed by Kompost-o makes me guilty and them innocent.

He likens the belief in Knox/Sollecito's guilt to believing that Jesus rose from the dead. I wonder what he says about those of us who don't believe there's any evidence at all of resurrection but still agree that AK and RS are guilty. Are there two levels of evidence for physical certitudes? Does one apply to Jesus-type mortals while the other applies to angels like AK and RS?

Very mystical, anyhow.


Last edited by stilicho on Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 3971
Location: London
capealadin wrote:
The sobs of relief from Edda, Amanda and Raffaele, remind me of the saying: Be careful what you wish for, it just may come true.

I believe there is more than enough evidence and DNA forensics, even without the knife and bra clasp, to finally uphold the conviction. Even if nothing conclusive was found on Raff, he is Amanda's alibi. So, was he simply a voyeur? Please.

I don't know how it will effect the appeals, if Rudy does testify. I know I would love to hear from him. It may ties up some odds and ends. I imagine that uneasy lies the breast, Amanda and Raff, just THINKING that Rudi might testify. They have never said anything, pertaining to his guilt. I imagine they have always worried about him. After all, two's company, three's a crowd. Rudy has the least to lose, and, I believe, if he's gone down, he's taking those two with him. He must be furious at all the attention Amanda has been getting. In his appeal trial, he called them * The assassins*.

I hope your letter resonates something in Rudy, Some Alibi. I know the feeling is, that Rudy will lie. He has, after all, lied before. But some things I believe have credence. The argument over money, that he used the towels, that he ran out of there, panicked. There is no way, he hung around, cleaning and faking the break in. That took some time to do, and he was at the disco, a short time later.

I have to say, I believe the Judge has given them a little bit, but it is prolonging the agony for them. The end result will be the same. Worse, actually, because they won't be able to hang their hats on * Contamination, * etc. This will hopefully remove all doubt, and the Knox/Mellas camp may wish the requests had been denied. Ignorance is bliss. I imagine the let down to them, will be the worst. Reality will have a crushing, final blow.



Yes and how manipulative the words of Mr & Mrs Mellas are, when they say stuff like, Well, it seems these judges are different and now they'll see the mistake and put it all right.

Bla bla bla, but, this fakey friendship and trust, is something that will be abandoned as soon as the new judges do one thing that doesn't fit in with the Knox-Mellas' version of how everything MUST be, or else!

Just as everyone else, the new judges will be called every name under the sun, as soon as they do not do what the Knoxionis-Melloxionis want. Then they are madmen, etc.

Actually, in debate, calling others madmen, is the weakest route unless it's true, in this case, sometimes, it is true though. However, when talking about highly trained people, with families, especially those involved in justice, and at that level, judges, to call such people mad is weaker than weak and shows the desperation and lack of intellect of those accusing.

I'd call that Steve Moore a bit of a nutter. The other hangers on who are supposed to be professionals, I think they're in it for their own game.

That Mad Pax had better watch out what with Girlandas connections to Berlusconi, he'll have her working in a night club in no time. What's up says Belo, she's over 18, women these days seem older, I'm not gay so what does it matter...

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:01 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
piktor wrote:
'Let's say the weeping judges acquit.

The state will immediately appeal and the little angels go back to their cages until the appeal is heard by the Supreme Court. It might be Christmastime when they are finally out when and if the Court ratifies the acquittal. Just not next Christmas. It would take several years for the Supremes to hear the case. Guede was on a fast track process and the Supremes took a whole year before they heard his case.


Is this how it works?

From what I've heard - if they're acquited on the appeal, they are free to go and they're free while waiting for the Supreme Court's appeal and during the trial. Is this correct ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 3971
Location: London
stilicho wrote:
capealadin wrote:
So Kompost was here today, gone tomorrow. b-)) Excellent. He/she was a complete waste of space. I can only believe he/she was one of those on the suspended list elsewhere, and the need to spew, is just out of their control.


Here's someone with the same nick, the same use of italics, and the same point of view:

http://lesswrong.com/user/komponisto



That's him, I checked it out, read a bit, followed a link he provided and it led to something on the Knox case. Must say, the twat gives me a headache.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 3971
Location: London
I shouldn't even bother putting this here but I warn, to be read at own risk,

Kompost-Know-It-All who can't even get the date right

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_ ... _internet/

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: More Communication with Rudy?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
capealadin wrote:

I hope your letter resonates something in Rudy, Some Alibi. I know the feeling is, that Rudy will lie. He has, after all, lied before. But some things I believe have credence. The arguement over money, that he used the towels, that he ran out of there, panicked. There is no way, he hung around, cleaning and faking the break in. That took some time to do, and he was at the disco, a short time later.

I have to say, I believe the Judge has given them a little bit, but it is prolonging the agony for them. The end result will be the same. Worse, actually, because they won't be able to hang their hats on * Contamination, * etc. This will hopefully remove all doubt, and the Knox/Mellas camp may wish the requests had been denied. Ignorance is bliss. I imagine the let down to them, will be the worst. Reality will have a crushing, final blow.


I also very much hope that SomeAlibi is successful in his efforts with Rudy. The best closure for the Kerchers would be achieved by full illumination of the truth. As posted below, I think there are very good arguments for Rudy to now make a full disclosure.

I'm wondering if it would be constructive for me to write him from here? It would be a letter expressing my view that 100% honesty is now his ticket to a new future - perhaps offering some kind of material support to help him turn his life around? This might be his first mail from France; the envelope with the various foreign stamps could possibly make an impression. Also, I worked for a couple of years in Nigeria and have traveled in Côte d'Ivoire and Benin; am conversant on issues in those countries and on the challenges faced by immigrants in Europe. Thoughts? (Unfortunately, I can only write in English, French, and German; can fake Spanish, but can't do Italian at all.)

------------

Concerning where the appeal goes for Knox and Sollecito, I personally agree that their outlook is poor. However, agree with others that it might be best to just let the court continue its search for the truth no matter where it leads. Have mixed feelings about playing "armchair detective" ... though it hasn't stopped me so far.

I also think the best long-term outcome for Sollecito and Knox is confirmation of guilt and a long sentence. That path at least offers the opportunity for serious reflection and rehabilitation. The worst outcome would be getting off on a technicality, thus removing the need for self-examination and also exposing others to danger.

Norbert


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 503
Location: USA
Donnie I'm so sorry about your apartment explosions and the death/injuries, but glad you're okay!!!

Have I told you that my grandmother was Polish? And grandfather was Polish/Russian, from Minsk. When they got married, they spoke only Polish, though, so I guess he was ethnic Polish. My grandmother's sister was always suspicious of him because he wasn't a "true" Pole, though, and she always called him "The Widower." :) (His first wife died in the 'Flu Epidemic of 1918.)

Another story: My Mom grew up in NYC (Staten Island to be exact) and her first day in school, her teacher sent her home with a note saying, "Teach this child to speak English before you send her to school!" My grandmother sent her back the next day with a note that said, "That's why I'm sending her to school!"

My Mom graduated a year early from high school. That first-grade teacher came up to her and said, "I never thought you'd make it!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 503
Location: USA
zorba wrote:
Hello I'm new to the case my name is Georgio Sconvolta, my mother's mother's mother's granddad was Italian, ole. As yet I have no opinion but I have seen that girl aged 5 cuddling the bambino so she cannot be the 1, excuse my poor English I've only been living in America all my life (aged 73).
I have been to her house and everyone was just wonderful, Mr Stefano Moore was sat at the end of the sofa doing a stand-up show and we threw coins into Mr Mellas' cap, not the Sunday best one but the other one with the greasy inner lining. It's not true what they say about the gentlemano Girlanda, he has three kids and wears nice suits, I'm not just saying this because I am a salesman for Brylcreem but I should not say too much moore, sorry I meant more, we are all independent, excuse my English I've only been studying it 5 years as mother used to beat, how you say, mi ha picchiato con un pezzo di legno, excuse my English and made me work from the age of 6, but she's in a home now, never mind.

Hi nice to meet you, Giorgio!!! Let me introduce myself. My name is Taco Squirrelanda, I am a young parliamentarian from the planet Xeno. I come in peace. We wish to study your prison system. There is a young girl here whose hand signals have reached us, with curlicues, hand tracings, and Jimi Hendrix lyrics coming through loud-and-clear. A Celestial woman seems to be beaming them from her tin foil hat. We would like to avoid speaking to that woman, however. She seems nutty! Anyway, please lead me to your master. He can give me access as long as I agree to go on Oprah later and say Amanda is a la_)

(Forgive me. My stomach flu is finally over, I've been eating real food today for the first time in a week, and I'm going a little nutty with cabin fever! LOL)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
zorba wrote:
I shouldn't even bother putting this here but I warn, to be read at own risk,

Kompost-Know-It-All who can't even get the date right

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_ ... _internet/


It makes for worthwhile reading. K----- makes a sophomoric error using simple probability of independent events to create a "logical" reason for excluding Knox and Sollecito from involvement in this murder.

His biggest mistake is using the P {P|X} probability equation to arrive at a firm conclusion. That elementary probability calculation is useful in helping to determine odds when rolling dice or the expected return by placing your best-selling soap at eye-level in your shop. It's entirely inadequate to assess guilt or innocence in a murder case.

He also decouples the evidence outside the locked room from that contained inside. That's because he inaccurately maintains that only Guede's evidence counts because it was inside the locked room. Sollecito's DNA doesn't count because it's "too small" and nothing outside Meredith's room counts at all.

That entry is a worthwhile exercise in showing how clever people can arrive at bad conclusions by using the wrong tools to make a decision. It's also worthwhile to note that he urges other posters to donate to Amanda's defense fund. No reason is provided.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
stilicho wrote:
capealadin wrote:
So Kompost was here today, gone tomorrow. b-)) Excellent. He/she was a complete waste of space. I can only believe he/she was one of those on the suspended list elsewhere, and the need to spew, is just out of their control.


Here's someone with the same nick, the same use of italics, and the same point of view:

http://lesswrong.com/user/komponisto

EDIT:

Here's the whole tiresome "logic" he or she used:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_ ... _internet/

It's so close to the style of writing seen by Kevin Lowe on the JREF that I'd be very surprised if they didn't know one another well.

The starting point is that criminal investigations are sort of like "first past the post". In other words, if H9, SomeAlibi, and I all committed a crime somewhere, but only my DNA was discovered there then the other two miscreants must be released. It doesn't matter that H9 and SomeAlibi constructed detailed alibis that contradicted one another. The "first past the post" system employed by Kompost-o makes me guilty and them innocent.

He likens the belief in Knox/Sollecito's guilt to believing that Jesus rose from the dead. I wonder what he says about those of us who don't believe there's any evidence at all of resurrection but still agree that AK and RS are guilty. Are there two levels of evidence for physical certitudes? Does one apply to Jesus-type mortals while the other applies to angels like AK and RS?

Very mystical, anyhow.


Like the post. Stillicho.

He should have been banned, just for being such a damn bore.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 3971
Location: London
Earthling wrote:
zorba wrote:
Hello I'm new to the case my name is Georgio Sconvolta, my mother's mother's mother's granddad was Italian, ole. As yet I have no opinion but I have seen that girl aged 5 cuddling the bambino so she cannot be the 1, excuse my poor English I've only been living in America all my life (aged 73).
I have been to her house and everyone was just wonderful, Mr Stefano Moore was sat at the end of the sofa doing a stand-up show and we threw coins into Mr Mellas' cap, not the Sunday best one but the other one with the greasy inner lining. It's not true what they say about the gentlemano Girlanda, he has three kids and wears nice suits, I'm not just saying this because I am a salesman for Brylcreem but I should not say too much moore, sorry I meant more, we are all independent, excuse my English I've only been studying it 5 years as mother used to beat, how you say, mi ha picchiato con un pezzo di legno, excuse my English and made me work from the age of 6, but she's in a home now, never mind.

Hi nice to meet you, Giorgio!!! Let me introduce myself. My name is Taco Squirrelanda, I am a young parliamentarian from the planet Xeno. I come in peace. We wish to study your prison system. There is a young girl here whose hand signals have reached us, with curlicues, hand tracings, and Jimi Hendrix lyrics coming through loud-and-clear. A Celestial woman seems to be beaming them from her tin foil hat. We would like to avoid speaking to that woman, however. She seems nutty! Anyway, please lead me to your master. He can give me access as long as I agree to go on Oprah later and say Amanda is a la_)

(Forgive me. My stomach flu is finally over, I've been eating real food today for the first time in a week, and I'm going a little nutty with cabin fever! LOL)



Guten morgen Taco, your name sounds very Italian, anyway, pleased to meet you, tin helmets eh, celestial entities, whatever next, oh I see, some oddity in a penthouse suite in Capanne ruining sacred memories of Jimi H, that's one of her additional crimes, I may email Mignini and ask if this is acceptable, for the wee angel said of Meredith's death that it was unacceptable, when what I ask is; is a murder ever acceptable?

Anyhow, glad you are feeling better, that must have been rough, and good health to everyone with any health problems.
That crap about smoking, gear/dope/weed/hash, is a sore point with me these days, I used to smoke so much and I truly regret, especially when I ended up with lung disease.
Anyhow, quit immediately, and have never looked back but smokers, be warned, lung damage does not repair itself and I sure do hope they find a medicine/cure that does repair it.

My daughter and grandson are popping in soon, so that's a joy.
He is the one thing that makes me beam from ear to ear with happiness, just thinking about him.

All of this disturbs me, as much as the murder, people's behaviour, all those who seem so aggressive and disgustingly selfish.
My problem with it is I actually do care about life as a whole, and dream of a paradise and always have, how it would fit in would be not into just a concept but a reality, where humankind has somehow changed and created that peaceful, successful civilisation, the thing is, and I am very true about this, being as I have total recall, as I did already explain a bit, I remember my unborn thoughts and even there I understood that there is purpose to all things, and that there is deeper, most deep, deepest meaning behind what goes on, and I knew unborn, that this perfect love would not be on earth. I wish I could understand more about what the sense in it all is, because life seems so cruel even without murders, where suffering is just a fixture of all life on earth, yet, within it, there is an intelligence underpinning everything that even Einstein could not get to, and at his highest point, he went back from the atheist take on things brought about through scientific analyses and said he wanted to understand how God thought. Science could not explain everything to him.

To me, if this perfect peace can never be, still, in all truth I want to be part of trying to create it anyhow, and I think as individuals though we can't know what we cannot get sat or see, perhaps there is more at the door, and we are meant to rise up and be bigger people, in the dimensions of real love.

When people are so lost and so overcome by their physical drives and (mistaken?) sense of identity, all of the terrible things that people do on earth, they do as result of an inner loss, perhaps the connection to real joy, that again, perhaps, we've all known, causes some to lose the plot completely on
once born, and dealing with thew abundance of matter and material manifestation.

Heaven knows, I'm not into religion, but I believe in a mother and father of that greater love and I think deep down inside of everyone, this power is buried, even when people do terrible things, because if they had the connection to it, the last thing they'd want to do is hurt other people.

Are people like Knox and Solecito insane? I would say, in my book, they are, as are all of us who can't focus on our birthright, which is love. Are we guilty, I think only as far as we refuse to love and be kind.

Maybe there is no reincarnation, I don't believe in the Christian or other Judaic concepts of heaven and hell being like places as described by those belief sets, but I think heaven and hell, in a physical existence, a body, is something in the mind, so if reincarnation turns out not to exist, and then the karmic system attached to that, isn't real, at least it was a way to try to be kind and overcome the lower self on earth.

If people mess around talking about karma but do not see it as going further than I do this then somewhere along the line the same thing will happen to me, but this all within the earthly realm, I cannot see how that then could be real or how it would work. I do see that we are all part of creation, something that is part of destruction and matter is what lies at the base of both. This duality, is a fact of life in the physical realm, but what if the source of all things, is something far more vast with intelligence not being mind-based and the mind, being just a tool of a greater power that could create or destroy anything, even these two parts of duality?

I can't see that existence is pointless I can't help but say I do more than believe in eternal life, I don't believe it, I see it.

It's a very beautiful thing, and everything is in it, I feel sorry for these people, born into a physical
form with an essence of spirit that they lost touch with causing them to do something they have no right to do, to take a soul off its path . When I found out as a just-beginning-to-talk child that these things happen on earth it made me so scared and sad.
If there is a hell, I at that time thought I'd ended up in it, and the light I'd known, where there is complete understanding, I thought it had been a lie. Yet, these days, I know it is always there.
And this ids why, like others I would sincerely say, rehabilitation, if there is remorse, because as the human race, we are guilty as that race, through the ages of horrific things, these blind people locked up in Perugia have no idea of the damage they are doing to themselves.

To me, if then reincarnation is right, if it truly is, then to kill someone means a soul with the spirit that connects it, has driven itself as much as to say, to a different galaxy, the amount the person who has done so much wrong will need to go through to learn how to undo those wrongs, is an amount of time that's almost endless.

And Knox's family thinks Amanda will have gotten away with something if she somehow gets let out of jail?

I am afraid to say, I think that is a grave miscalculation.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
To Norbert. Writing another letter couldn't hurt. I don't know how much French Rudy understands, as he left the Cote'Ivoire at a very early age, right? I'm sure the Kercher's would like to know why. To try and make some sense of how this could have happened. I must admit, selfishly, that I would like to know as well. I will never get over the fact, that this murder is incomprehensible.

Glad you're finally feeling better, Earthling. Just in time for the Hols, yes?

And yes, Zorba, the Knox/Mellas and their supporters are crowing, at the moment. They are letting themselves believe that this will overturn the conviction. The same way they believed, when the bought the ticket home for Amanda last year, that she would go home, free. Wrong, again. I imagine they are there in Perugia in full force, believing that when Judge and jury see so much support, they will be inclined to sympathy. As well as the crying and hugging. The same as their closeness to the Sollecitos. So much kissing. So much pseudo frindship. For a relationship that lasted 6 days. A bit corny, really. A very bad soap opera, with lots of bad acting. Unfortunately for them, they're window dressing. The nuts and bolts of this case will be in the forensics, and the lies. All the crying, and whoohoos, will not change that.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
I just read your lovely last post, Zorba, and it's so very insightful. Bravo. Really.

As to them having felt Amanda got away with murder. They just want her home, they don't care to deal with reality. They have no feelings for Meredith or the Kerchers, in as much as they are annoyed. Annoyed that the Kercher's haven't help free their loving, cries if she steps on a flower, daughter. Perhaps part of it is, having a child convicted of murder, reflects badly on them, as parents. In the end, it's all about them. No room for empathy for the victim, or her family.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Suffolk, UK
I'm an occasional visitor to this group, and I thought I'd check up on what you lot make of the latest news from the appeal. To be clear about my own position, I wouldn't regard myself as either "pro-guilt" or "pro-innocence"...more like "pro-justice". And, to continue being clear, I've no reason to doubt that justice has been done, to date. So, in the interests of justice, the re-examination of the allegedly controversial DNA evidence is something that I welcome (though I wonder if the defence are as delighted, in private, as they appear to be in public). However, there have been a few mentions, in recent posts here, that the court may have ruled out the voluntary written statement made by Knox after her questioning by police. If this were excluded, the court would presumably not be able to take account of the fact that she placed herself at the crimescene and accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder. This is surely an important element of the evidence available to the court and I can't see how justice would be served by omitting it. Does anyone know definitively what the ruling is on this, please?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Thank you for your post, Zorba. I agree. This is something that has troubled me from the beginning about AK's mother. When they cry that they do what any parent would, I have to disagree. The way I experience love for my children means that the idea of helping them to live a lie forever is much worse than a prison sentence. It looks to me as though the family looks outwards only. They are the ones that seem obsessed with face saving, not Italian LE. I got the feeling that they were more alarmed about the stigma of the sexual assault than the killing. I fear that Amanda feels they would abandon her if she admits the truth.

I fear for Rudy. I don't think his beating was necessarily random. How can he feel safe to tell the truth? Would authorities be able to protect him?

Love is all there really is. Evil is only made of fear. Fear of loss, fear of being excluded from love....even if they don't know that's what it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
I just want to drop in an OT round of praise for the hands-on carers from the agency who help me look after my daughter. No new snow or worsening conditions here yesterday, but the nurses insisted they had to put her to bed at 5pm because they were throwing their hands up and going home. We've had 5 inches or more this morning, -5 and the girls who get her up each day and showered and dressed have *walked* to all their clients today, and with great humour. They are stars and knock the spots off the district nurses in any way you care to name. Bless you, girls!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: UK
Piktor, I forgot to say thank you for posting that beautiful painting! It cheered me up to see the sunshine and the beautiful colours!

Is it just me that misses Piktor's pictorial satires here? We haven't had a Lady Preston for ages! I'd love to see her latest dress, personally. Or maybe something special for Mary H, who seems to be going pretty much off the scale on the depths she will stoop to on JREF. Poor Mary doesn't like being caught out. She's gone all hurt and offended. She knows everyone hates her (well done!) and doesn't want to be lectured about mental health or the homeless. Apparently spreading ignorance 'doesn't matter' and has no effect whatsoever on the real world. Curatolo doesn't care if she insults him. That's right Mary, he's just a bum isn't he, a homeless lunatic, a 'simpleton'. She won't mind if we call her a vicious old witch then, will she. Besides, she suffers from a mental illness, so we can say what we like about her. Her opinion is worth nothing, and she is not worth listening to. It really doesn't matter what she says from now on in. She's lost all credibilty. But it doesn't stop her whining about the unfairness of it all when Quadra calls her out on it.

Shame on you Mary H8. You twisted that argument right round and you know you did. Quad called you on it. Pfft. Now you're whining.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Underhill wrote:
However, there have been a few mentions, in recent posts here, that the court may have ruled out the voluntary written statement made by Knox after her questioning by police. If this were excluded, the court would presumably not be able to take account of the fact that she placed herself at the crimescene and accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder. This is surely an important element of the evidence available to the court and I can't see how justice would be served by omitting it. Does anyone know definitively what the ruling is on this, please?


Welcome back Underhill.

The only reference I found to the omission of (presumably) the "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007 was in that local Seattle media story posted above by Tara. I do know that Chris Mellas frequently used to argue that it would be excluded at the first trial but it wasn't.

To be a little clearer about its importance, that "memorial" contains no reference to the physical assaults that Knox later claimed at the hands of the police, and it did not literally place her at the cottage at the time of Meredith's murder. Instead, it contains the important reference to the inadmissible statements she had signed overnight.

This "memorial" also contains a very different version of events than she had outlined in her 04 NOV 2007 email to all and sundry.

There's reason to suspect that the Seattle media got the story a little mixed up. The "memorial" was not prepared just after Meredith's murder but a full four days later. One reason to suspect that the story is incorrect is that her testimony from the first trial was not described as being excluded and a substantial portion of the questioning concerned items in that "memorial".

Catnip's summary makes no reference to exclusion of the "memorial".


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2225
Underhill wrote:
I'm an occasional visitor to this group, and I thought I'd check up on what you lot make of the latest news from the appeal. To be clear about my own position, I wouldn't regard myself as either "pro-guilt" or "pro-innocence"...more like "pro-justice". And, to continue being clear, I've no reason to doubt that justice has been done, to date. So, in the interests of justice, the re-examination of the allegedly controversial DNA evidence is something that I welcome (though I wonder if the defence are as delighted, in private, as they appear to be in public). However, there have been a few mentions, in recent posts here, that the court may have ruled out the voluntary written statement made by Knox after her questioning by police. If this were excluded, the court would presumably not be able to take account of the fact that she placed herself at the crimescene and accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder. This is surely an important element of the evidence available to the court and I can't see how justice would be served by omitting it. Does anyone know definitively what the ruling is on this, please?


I don't agree with another independent review of the DNA evidence. The defence lawyers won't accept the judgement of any independent expert who thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau haven't reported that Knox's written note to the police has been excluded from the evidence. I'm sure they would have done, if this was the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
Well, Machine, I don't think it matters if the defence agrees or not, as to the decision of the independent experts. Their decision is for the Judge and Jury. Right?

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:51 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
stilicho wrote:
Catnip's summary makes no reference to exclusion of the "memorial".


On a quick initial skim, I do remember seeing a couple of articles saying the"memorials" (plural) were in, but whether that was in early reports only, or some misunderstanding on my part (or the reporters'), is still to be truffled out.

Certainly, no article I've seen so far specifically says they have been excluded; however I have another pile of articles (some of them lengthy) on my to-do list still to trawl through. There might be a mention in one of those. But Bertoldi's article a day later (see Yummi and Jools' posts) doesn't mention it either. So maybe some wires got crossed somewhere.

Anyway, the main news items seems to have been re-opening the DNA lab files, and, secondly, to a lesser extent, clarifying the buses/no buses issue (actually, phrasing the second one like that, does make it sound rather weak and trivial, like a grasping at straws).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Is not excluded because it is a witness statement, she was being heard as a person informed of the facts. This the first time she implicated Patrick:


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
The Bard wrote:
Piktor, I forgot to say thank you for posting that beautiful painting! It cheered me up to see the sunshine and the beautiful colours!

Is it just me that misses Piktor's pictorial satires here?


Thank you, Bard, for your kind words.

I also miss the parade of fools exposed in all their shrill buffoonery garb and ridiculous posing.

Time to get to work on a Special Pre-Xmas Turkey Parade. nw) huh-) surp-) wh-) br-))


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:22 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
Donnie,
Glad you're OK. Condolences to the victims and friends and families.


Bard,
Nocturnal, yes.
Possum on the roof now (11pm), going for a stroll (a "passeggiata").
This morning she got into an agitated argument with an over-amorous paramour - much quiet throaty hissing and gurgling, like a baritone cat-spat, and then flumpff! into the peach tree, waking me from a dream where I almost understood what the TV grizzling wino-grouch in the park was trying to say. Made me think that the mediaeval fables were animals spoke may not have been far off the mark.


Piktor:
Almost a Manet, that sailing scene by the sandy-shored sea under the sun!



Troll report:
Remember the post where I mentioned lack of troll signs? And then a K-type bandersnatch flounced in (and out)*, almost on cue? Well, the Full Moon again. It's almost not a surprise any more.

*With a disappointingly watered-down tea of a line of reasoning, admitedly. Perhaps the carbon-paper is starting to wear out a bit. The lacklustre bluster seemed more listless than anything else. Must be all the mask-juggling. I wish I could type that fast, though.

P.S. The K's mention of snarks was entirely out-of-context, misquoting Lewis Carroll, and completely inappropriate, metaphorically. From which I conclude the K does not know his bat from his belfrey, or "The Hunting of the Snark" from a Boojum Tree:

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."

The crew was complete: it included a Boots--
A maker of Bonnets and Hoods--
A Barrister, brought to arrange their disputes--
And a Broker, to value their goods.

A Billiard-maker, whose skill was immense,
Might perhaps have won more than his share--
But a Banker, engaged at enormous expense,
Had the whole of their cash in his care.

etc


OT:
You leave the planet for a bit and come back and what do you find?
You'd almost think it was Mars or something.


People "Armed with glow sticks and guided by moonlight" are doing the short Bundeena - Wattamolla 10km bushwalk in the Royal National Park, at night, "only during the summer months on the full moon." It's a sunset-to-dawn trek, with food, lessons in night photography and the cultural significance of the land, and a sleep on the beach included.


--- "Moon's up - anyone fancy a bushwalk?"
Ellie Harvey
20 December 2010
[SMH]

Some photos in the [Gallery]



Jon Reid's Glow sticks and the moon light their way.
SMH



Eastern Australia will see a lunar eclipse tomorrow night:

"The eclipse, which coincides with the summer solstice, will be in full swing by the time the moon rises tomorrow night."

--- "There's a blood moon on the rise"
Carl Holm
[ABC News] Australia



And it's been snowing just down the road. In the middle of summer!

--- "Summer snow falls in SE Australia"
[ABC News] Australia


Last edited by Catnip on Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
capealadin wrote:
And, hoping that all the animals are warm and cozy, in this awful weather. bu-)


Thanks, Cape. r-((

The zoo here at PMF is an all-terrain, all-weather, time-tested bunch of wise and cantankerous stiffs. What's a few days of cold weather, anyway. Mungo leads by example. bu-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
Piktor, I take umbrage at being called * a cantankerous stiff *.. Oh, I don't think you meant meeeee :) :)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
Catnip: How dare you! Posting such an amazingly brilliant post, upping the bar still further...And the poem ... Still mulling the meaning of Bandersnatch. The snatch part, I get :)

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
Now, I find this VERY interesting. I hadn't seen it before, or if I did, I missed the significance. Chris C. has posted a portion of * In Rudy's own words*.

Here's the part that is striking. " How could have Amanda taken a shower * WITH ALL THAT BLOOD, IN THE BATHROOM, AND IN THE CORRIDOR?*

From the pictures I've seen, there wasn't that much blood, in the bathroom or the corridor. So, that's what it must have looked like when Rudy left, and BEFORE THE CLEANUP, by AMANDA and RAFF.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
Jools wrote:
Is not excluded because it is a witness statement, she was being heard as a person informed of the facts. This the first time she implicated Patrick:

Hello,

Your post included this:



"Implicated" is putting it mildly. I see that Knox claims that "Patrick had sex the Meredith with whom he was infatuated". That's in addition to her "vaguely remember[ing] that he killed her".

Damn! This is news to me.

N.


Last edited by norbertc on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Unbelievable.......Keith Miller, NBC News; "the Judges in Perugia have ordered a complete review of all the forensic evidence".

"This is in effect a whole new trial ".

Que ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Suffolk, UK
Thanks for the replies. Knox's apparent vagueness (in her early statements and written note) about what happened on the night of the murder, whether she was in the flat, who else was there and who exactly killed Meredith, must surely be significant evidence that the court should take into account.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
stilicho wrote:
Underhill wrote:
However, there have been a few mentions, in recent posts here, that the court may have ruled out the voluntary written statement made by Knox after her questioning by police. If this were excluded, the court would presumably not be able to take account of the fact that she placed herself at the crimescene and accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder. This is surely an important element of the evidence available to the court and I can't see how justice would be served by omitting it. Does anyone know definitively what the ruling is on this, please?


Welcome back Underhill.

The only reference I found to the omission of (presumably) the "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007 was in that local Seattle media story posted above by Tara. I do know that Chris Mellas frequently used to argue that it would be excluded at the first trial but it wasn't.

To be a little clearer about its importance, that "memorial" contains no reference to the physical assaults that Knox later claimed at the hands of the police, and it did not literally place her at the cottage at the time of Meredith's murder. Instead, it contains the important reference to the inadmissible statements she had signed overnight.

This "memorial" also contains a very different version of events than she had outlined in her 04 NOV 2007 email to all and sundry.

There's reason to suspect that the Seattle media got the story a little mixed up. The "memorial" was not prepared just after Meredith's murder but a full four days later. One reason to suspect that the story is incorrect is that her testimony from the first trial was not described as being excluded and a substantial portion of the questioning concerned items in that "memorial".

Catnip's summary makes no reference to exclusion of the "memorial".


_______________

stilicho,

Thanks for the link to the mathematical "proof" that Amanda is innocent, or virtually innocent. Proof So that settles this contovesial issue once and for all.

By the way, in Amanda's hand-written Memorial of November 6 she does mention being smacked by the cops.

///


Last edited by fine on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
capealadin wrote:
Piktor, I take umbrage at being called * a cantankerous stiff *.. Oh, I don't think you meant meeeee :) :)


Do not umbrage your beautiful mind. I would have included "stiffettes" for that purpose. bu-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
CBS THE EARLY SHOW report from this morning. There are two videos - nothing new. Edda says now that Amanda Knox is feeling a "little better".

CBS THE EARLY SHOW

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Edda Mellas on THE TODAY SHOW this morning:

THE TODAY SHOW

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
GOOD MORNING AMERICA's morning report - Steve Moore weighing in, Ted Simon (no mention of memorial being tossed) and of course, Edda Mellas:

GOOD MORNING AMERICA

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
WOT???

" I vaguely remember that he killed her"

I'd missed that somehow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Horrible lying cow. She really would have let him go to prison instead of her, wouldn't she?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Good.

Nick Pisa reporting:
Quote:
Knox verdict 'will stand despite review' By Nick Pisa

Prosecutors in Italy are confident that Amanda Knox, 23, who is serving 26 years for the killing of Meredith Kercher, a British student, will stay in jail despite a judge ordering a review of the case's DNA evidence.

Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor in the trial, said on Sunday that the review was a waste of time.

"It was granted because the jury needed help to interpret the findings as they are difficult to understand."

"I don't see how it is a victory for the defence," he said, "as the methods of collection were not criticized in the ruling.

"The review will confirm the sentence and the verdict will stand."...


More here:

WINDSOR STAR

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2225
bucketoftea wrote:
Horrible lying cow. She really would have let him go to prison instead of her, wouldn't she?


Amanda Knox is a sadistic sex killer. She would have no qualms about ruining the lives of Diya Lumumba, his wife and his child or the lives of the police officers who questioned her on 5 November 2007.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
I still don't understand how this newest ruling helps Amanda. Seems to me Raffaele is the only one to benefit.

Even IF the knife and bra are excluded as evidence, there is ample mixed DNA of Amanda and Meredith at the apartment. DNA which could only be linked to the crime.

I watched Edda's media tour this morning. It's all BS, and obviously the questions were scripted. Edda really didn't need to be present for any but the first. Editors could have deftly handled the presentation. Not one single mention of the Kerchers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
The Machine wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
Horrible lying cow. She really would have let him go to prison instead of her, wouldn't she?


Amanda Knox is a sadistic sex killer. She would have no qualms about ruining the lives of Diya Lumumba, his wife and his child or the lives of the police officers who questioned her on 5 November 2007.


Well, she's definitely a lying sack of shit. Don't know if was a sex murder or if the staging made it look that way (to implicate the Black Guy); but it was murder. (There's a credible British forensics expert who believes the latter theory - bra possibly removed after death.)

Hey, it's all in the hands of the appeals court now. I can howl about the evil in the world all I want, but it won't help. Ideas without action ... and all that.

Does anyone know what languages Rudy can read? You never really know anyone; maybe the right words together with the postmark will make a small impression.

.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Bard wrote:
Piktor, I forgot to say thank you for posting that beautiful painting! It cheered me up to see the sunshine and the beautiful colours!

Is it just me that misses Piktor's pictorial satires here? We haven't had a Lady Preston for ages! I'd love to see her latest dress, personally. Or maybe something special for Mary H, who seems to be going pretty much off the scale on the depths she will stoop to on JREF. Poor Mary doesn't like being caught out. She's gone all hurt and offended. She knows everyone hates her (well done!) and doesn't want to be lectured about mental health or the homeless. Apparently spreading ignorance 'doesn't matter' and has no effect whatsoever on the real world. Curatolo doesn't care if she insults him. That's right Mary, he's just a bum isn't he, a homeless lunatic, a 'simpleton'. She won't mind if we call her a vicious old witch then, will she. Besides, she suffers from a mental illness, so we can say what we like about her. Her opinion is worth nothing, and she is not worth listening to. It really doesn't matter what she says from now on in. She's lost all credibilty. But it doesn't stop her whining about the unfairness of it all when Quadra calls her out on it.

Shame on you Mary H8. You twisted that argument right round and you know you did. Quad called you on it. Pfft. Now you're whining.



It seems she loves to give them, though. On nearly any subject.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
bucketoftea wrote:
WOT???

" I vaguely remember that he killed her"

I'd missed that somehow.


How can you vaguely remember that someone was murdered when nearby ? I'd probably put that up there with things that would remain in my memory for the rest of my life.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
stilicho wrote:
zorba wrote:
I shouldn't even bother putting this here but I warn, to be read at own risk,

Kompost-Know-It-All who can't even get the date right

http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_ ... _internet/


It makes for worthwhile reading. K----- makes a sophomoric error using simple probability of independent events to create a "logical" reason for excluding Knox and Sollecito from involvement in this murder.

His biggest mistake is using the P {P|X} probability equation to arrive at a firm conclusion. That elementary probability calculation is useful in helping to determine odds when rolling dice or the expected return by placing your best-selling soap at eye-level in your shop. It's entirely inadequate to assess guilt or innocence in a murder case.

He also decouples the evidence outside the locked room from that contained inside. That's because he inaccurately maintains that only Guede's evidence counts because it was inside the locked room. Sollecito's DNA doesn't count because it's "too small" and nothing outside Meredith's room counts at all.

That entry is a worthwhile exercise in showing how clever people can arrive at bad conclusions by using the wrong tools to make a decision. It's also worthwhile to note that he urges other posters to donate to Amanda's defense fund. No reason is provided.



He also recommends that "wonderful" site Injustice in Perugia. Why does he need to hang around here, then? Like all the other fervent believers in the cause, he needs somewhere to go for information instead of propaganda. I just don't understand why these people spend half of their time drinking from the fountain of information here and the rest of their time spitting in it. They personify what Hegel called the unhappy consciousness.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
zorba wrote:
Hello I'm new to the case my name is Georgio Sconvolta, my mother's mother's mother's granddad was Italian, ole. As yet I have no opinion but I have seen that girl aged 5 cuddling the bambino so she cannot be the 1, excuse my poor English I've only been living in America all my life (aged 73).
I have been to her house and everyone was just wonderful, Mr Stefano Moore was sat at the end of the sofa doing a stand-up show and we threw coins into Mr Mellas' cap, not the Sunday best one but the other one with the greasy inner lining. It's not true what they say about the gentlemano Girlanda, he has three kids and wears nice suits, I'm not just saying this because I am a salesman for Brylcreem but I should not say too much moore, sorry I meant more, we are all independent, excuse my English I've only been studying it 5 years as mother used to beat, how you say, mi ha picchiato con un pezzo di legno, excuse my English and made me work from the age of 6, but she's in a home now, never mind.

This is funny. Truly. LOL


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

I also found it sad, in rereading Doug Preston's very telling comment that he begins by saying he is "most disturbed" by the people he calls anti-Amanda. Really? 'Cuz I am most disturbed by the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher and secondly by unprecedented attempts to misinform the public. Next to Meredith's death, the rest is noise. Just noise.


I have to tell you ConstableJohn and Lady Preston stylistically sound very much alike.

Preston pops up pontificating about whatever and ConstableJohn disappears from JREF.

Preston disappears and up pops ConstableJohn from his "9 hour drive" from wherever, tired and whatever, ready again to pompousificate at his JREF post.



Yes, I have long been convinced of a strong connection between the two of them. When LongJohns started posting here, he sounded like a one-dimensional fictional creation of Preston's. And LJ's protests whenever the connection is mentioned are much too much. They hit a nerve. As for Preston, his obsession with "the anti-Amanda witch hunt" is the result of a bad case of narcissism, exacerbated by his inflated ego. He offers great material for the caricaturist.:)

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Suffolk, UK
smacker wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
WOT???

" I vaguely remember that he killed her"

I'd missed that somehow.


How can you vaguely remember that someone was murdered when nearby ? I'd probably put that up there with things that would remain in my memory for the rest of my life.


I have great respect for the Italian justice system, but I'm sorry it allows Knox to avoid being cross-examined about statements like this.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Underhill wrote:
smacker wrote:
bucketoftea wrote:
WOT???

" I vaguely remember that he killed her"

I'd missed that somehow.


How can you vaguely remember that someone was murdered when nearby ? I'd probably put that up there with things that would remain in my memory for the rest of my life.


I have great respect for the Italian justice system, but I'm sorry it allows Knox to avoid being cross-examined about statements like this.


But then again, if each of the lovebirds prefers to maintain silence throughout the proceedings then it 'says' a lot. Just remember that when AK did open her gob back in the trial she did nothing put damage herself. Since she can't trust herself to get the story right she has to keep her mouth shut. If I was innocent I certainly wouldn't be keeping my mouth shut.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
stilicho wrote:
***
Not a mention of the elements of the staged break-in that are not been re-evaluated.

It is significant that there is no re-visit on this. Staging a burglary is not just one of the things used to prove the murder, it is a separate charge which does not require that a person also have participated in the murder. Let's suspend disbelief a moment. Suppose AK and RS had not been present during the murder, having ducked out briefly to get more drugs, but returned to discover the body. Suppose they thought they would be suspects because they had let Rudy in and feared they would be blamed, so they staged the burglary to divert suspicion from themselves. In this hypothetical situation, they are still guilty of staging a burglary even if they didn't otherwise participate in the crime.

So. What to make out of the fact that no further evaluation will be made of this. This seems like the easiest of the charges to prove and the most difficult to defend. It is a recognized phenomenon in criminal investigations and the defense expert was less than persuasive. I don't see how the court would reverse the judgment on this issue given the state of the record.

It seems to me that these rulings reflect that the jury is familiar with the at least the major elements of the dossier, Massei, and may well have read the entire testimony. How else do you decide further testing on two items, or review of procedures employed if testing is not possible, unless you are fairly familiar with the evidence.

Defense criticized the way the dna was collected from the bidet, but there will be no review of that evidence--or of any other of the mixed blood/dna evidence--only the knife and the bra clasp. If their inclination were to think there is reasonable doubt, there is plenty of defense expert testimony to hang that hat on. That only two of the exhibits will be studied shows that they do not question the work of the scientific police as a whole.

I see evidence of a pattern of sorts in these rulings. From my own experience, I firmly believe that Hellman has not made up his mind on the final outcome. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what he thinks he will do with the case. He clearly knows the case, and I think he knows if there are areas in Massei's reasoning that have vulnerabilities. I think he knows whether the prosecution's case is a house of cards, or if it is a good case with some curable cosmetic flaws.

To me, the rulings look like a judge who was reviewed the case, thinks it is fundamentally sound, and believes it will be backed up by unbiased expert opinion--and if it doesn't, will assess the what impact that has on the case. The issue with respect to the scientific police is not that they were biased in the sense of falsifying evidence to wrongfully convict, but the video of the crime scene investigation showed non-textbook acts, and they failed to collect and correctly bag the bra clasp at the beginning, and thereby giving an opening for the defense to claim the dna evidence is suspect. There is a reason why teachers don’t let students grade their own papers, I think that is behind Hellman’s decision to seek an unbiased review of these two items.


Last edited by TomM on Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
smacker wrote:
But then again, if each of the lovebirds prefers to maintain silence throughout the proceedings then it 'says' a lot. Just remember that when AK did open her gob back in the trial she did nothing put damage herself. Since she can't trust herself to get the story right she has to keep her mouth shut. If I was innocent I certainly wouldn't be keeping my mouth shut.


Amanda giggled the question of whether she owed Patrick an apology; NEVER offering one even in that perfect opportunity.

Now, 3 years after the heinous crimes she committed, Amanda decides to acknowledge them? It rings hollow and forced, made necessary by the poignant statements of John Kercher.

This latest media blitz since the appeal began is disgusting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Sconvolgente!
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
zorba wrote:
Hello I'm new to the case my name is Georgio Sconvolta, my mother's mother's mother's granddad was Italian, ole. As yet I have no opinion but I have seen that girl aged 5 cuddling the bambino so she cannot be the 1, excuse my poor English I've only been living in America all my life (aged 73).
I have been to her house and everyone was just wonderful, Mr Stefano Moore was sat at the end of the sofa doing a stand-up show and we threw coins into Mr Mellas' cap, not the Sunday best one but the other one with the greasy inner lining. It's not true what they say about the gentlemano Girlanda, he has three kids and wears nice suits, I'm not just saying this because I am a salesman for Brylcreem but I should not say too much moore, sorry I meant more, we are all independent, excuse my English I've only been studying it 5 years as mother used to beat, how you say, mi ha picchiato con un pezzo di legno, excuse my English and made me work from the age of 6, but she's in a home now, never mind.




Ehhhhh Ciao, Sig. Sconvolto!
You speak the truth.

In crime room, Stefano Moore say there's a... pastafa-ZOO... of evidences against The Rude boy.

Also, the English newspapers pours the Sauce of Puttanesca all over Amandi. n-((

That Rocco G., for Amandi, he's like a Rocko Star. wor-))

You did make one mistake, not grande grande mistake, Giorgio, only piccolo, piccolo, piccolo mistake....Rocco has FIVE bambini, not three.

He and the moglie, they are like bu-) bu-) when they hump-).

Here's Christmas card photo of the FIVE INVISIBLE bambini Girlandas, normally hidden from the world.



Tanti Saluti alla Mamma!

Vostro(!) Amico,
Signor Ben Venuto
Tiramisù, New Jersey
United States of AMANDA!!! co-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Emerald wrote:
smacker wrote:
But then again, if each of the lovebirds prefers to maintain silence throughout the proceedings then it 'says' a lot. Just remember that when AK did open her gob back in the trial she did nothing put damage herself. Since she can't trust herself to get the story right she has to keep her mouth shut. If I was innocent I certainly wouldn't be keeping my mouth shut.


Amanda giggled the question of whether she owed Patrick an apology; NEVER offering one even in that perfect opportunity.

Now, 3 years after the heinous crimes she committed, Amanda decides to acknowledge them? It rings hollow and forced, made necessary by the poignant statements of John Kercher.

This latest media blitz since the appeal began is disgusting.


Just when you thought the media could not be more inaccurate they have exceeded themselves by a considerable distance. Keith Miller of NBC news was in Perugia during the latest Appeal session and got everything wrong. He failed to mention the impact that Rudy's lost 2nd appeal would have on AK/RS and the confirmation that Rome had decided that all 3 were involved in the murder. That in fact says to me that what the Appeals judge really wants by ordering re-testing on the knife and bra clasp is pacification of the defence on their major gripes. He's given no ground on any of the other damning evidence so I can't see the re-testing as anything other than a token administrative exercise.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
The Bard wrote:
Quote:
To be honest, British stiff upper lip and Blitz spirit aside, thinks are pretty rough here. Poor Mr Bard is still in excruciating pain, and the horse strength pain-killers seem to be weakening in efficacy. Food supplies running low (seriously!) and we have run out of beer. Can't get out of the house due to snow. To raise morale I have raided the Christmas champagne supplies, since it looks like Christmas is cancelled. It's like the last days of the Reich here. All hope abandoned, Young Bard in a slough of despond, and Mungo weeping as he can't get the handle right on his hay basket. He is on the point of giving up and eating it.

So, no idea what the future holds. Will Mr Bard ever get better, or is this it? Will we starve? Or will the next snowfall, forecast for today, see us entombed forever? How long can a teenage boy survive on rice and tuna before his kills his parents? Who knows.

So things not good Hammer. The country is in
lock down. And the fam are slowly going mad...


Oh dear oh dear. Planned trip to London together with my daughter for various carefully arranged meetings cancelled due to Eurostar not understanding about snow. As my daughter said, trains in Russia can deal with it so what's the matter with ours? Three inches of snow causing major international catastrophe complete with mob scenes at stations and airports. Cell phone inundated with text messages from Eurostar pleading with passengers not to show up.

But - at least we have food!!! Off to make an experimental sausage-egg-pasta casserole right now. I wish I could send it over to you, Bard and family! You are in my thoughts as I sulk (considering that I'm supposed to be in a wonderful restaurant with interesting people in London in half an hour from now...)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
‘Guede, no stone unturned to prove my innocence’

After confirms conviction for murder Meredith: 20 Dec, 18: 22

(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 20 Dec-‘Asks its defenders of '' leave no stone unturned ' nothing ' to prove his estraneita ' murder of Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede whereby the Cassation confirmed definitively sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.
The Ivorian met today attorneys Walter Biscuits and Nicodemus Gentile in the prison of Viterbo where it is held by three years. '' I ask you to practice every possible path '' said Guede lawyers. According to the calculations of its defenders stops serve their sentence between nine years but after atoned the meta ' could begin to receive permits.’ (Google Trans)(ANSA)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
DLW wrote:
‘Guede, no stone unturned to prove my innocence’

After confirms conviction for murder Meredith: 20 Dec, 18: 22

(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 20 Dec-‘Asks its defenders of '' leave no stone unturned ' nothing ' to prove his estraneita ' murder of Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede whereby the Cassation confirmed definitively sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.
The Ivorian met today attorneys Walter Biscuits and Nicodemus Gentile in the prison of Viterbo where it is held by three years. '' I ask you to practice every possible path '' said Guede lawyers. According to the calculations of its defenders stops serve their sentence between nine years but after atoned the meta ' could begin to receive permits.’ (Google Trans)(ANSA)


Well, our 'friend' Rudy had better oil his vocal chords in readiness for a solo singing performance at a frescoed court room in Perugia then.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 516
TomM wrote:
stilicho wrote:
***
Not a mention of the elements of the staged break-in that are not been re-evaluated.

It is significant that there is no re-visit on this. Staging a burglary is not just one of the things used to prove the murder, it is a separate charge which does not require that a person also have participated in the murder. Let's suspend disbelief a moment. Suppose AK and RS had not been present during the murder, having ducked out briefly to get more drugs, but returned to discover the body. Suppose they thought they would be suspects because they had let Rudy in and feared they would be blamed, so they staged the burglary to divert suspicion from themselves. In this hypothetical situation, they are still guilty of staging a burglary even if they didn't otherwise participate in the crime.

So. What to make out of the fact that no further evaluation will be made of this. This seems like the easiest of the charges to prove and the most difficult to defend. It is a recognized phenomenon in criminal investigations and the defense expert was less than persuasive. I don't see how the court would reverse the judgment on this issue given the state of the record.

It seems to me that these rulings reflect that the jury is familiar with the at least the major elements of the dossier, Massei, and may well have read the entire testimony. How else do you decide further testing on two items, or review of procedures employed if testing is not possible, unless you are fairly familiar with the evidence.

Defense criticized the way the dna was collected from the bidet, but there will be no review of that evidence--or of any other of the mixed blood/dna evidence--only the knife and the bra clasp. If their inclination were to think there is reasonable doubt, there is plenty of defense expert testimony to hang that hat on. That only two of the exhibits will be studied shows that they do not question the work of the scientific police as a whole.

I see evidence of a pattern of sorts in these rulings. From my own experience, I firmly believe that Hellman has not made up his mind on the final outcome. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what he thinks he will do with the case. He clearly knows the case, and I think he knows if there are areas in Massei's reasoning that have vulnerabilities. I think he knows whether the prosecution's case is a house of cards, or if it is a good case with some curable cosmetic flaws.

To me, the rulings look like a judge who was reviewed the case, thinks it is fundamentally sound, and believes it will be backed up by unbiased expert opinion--and if it doesn't, will assess the what impact that has on the case. The issue with respect to the scientific police is not that they were biased in the sense of falsifying evidence to wrongfully convict, but the video of the crime scene investigation showed non-textbook acts, and they failed to collect and correctly bag the bra clasp at the beginning, and thereby giving an opening for the defense to claim the dna evidence is suspect. There is a reason why teachers don’t let students grade their own papers, I think that is behind Hellman’s decision to seek an unbiased review of these two items.


Hello Tom,

I concur in general with your observations but you stated it so much better than I could have.

It also occurred to me that Hellman is mindful of tying off loose ends in this process; ensuring that at the conclusion of this trial there will be little grounds available to risk this court’s decision being overturned on second appeal.

H


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:42 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Israel
Underhill wrote:
Thanks for the replies. Knox's apparent vagueness (in her early statements and written note) about what happened on the night of the murder, whether she was in the flat, who else was there and who exactly killed Meredith, must surely be significant evidence that the court should take into account.



Which parts did you find vague?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm
Posts: 918
Location: N.C., USA
Highscores: 13
lisareik wrote:
Underhill wrote:
Thanks for the replies. Knox's apparent vagueness (in her early statements and written note) about what happened on the night of the murder, whether she was in the flat, who else was there and who exactly killed Meredith, must surely be significant evidence that the court should take into account.



Which parts did you find vague?


Maybe contradictory, lies, or attempts to mislead the investigation might be a better way of wording that sort of question?!?!? cr-))


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:53 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
smacker wrote:
DLW wrote:
‘Guede, no stone unturned to prove my innocence’

After confirms conviction for murder Meredith: 20 Dec, 18: 22

(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 20 Dec-‘Asks its defenders of '' leave no stone unturned ' nothing ' to prove his estraneita ' murder of Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede whereby the Cassation confirmed definitively sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.
The Ivorian met today attorneys Walter Biscuits and Nicodemus Gentile in the prison of Viterbo where it is held by three years. '' I ask you to practice every possible path '' said Guede lawyers. According to the calculations of its defenders stops serve their sentence between nine years but after atoned the meta ' could begin to receive permits.’ (Google Trans)(ANSA)


Well, our 'friend' Rudy had better oil his vocal chords in readiness for a solo singing performance at a frescoed court room in Perugia then.


I don't get it. Even if he didn't participate in the murder(which is higly unlikely), he still was there for the whole time, he didn't help Meredith, he didn't call for help, he didn't call an ambulance and didn't raise the alarm, he fled to another country, but first he went to a disco. On exactly which level he is innocent? What he's trying to prove?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
DLW wrote:
‘Guede, no stone unturned to prove my innocence’

After confirms conviction for murder Meredith: 20 Dec, 18: 22

(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 20 Dec-‘Asks its defenders of '' leave no stone unturned ' nothing ' to prove his estraneita ' murder of Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede whereby the Cassation confirmed definitively sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.
The Ivorian met today attorneys Walter Biscuits and Nicodemus Gentile in the prison of Viterbo where it is held by three years. '' I ask you to practice every possible path '' said Guede lawyers. According to the calculations of its defenders stops serve their sentence between nine years but after atoned the meta ' could begin to receive permits.’ (Google Trans)(ANSA)



Maybe no stoner unturned would be more accurate. Here's what button, the best blogger on this case by a long shot, has to say about the most recent court session (her blog is the eclectic chapbook):

Quote:
The next time Amanda Knox
hits the bong, maybe she can bag a nun . . .

Knox appeared in court for Saturday's session, the outcome of which is being touted by cockeyed optimists as a huge triumph for Defense.

An outside, independent review of the forensic evidence, including the disputed DNA evidence, was granted. And the judge agreed to consider the possibility of additional testimony from two jailed criminals.

Yesterday, Andrea Vogt wrote up a good cheat sheet at TFP about which issues to expect in the upcoming proceedings, but I was too busy refilling my pantry to blog it. If you are unclear, it's worth checking for its crispy analysis.

Is a re-examination of the DNA forensic evidence going to make a crucial difference in the long run? No, I don't believe it will, because Drugs are at the center of this case, not DNA. In all likelihood, if Drugs had not been involved, the tragedy of Meredith Kercher's homicide would never have happened. Why are some people angry drunks? Some people have a couple of drinks and become congenial; others have a couple of drinks and become pugnacious.

Meanwhile, Knox is transmogrifying into a siliconized Hollywood icon, co-mingled with the likes of Mean Girls star Lindsay Lohan, whose ditzy misadventures are dutifully catalogued by starstruck teenyboppers all over the world. Lohan, it's been widely reported, has been in Drugs Rehab lately.

The next hearing is scheduled for January 15th.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: UK
OT OT - News from the Front Line

"Msg bgns:


Mumsy

My serch for new recrewts for PMF crak teem continews. This one did not make it lol. pwnd!!! Mungo xxx "



_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: UK
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
DLW wrote:
‘Guede, no stone unturned to prove my innocence’

After confirms conviction for murder Meredith: 20 Dec, 18: 22

(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 20 Dec-‘Asks its defenders of '' leave no stone unturned ' nothing ' to prove his estraneita ' murder of Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede whereby the Cassation confirmed definitively sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.
The Ivorian met today attorneys Walter Biscuits and Nicodemus Gentile in the prison of Viterbo where it is held by three years. '' I ask you to practice every possible path '' said Guede lawyers. According to the calculations of its defenders stops serve their sentence between nine years but after atoned the meta ' could begin to receive permits.’ (Google Trans)(ANSA)



Maybe no stoner unturned would be more accurate. Here's what button, the best blogger on this case by a long shot, has to say about the most recent court session (her blog is the eclectic chapbook):

Quote:
The next time Amanda Knox
hits the bong, maybe she can bag a nun . . .

Knox appeared in court for Saturday's session, the outcome of which is being touted by cockeyed optimists as a huge triumph for Defense.

An outside, independent review of the forensic evidence, including the disputed DNA evidence, was granted. And the judge agreed to consider the possibility of additional testimony from two jailed criminals.

Yesterday, Andrea Vogt wrote up a good cheat sheet at TFP about which issues to expect in the upcoming proceedings, but I was too busy refilling my pantry to blog it. If you are unclear, it's worth checking for its crispy analysis.

Is a re-examination of the DNA forensic evidence going to make a crucial difference in the long run? No, I don't believe it will, because Drugs are at the center of this case, not DNA. In all likelihood, if Drugs had not been involved, the tragedy of Meredith Kercher's homicide would never have happened. Why are some people angry drunks? Some people have a couple of drinks and become congenial; others have a couple of drinks and become pugnacious.

Meanwhile, Knox is transmogrifying into a siliconized Hollywood icon, co-mingled with the likes of Mean Girls star Lindsay Lohan, whose ditzy misadventures are dutifully catalogued by starstruck teenyboppers all over the world. Lohan, it's been widely reported, has been in Drugs Rehab lately.

The next hearing is scheduled for January 15th.


I like 'crispy analysis'! Nice. Eclectic is a great, wry commentator.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
Bard: "Maybe no stoner unturned would be more accurate. Here's what button, the best blogger on this case by a long shot, has to say about the most recent court session (her blog is the eclectic chapbook)"

I hadn't come across her before, thanks for the reference.
I like this earlier, on Amanda's opening act at the appeal:

"Amanda Knox began this session of her appeal process melodramatically by performing a very emotive 17-minute soliloquy from notes.

"The judges and jury showed no emotion." [Vogt]

But Francesco Maresca, the Kercher Family's lawyer, hadn't bought a ticket for this opera and walked out on it."

http://eclectchap.blogspot.com

Edit: My mistake, that was DLW referencing the blog.
(Am distracted by wonderfully cheesy mutant bear in Maine attacking people in cabins; it's time for the anti-holiday movies around here.)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
lauowolf wrote:
Bard: "Maybe no stoner unturned would be more accurate. Here's what button, the best blogger on this case by a long shot, has to say about the most recent court session (her blog is the eclectic chapbook)"

I hadn't come across her before, thanks for the reference.
I like this earlier, on Amanda's opening act at the appeal:

"Amanda Knox began this session of her appeal process melodramatically by performing a very emotive 17-minute soliloquy from notes.

"The judges and jury showed no emotion." [Vogt]

But Francesco Maresca, the Kercher Family's lawyer, hadn't bought a ticket for this opera and walked out on it."

http://eclectchap.blogspot.com

Edit: My mistake, that was DLW referencing the blog.(Am distracted by wonderfully cheesy mutant bear in Maine attacking people in cabins; it's time for the anti-holiday movies around here.)


Actually, it was me. But coincidentally, it was DLW who introduced me to button's blog three years ago. I generally post button's comments about the case here. You must have missed them prior to today.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2225
There's a new piece about the DNA evidence on TJMK:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
I forgot to post this article yesterday. From CU:

*Sollecito’s family returns to hope*

"Now is a really good Christmas." This was said by Raffaele Sollecito sister, as the third hearing session of the appeals ended, which sees the young man accused of killing Meredith Kercher, along with Amanda Knox. The partial reopening of the trial was greeted with joy by the family of the young man from Puglia: finally, after so long, for them this is a positive sign, especially important after the verdict by which the Supreme Court confirmed the sentence (to 16 years) of the other accused of the murder in Via della Pergola, Rudy Guede. A decision that seems has put the seal of judgment on the thesis of “complicity” in the murder that, however, was committed by Rudy together with others.

But Francesco Sollecito, Raffaele's father and a known doctor, even after the Supreme Court pronouncement last Thursday does not give up hope. “That decision – he said yesterday – regardless of what has been said, it can’t affect this other trial. It has nothing to do with us. The Supreme Court believes in the thesis of complicity in the murder? Okay, is not the same as saying that it believes so of Amanda and Raffaele. Professor Sollecito goes further: "Not only that verdict is not negative for us, but give us room to play. Indeed makes reference on Rudy’s first verdict, whereas in Court of Assizes [AK/RS first trial] many aspects have been proven wrong. We have gone far beyond in respect of that pronouncement.” They are "very loosely assertions" that Francesco Sollecito wishes to deny. “Why will the principle of complicity makes immediately associate Rudy with my son and Knox? The fact that all three knew each other was never really proven. Rudy himself in court, when asked if the person he saw on the evening of the murder in the house on Via della Pergola was Raffaele, he said he didn’t recognize him. Not to mention the eye-witnesses that do deny to have seen Amanda and Raffaele enter or leave the house between 22 and 23...”.

It feels that for Francesco Sollecito there are many points left “unclear" from the first trial. Also the postal police tests done on his son's computer, aimed to ascertain whether there were interactions during the time consistent with Meredith’s death, continues to fuel strong doubts in him, even after the detailed report in which the PM Manuela Comodi laid out the prosecution’s opposition for a new computer test. But, even if in appeal appointing of a computer expert is not coming, based on what was decided yesterday, the turning point was with the admission of verifying the genetics.

Francesco Sollecito understands it, like his son’s defence. “Finally, after three years, the trial starts now,” commented as a matter of fact at the end of the hearing lawyer Luca Maori, explaining like this also the smile showing on Raffaele’s face. “I think - said Maori - the Court has finally understood what are the reasons which we are fighting from the start: to demonstrate the absolute innocence of Raffaele and his non involvement in the events.”

Alessandra Borghi

Quote:
Familiari di Sollecito Si torna a sperare
“Ora è davvero un buon Natale”. Così ha detto la sorella di Raffaele Sollecito, conclusa la terza udienza dell’appello che vede il giovane imputato per l’omicidio di Meredith Kercher, insieme ad Amanda Knox. La parziale riapertura del dibattimento è stata accolta con gioia dai famigliari del ragazzo pugliese: finalmente, dopo tanto, per loro un segnale positivo, importante soprattutto all’indomani della sentenza con cui la Cassazione ha confermato la condanna (a sedici anni) di un altro imputato dell’omicidio di via della Pergola, Rudy Guede. Una decisione che sembra aver posto il suggello del giudicato sulla tesi del “concorso” nel delitto, che, dunque, sarebbe stato compiuto da Rudy insieme ad altri. Ma Francesco Sollecito, padre di Raffaele e noto medico, anche dopo la pronuncia della Suprema Corte di giovedì scorso non si era perso d’animo. “Quella decisione - ha spiegato ieri -, a differenza di quanto è stato detto, non può incidere su quest’altro processo. Con noi non c’entra niente. La Cassazione crede nella tesi del concorso nell’omicidio? Ebbene, non equivale a dire che creda in quello di Amanda e Raffaele”. Il professore Sollecito si spinge oltre: “Non solo quella sentenza non è negativa per noi, ma a noi fa gioco. Infatti fa riferimento alla prima sentenza su Rudy, mentre in Corte d’assise molti aspetti sono stati smentiti. Noi siamo andati molto avanti rispetto a quella pronuncia”. Ci sono “affermazioni troppo facili” che Francesco Sollecito desidera smentire. “Perché il principio del concorso fa subito associare a Rudy mio figlio e la Knox? Il fatto che loro tre si conoscessero non è mai stato davvero provato. Rudy stesso in aula, quando gli fu chiesto se la persona da lui vista la sera del delitto nella casa di via della Pergola fosse Raffaele, ha detto che non lo riconosceva. Senza contare i testimoni oculari che negano di aver visto entrare o uscire Raffaele e Amanda dalla casa tra le 22 e le 23...”. Si sente che per Francesco Sollecito sono tanti i punti lasciati “oscuri” dal processo di primo grado. Anche la perizia della polizia postale sul computer del figlio, finalizzata ad appurare se ci siano state interazioni in orario compatibile con la morte di Meredith, continua ad alimentare forti perplessità in lui, anche dopo la dettagliata relazione con cui il pm Manuela Comodi ha esposto l’opposizione della pubblica accusa a una nuova perizia informatica. Ma, anche se alla nomina di un perito informatico in appello non si addiverrà, in base a quanto deciso ieri, la svolta c’è stata con l’ammissione dell’accertamento genetico. Francesco Sollecito lo sa, come i difensori del figlio. “F inalmente, dopo tre anni, comincia il processo ”, ha commentato infatti l’avvocato Luca Maori terminata l’udienza, spiegando così anche il sorriso comparso sul volto di Raffaele. “ Ritengo - ha detto Maori - che la c orte abbia finalmente capito quali siano le ragioni per le quali ci siamo battuti dal primo momento: dimostrare l’assoluta innocenza di Raffaele e la sua estraneità ai fatti ”
By:Alessandra Borghi/CU


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
TomM wrote:
stilicho wrote:
***
Not a mention of the elements of the staged break-in that are not been re-evaluated.

It is significant that there is no re-visit on this.

....

To me, the rulings look like a judge who was reviewed the case, thinks it is fundamentally sound, and believes it will be backed up by unbiased expert opinion--and if it doesn't, will assess the what impact that has on the case. The issue with respect to the scientific police is not that they were biased in the sense of falsifying evidence to wrongfully convict, but the video of the crime scene investigation showed non-textbook acts, and they failed to collect and correctly bag the bra clasp at the beginning, and thereby giving an opening for the defense to claim the dna evidence is suspect. There is a reason why teachers don’t let students grade their own papers, I think that is behind Hellman’s decision to seek an unbiased review of these two items.


Very well said and it's what I thought about but couldn't quite put into words.

@Fine: I stand corrected about the head slaps. These were manufactured by Knox in the memorial but were not present in either of the previous statements she signed.

@those who've found "In Rudy's Own Words":

Are we going to get a copy of the complete motivations of Guede's trial and appeals? If Guede told the court that there was plenty of blood in the corridor and the small bathroom when he left the cottage, and that's admissible against Knox and Sollecito, the effect would be devastating on the defence.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Suffolk, UK
lisareik wrote:
Underhill wrote:
Thanks for the replies. Knox's apparent vagueness (in her early statements and written note) about what happened on the night of the murder, whether she was in the flat, who else was there and who exactly killed Meredith, must surely be significant evidence that the court should take into account.



Which parts did you find vague?


I'm assuming the note is the same one published in the Telegraph back in 2007 (posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=71818). Here are some examples of things that I would call vague:

"I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else."
"I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him."
"I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much."
"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images."
"these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."
"In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

In fact there is very little that I wouldn't call "vague" in the whole thing. Er..it could almost read like someone who wants to keep their story as vague as possible until they have some idea of what the evidence is against them and what their partner in crime has said about them.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm
Posts: 918
Location: N.C., USA
Highscores: 13
Right. Vague on purpose.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Underhill wrote:
lisareik wrote:
Underhill wrote:
Thanks for the replies. Knox's apparent vagueness (in her early statements and written note) about what happened on the night of the murder, whether she was in the flat, who else was there and who exactly killed Meredith, must surely be significant evidence that the court should take into account.



Which parts did you find vague?


I'm assuming the note is the same one published in the Telegraph back in 2007 (posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=71818). Here are some examples of things that I would call vague:

"I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else."
"I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him."
"I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much."
"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images."
"these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."
"In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

In fact there is very little that I wouldn't call "vague" in the whole thing. Er..it could almost read like someone who wants to keep their story as vague as possible until they have some idea of what the evidence is against them and what their partner in crime has said about them.


Let's dispose of the niceties here. A murder is under investigation and this bullshit description of the night in question is a con job. So let's call a con job what it exactly is: a con job.

As a result of her bullshit con job she was put in jail for the duration.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Underhill wrote:
lisareik wrote:
Underhill wrote:

Which parts did you find vague?


Here are some examples of things that I would call vague:

(snipped for brevity in response)

In fact there is very little that I wouldn't call "vague" in the whole thing. Er..it could almost read like someone who wants to keep their story as vague as possible until they have some idea of what the evidence is against them and what their partner in crime has said about them.


Bingo...

You done went 'over the hill'...and done broke da' code (sp)

Reading her 'sentences' you correctly cite above...I just mutter after each "very cunning, Manders"


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Suffolk, UK
dgfred wrote:
Right. Vague on purpose.


Well, personally, if you asked about what I was doing 4 nights (is that right?) ago, I would be quite definitive about whether I was in my own house or not, whether I made love, whether I saw someone being murdered or not, etc, etc. So I'm inclined to be suspicious of someone who says they can't remember those things. But, then again, I've never had the stress of my flatmate being murdered and being questioned by police for...how many hours was it? (choose a number between 1 and 53)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
In any event, I'm sure Amanda didn't have to wait 4 days to tell the police what they did that night. They would have asked her on the 2nd of zNovember, as she and Raff were at the cottage, and she lived there. They would have asked her, where were you, last night and this morning.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
The Machine wrote:
There's a new piece about the DNA evidence on TJMK:

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


Excellent summary that warranted a comment!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
The Machine wrote:
There's a new piece about the DNA evidence on TJMK:

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

An accurate and precise report on the various DNA experts. Excellent article TM! tt-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Underhill wrote:
dgfred wrote:
Right. Vague on purpose.


Well, personally, if you asked about what I was doing 4 nights (is that right?) ago, I would be quite definitive about whether I was in my own house or not, whether I made love, whether I saw someone being murdered or not, etc, etc. So I'm inclined to be suspicious of someone who says they can't remember those things. But, then again, I've never had the stress of my flatmate being murdered and being questioned by police for...how many hours was it? (choose a number between 1 and 53)


The court and Massei also noticed the distinctions between the crystal clarity of Knox's 04 NOV 2007 email to all and sundry and the vague self-diagnosed "vision quest" she embarked on in the "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007. Knox was visibly uncomfortable talking about it during her court testimony and couldn't explain it. Nor did the defence summon any experts (apart from a generic drug expert who said that pot can cause memory loss) to validate her claims that she was experiencing any known psychological phenomenon.

In short, she was proved to be lying.

BTW: There are probably important events in your own life (birth of a child, 9/11, death of a loved one, an accident, etc) that you can remember very clearly even if they happened many years ago. I can tell you exactly where I was and even what I was eating for breakfast on the day of 11 SEP 2001 and I doubt I'm the only one. That's just one example. Our minds work that way. They prioritise events that have the greatest impact on our lives or on the patterns of our routines.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm
Posts: 918
Location: N.C., USA
Highscores: 13
Underhill wrote:
dgfred wrote:
Right. Vague on purpose.


Well, personally, if you asked about what I was doing 4 nights (is that right?) ago, I would be quite definitive about whether I was in my own house or not, whether I made love, whether I saw someone being murdered or not, etc, etc. So I'm inclined to be suspicious of someone who says they can't remember those things. But, then again, I've never had the stress of my flatmate being murdered and being questioned by police for...how many hours was it? (choose a number between 1 and 53)


Yeah, but I bet if we asked you about your 'hypothetical' flatmate that got murdered even a few YEARS in the past... you would remember EVERYTHING you were doing that night. Long hours or not!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Underhill wrote:
lisareik wrote:
Underhill wrote:
Thanks for the replies. Knox's apparent vagueness (in her early statements and written note) about what happened on the night of the murder, whether she was in the flat, who else was there and who exactly killed Meredith, must surely be significant evidence that the court should take into account.



Which parts did you find vague?


I'm assuming the note is the same one published in the Telegraph back in 2007 (posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=71818). Here are some examples of things that I would call vague:

"I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else."
"I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him."
"I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much."
"In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images."
"these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."
"In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

In fact there is very little that I wouldn't call "vague" in the whole thing. Er..it could almost read like someone who wants to keep their story as vague as possible until they have some idea of what the evidence is against them and what their partner in crime has said about them.


Imagine yourself as a parent questioning your college-aged kid about where they were and what they did the night before. I would not be accusing my daughter of being "vague" if she were giving me answers like this; I would be firmly demanding to know what she's trying to hide, and why.

It's quite obvious what was going on there, and furthermore, if someone is being seriously abused and wants it to stop they are not going to answer in such vague I-don't-know terms that would only serve to further irritate an abuser.

Amanda's statements are coyly evasive - not forced.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm
Posts: 208
Location: Southern USA
The Machine wrote:
There's a new piece about the DNA evidence on TJMK:

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


Comrade Machine,

I enjoyed reading your article on the DNA evidence being re-examined due to the recent court ruling. You did a fine, thorough job of explaining the immediate DNA evidence analysis situation. I would like to extend your perspective and suggest that the direct effect of the ruling, that a few pieces of DNA will be re-examined is not the key aspect of the ruling. In my opinion, the indirect effect of the ruling, that all the other DNA evidence is rock-solid and indisputable, is the most important aspect of the recent court ruling. There is more than enough of the indisputable DNA evidence available, especially the specimens containing a mixture of Ak47's and Miss Kercher's DNA to quickly re-convict the murderess. I am bewildered, however, that there will be a review of the DNA evidence on the bra clasp because so much of knife-boy's DNA was found on it. I can only think that this ruling was an act of kindness shown by the court towards his highly respected father who can't bear to believe that his stoner son committed such a horrible crime. As far as the knife blade crevice evidence goes, I still don't think it should have been considered, introduced into evidence, or accepted by the court because of the unapproved methodology used and lack of reproducibility. As the legendary biochemist, Efraim Racker once said: "Don't waste clean thinking on dirty enzymes."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I will be dragging my Dobsonian telescope out late tonight for the total eclipse on the winter solstice. You can see features on the Moon when the Earth's shadow flits across the surface during an eclipse that you can not see any other time.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
The Machine wrote:
There's a new piece about the DNA evidence on TJMK:

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


And here is Looney John's typically snarky double meaning entendre slur that he is so practiced at delivering against anyone and anything that opposes his pontifications from his 'high mod protected perch'. :roll:

LondonJohn
Master Poster
Posts: 2,059
There's a really good new piece up on TJMK - it's balanced and completely free of any form of confirmation bias, and well worth a read.
What's its title?
"The Limited DNA Reviews - Why They Probably Won’t Help Defense And May At A Stroke Be Game Over"
Enjoy!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6678373

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He makes me sick; tu-))

but his childish cheerleaders as well as *his* moderators apparently love it


Last edited by stint7 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Suffolk, UK
Fly by Night wrote:

Imagine yourself as a parent questioning your college-aged kid about where they were and what they did the night before. I would not be accusing my daughter of being "vague" if she were giving me answers like this; I would be firmly demanding to know what she's trying to hide, and why.

It's quite obvious what was going on there, and furthermore, if someone is being seriously abused and wants it to stop they are not going to answer in such vague I-don't-know terms that would only serve to further irritate an abuser.

Amanda's statements are coyly evasive - not forced.


Spot on! Yes, I've had those conversations with my daughters, and long before they reached college age!! Yes, it reads like a teenager who knows you've caught them out but isn't quite sure just just how much you know.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Tara wrote:
CBS THE EARLY SHOW report from this morning. There are two videos - nothing new. Edda says now that Amanda Knox is feeling a "little better".

CBS THE EARLY SHOW


Thx for the link, Tara

After watching it, I could not help wondering....

Does anyone else think CBS has the most honest and upstanding men of honor as producers who would not be influenced by Marriott's past employment there in reporting both sides of any story.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 503
Location: USA
Tara wrote:
GOOD MORNING AMERICA's morning report - Steve Moore weighing in, Ted Simon (no mention of memorial being tossed) and of course, Edda Mellas:

GOOD MORNING AMERICA

How can Edda say the kitchen knife doesn't match any of the wounds, "even according to the prosecution"? How does this woman lie so straight-facedly? How does she sleep at night???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
In that ABC news video, they say that Steve Moore has been following the case since Amanda's arrest.

??!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 158
Highscores: 1
thoughtful wrote:
In that ABC news video, they say that Steve Moore has been following the case since Amanda's arrest.

??!


Big shot Steve Moore probably confused the Foxy case with his older Hotsy case...



Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
thoughtful wrote:
In that ABC news video, they say that Steve Moore has been following the case since Amanda's arrest.

??!



Well, between bad US network coverage and Steve Moore's constant reinventions, there is a whole lot of room for error/misstatement.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2225
Earthling wrote:
Tara wrote:
GOOD MORNING AMERICA's morning report - Steve Moore weighing in, Ted Simon (no mention of memorial being tossed) and of course, Edda Mellas:

GOOD MORNING AMERICA

How can Edda say the kitchen knife doesn't match any of the wounds, "even according to the prosecution"? How does this woman lie so straight-facedly? How does she sleep at night???


Edda Mellas is a bare-faced liar who has lied repeatedly in order to manipulate and misinform the journalists she is speaking to.

Elizabeth Vargas erroneously claimed that the prosecutors never presented a motive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
I wonder why people keep coming back to motive? We all like a coherent story but it is really not relevant or important to anything IMO


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
Edda was just on Jane Valesquez show. Saying the usual, the knife chosen randomly from Raff, etc. John Q. Kelly, an attorney, and pro Amanda advocate, saying corruption, etc. Jane asks him" Say yes or no, will Amanda go free"? John answers " Yes". All very up beat. I wonder what's going to happen when the verdict is upheld? My feeling is * It ain't gonna be pretty*.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
capealadin wrote:
Edda was just on Jane Valesquez show. Saying the usual, the knife chosen randomly from Raff, etc. John Q. Kelly, an attorney, and pro Amanda advocate, saying corruption, etc. Jane asks him" Say yes or no, will Amanda go free"? John answers " Yes". All very up beat. I wonder what's going to happen when the verdict is upheld? My feeling is * It ain't gonna be pretty*.


Has it been discussed here as to what caused the Police to look through Biff's knife drawer at his apartment, and at what stage in the investigation ? If it's in the motivations report please yell at me and I'll go and find it.

Sorry for being a lazy #$%^.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
smacker wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Edda was just on Jane Valesquez show. Saying the usual, the knife chosen randomly from Raff, etc. John Q. Kelly, an attorney, and pro Amanda advocate, saying corruption, etc. Jane asks him" Say yes or no, will Amanda go free"? John answers " Yes". All very up beat. I wonder what's going to happen when the verdict is upheld? My feeling is * It ain't gonna be pretty*.


Has it been discussed here as to what caused the Police to look through Biff's knife drawer at his apartment, and at what stage in the investigation ? If it's in the motivations report please yell at me and I'll go and find it.

Sorry for being a lazy #$%^.



It was the only large sharp knife in the drawer so it wasn't selected as much as being in a universe of one of knives that should be examined which were in the possession of connected parties. The policeman who bagged it also commented that it was noticeably extremely clean.

_________________
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: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 214
In the Gallery (Crime Scene-Evidence page 3, row 7) there is a picture of "Raf's Cutlery Draw after police had removed the kitchen knife" posted by Michael. (The label is "Draw" not Drawer.) It shows the usual forks and spoons, some larger cooking spoons, etc., and some small steak-type knives,but is definitely not bristling with an array of other knives that could be thought of as confusing the issue of which knife would have been used as the weapon in the murder. It's not as if the police just randomly picked one of a group of large knives--the choice was obvious.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
so the Police decided to have a butchers in the cutlery drawer at Biff's because they were suspicious of his /their activities ? Were they suspects by that stage ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
SomeAlibi wrote:
smacker wrote:
capealadin wrote:
Edda was just on Jane Valesquez show. Saying the usual, the knife chosen randomly from Raff, etc. John Q. Kelly, an attorney, and pro Amanda advocate, saying corruption, etc. Jane asks him" Say yes or no, will Amanda go free"? John answers " Yes". All very up beat. I wonder what's going to happen when the verdict is upheld? My feeling is * It ain't gonna be pretty*.


Has it been discussed here as to what caused the Police to look through Biff's knife drawer at his apartment, and at what stage in the investigation ? If it's in the motivations report please yell at me and I'll go and find it.

Sorry for being a lazy #$%^.



It was the only large sharp knife in the drawer so it wasn't selected as much as being in a universe of one of knives that should be examined which were in the possession of connected parties. The policeman who bagged it also commented that it was noticeably extremely clean.


You should be tucked up in bed by now.......been sherberting ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: UK
smacker wrote:
so the Police decided to have a butchers in the cutlery drawer at Biff's because they were suspicious of his /their activities ? Were they suspects by that stage ?


Clearly, since they were found at the scene. It is hardly a random act.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: UK
Where has Michael got to?

I hope he's not poorly... cu-))

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm
Posts: 231
Location: US
smacker wrote:
so the Police decided to have a butchers in the cutlery drawer at Biff's because they were suspicious of his /their activities ? Were they suspects by that stage ?


I think the police were suspicious immediately when the discrepencies in their stories kept snowballing. The obvious break-in, their strange behavior - especially that of Amanda in the cottage, their phone records and taps - remember Raffaele's declaration of their being stupid cops and his carrying his knife about, and their general movements in the days following the murder. They weren't actually "suspects" of course until Raffaele refused to give Amanda an alibi and thus they accused each other (and Patrick) of involvement in Meredith's murder. oop-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
The Bard wrote:
smacker wrote:
so the Police decided to have a butchers in the cutlery drawer at Biff's because they were suspicious of his /their activities ? Were they suspects by that stage ?


Clearly, since they were found at the scene. It is hardly a random act.


Sorry Bard; wasn't intending to be dim and certainly not troll-like (although I may have succeeded) but you don't just suddenly decide to go rummaging around in someone's kitchen drawer on a whim. I'd missed that bit of detail, so apologies for being a tad useless.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: UK
Awww...sorry smacker, It just came out wrong! I am tippetty tapping on my little iTouch as I lie awake hour after hour! I have really bad insomnia, so tend to post at all hours, and just can't express stuff so well on this elf-sized keyboard. Nothing wrong with missing a detail in this incredibly detail laden and complex case! I seem to have forgotten tons of stuff over the last three years. It takes a while to get up to speed.

As I understand it, police are aware that statistically a murderer is likely to have known their victim. Hence in the verrrry early hours of a case they will be looking at the friends and family of the victim first and foremost. You need to come up with a solid alibi pretty sharpish, and no messing about. These two were a) friends of the victim b) on the crime scene c) acting strangely (kissing and cuddling outside, disappearing into AK's room to whisper together etc) In fact it was not just the police who had suspicions at this stage - I believe that friends of the two were so perturbed by their odd behaviour that the felt uncomfortable about giving them a lift to the police station in their car, and checked it afterwards to see if anything had been planted, IIRC.

I am sure that they became of interest before the odd behaviour rang alarm bells, simply because they were on the crime scene. But the bizarre antics certainly did not help. The sort of behaviour AK displayed in court leads one to understand the police's suspicions. AK does not react like a majority of people would, and constantly bewilders people with her strange ideas about what is and is not acceptable, or wise. I think Mad Pax was on the money when she described Knox as 'unusual'. Masterful understatement, having just watched her car wreck of a statement in court. I don't blame the police for their early suspicions at all!

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
The Bard wrote:
Awww...sorry smacker, It just came out wrong! I am tippetty tapping on my little iTouch as I lie awake hour after hour! I have really bad insomnia, so tend to post at all hours, and just can't express stuff so well on this elf-sized keyboard. Nothing wrong with missing a detail in this incredibly detail laden and complex case! I seem to have forgotten tons of stuff over the last three years. It takes a while to get up to speed.

As I understand it, police are aware that statistically a murderer is likely to have known their victim. Hence in the verrrry early hours of a case they will be looking at the friends and family of the victim first and foremost. You need to come up with a solid alibi pretty sharpish, and no messing about. These two were a) friends of the victim b) on the crime scene c) acting strangely (kissing and cuddling outside, disappearing into AK's room to whisper together etc) In fact it was not just the police who had suspicions at this stage - I believe that friends of the two were so perturbed by their odd behaviour that the felt uncomfortable about giving them a lift to the police station in their car, and checked it afterwards to see if anything had been planted, IIRC.

I am sure that they became of interest before the odd behaviour rang alarm bells, simply because they were on the crime scene. But the bizarre antics certainly did not help. The sort of behaviour AK displayed in court leads one to understand the police's suspicions. AK does not react like a majority of people would, and constantly bewilders people with her strange ideas about what is and is not acceptable, or wise. I think Mad Pax was on the money when she described Knox as 'unusual'. Masterful understatement, having just watched her car wreck of a statement in court. I don't blame the police for their early suspicions at all!


Bard,

No need to apologise; first time I've paid attention to something as detailed and tragic as this so I will probably cock a few things up as read here. My fault, honestly.

I knew about all the bizarre behaviour but hadn't considered how the Police would make (if you like) statistical considerations. I guess if you conclude it's a numbers game, once the alibis didn't work (should have thought of this) the knife drawer was target number 1. Doh.

BTW, been exchanging emails with a fellow west ham football supporter who has a shocking sciatic condition. I had the same which was rectified by surgery. Not sure if my experiences might help Mr Bard but feel free to ask away if you wish.
BBTW, insomnia........how do you function on minimal sleep ?
BBBTW, I hate my blackberry cos the keys are too small.
BBBBTW, hope your supplies issue rectifies itself soon. I couldn't imagine what it's like to run out of beer.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Bard,

Mad Pax.............this board has a way of finding names that just.............fit nicely.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: UK
Yes, the statistics bear it out I believe. Hence why the McCanns came under suspicion so quickly, and now this chap whose bride got shot in South Africa. That's another wierd one. It stands to reason though, given the rate of domestic violence, and family rows and general tensions between folks. Much more likely to be murdered by someone you know than a stranger. Which is a comforting thought at four in the morning.

You don't really survive on limited sleep very well tbh. Last time I went quite peculiar (more so than normal, yes). It's a bit like being permanently drunk after a while, and the world takes on a surreal, amusing quality, like being in a film. Memory loss is the worst thing. In the end I got some Ambien from the GP, which I was assured they prescribe to US fighter pilots. Don't ask me why my doctor thought this relevant! Anyway, it worked but I have run out. Trying instead to read Long Jaaahn's posts which usually have the same net result, and none of the side effects.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 269
TomM wrote:

Defense criticized the way the dna was collected from the bidet, but there will be no review of that evidence--or of any other of the mixed blood/dna evidence--only the knife and the bra clasp. If their inclination were to think there is reasonable doubt, there is plenty of defense expert testimony to hang that hat on. That only two of the exhibits will be studied shows that they do not question the work of the scientific police as a whole.


So, I'm curious what the strategy is behind the the defense & mellas' presence in Italy. Do they really think that if the knife and bra strap are thrown out, then they could make a case for sufficient doubt? Its hard to deny they've been pressing on this issue repeatedly in the US.. and since this is now obviously a long term effort, given their cheerleading for the independent review.. what really are they hoping to accomplish? Trying to forcibly put blinders on the public and the jury to ignore the mountains of other evidence?

Is there a stage two in their strategy for the final appeal - focusing on the admission of various statements and testimony?

They're attacking the attackable points and completely ignoring evidence that has stronger support.. can it really get them anywhere?

Pat


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
dgfred wrote:
Yeah, but I bet if we asked you about your 'hypothetical' flatmate that got murdered even a few YEARS in the past... you would remember EVERYTHING you were doing that night. Long hours or not!


When Amanda writes her inevitable book or screenplay, it will be remarkable how detailed it will be, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
pataz1 wrote:
TomM wrote:

Defense criticized the way the dna was collected from the bidet, but there will be no review of that evidence--or of any other of the mixed blood/dna evidence--only the knife and the bra clasp. If their inclination were to think there is reasonable doubt, there is plenty of defense expert testimony to hang that hat on. That only two of the exhibits will be studied shows that they do not question the work of the scientific police as a whole.


So, I'm curious what the strategy is behind the the defense & mellas' presence in Italy. Do they really think that if the knife and bra strap are thrown out, then they could make a case for sufficient doubt? Its hard to deny they've been pressing on this issue repeatedly in the US.. and since this is now obviously a long term effort, given their cheerleading for the independent review.. what really are they hoping to accomplish? Trying to forcibly put blinders on the public and the jury to ignore the mountains of other evidence?

Is there a stage two in their strategy for the final appeal - focusing on the admission of various statements and testimony?

They're attacking the attackable points and completely ignoring evidence that has stronger support.. can it really get them anywhere?

Pat


If you go back to the media reports from the trial, and even before that, you see the same jaunty attitude about the mass and quality of the evidence against Knox. By now it's obvious that the only reason for this is to finance the trips back and forth and to pay for the PR campaign. It's become an economy of its own, with "product" dispensed to the media and their reports used to help with fundraising.

None of the lawyers posting here have seen anything quite like it and I haven't either. Usually vicious sex killers' families tread lightly and try to avoid bringing attention to themselves. These people are made of different stuff.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
The DNA on the bra has not been refuted. Only the way it got there.

The knife with the double DNA could go either way.

In my own Universe, and I've been very vocal about this, the bra was tossed into the room by Amanda before she locked the bedroom door. I'm not convince it was worn that night by Meredith.

Amanda was there. No doubt about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
pataz1 wrote:
TomM wrote:

Defense criticized the way the dna was collected from the bidet, but there will be no review of that evidence--or of any other of the mixed blood/dna evidence--only the knife and the bra clasp. If their inclination were to think there is reasonable doubt, there is plenty of defense expert testimony to hang that hat on. That only two of the exhibits will be studied shows that they do not question the work of the scientific police as a whole.


So, I'm curious what the strategy is behind the the defense & mellas' presence in Italy. Do they really think that if the knife and bra strap are thrown out, then they could make a case for sufficient doubt? Its hard to deny they've been pressing on this issue repeatedly in the US.. and since this is now obviously a long term effort, given their cheerleading for the independent review.. what really are they hoping to accomplish? Trying to forcibly put blinders on the public and the jury to ignore the mountains of other evidence?

Is there a stage two in their strategy for the final appeal - focusing on the admission of various statements and testimony?

They're attacking the attackable points and completely ignoring evidence that has stronger support.. can it really get them anywhere?

Pat

My guess about the Knox family's reasoning and strategy:

  • Challenge what can be challenged now; there's some finite chance that the appeal will be successful ... so what's there to lose?
  • Go for "reasonable doubt" and, failing that, a sentence reduction.
  • No "true confessions" until after the Supreme Court appeal.
  • Act confident and pretend all the other evidence is irrelevant. This might help Knox longer-term when she's shipped back to the USA.



Just like Amanda can't stop herself from blabbering to the police and the court, Family Knox can't stop blabbering to the press.

Personally, I think the strategy is mistaken. Amanda's monologue delivered on December 12th was total bullshit and I think the jury knows it. How can there be a sentence reduction if all they hear are new lies - total denial with no remorse?

These are individuals with no moral compass and little sense of reality. Do whatever it takes. Do Mom & Dad know or suspect the truth about their daughter? Don't know ...

FWIW.


Last edited by norbertc on Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:30 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 604
Quick question guys... I know the innocentisti (sp?) think Rudy killed Meredith partly because he had to confront her to get out of the cottage (she had locked the front door with her keys). Is there any reason why he could not have gone out the window he supposedly came in? Does anyone know their take on that? Just curious...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Solange305 wrote:
Quick question guys... I know the innocentisti (sp?) think Rudy killed Meredith partly because he had to confront her to get out of the cottage (she had locked the front door with her keys). Is there any reason why he could not have gone out the window he supposedly came in? Does anyone know their take on that? Just curious...


There is no such thing as a coherent and consistent narrative where Guede is the lone assailant. None was offered by either defence team. None of the groupies have ever offered one either. The one failed attempt required that all evidence not indicating Guede's involvement (too lengthy to compile here) was to be ignored.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 214
Hi Emerald,
It is said that the bra was removed from Meredith after she died because there is blood spray on the bra that matches that on her chest, and the areas of her chest that were covered by the bra were free of blood spray. So, I think probably the bra in question was actually worn by Meredith that night.

I'd look up the cites for this, but it is past my bedtime.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
Solange305 wrote:
Quick question guys... I know the innocentisti (sp?) think Rudy killed Meredith partly because he had to confront her to get out of the cottage (she had locked the front door with her keys). Is there any reason why he could not have gone out the window he supposedly came in? Does anyone know their take on that? Just curious...


I really do not know but I suppose they would argue that Meredith discovered he was there.

This is one of the parts of the story proposed that I just cannot see merit in. It only works if you presume that there is such a thing as a "criminal class" for whom all normal values are suspended/absent. In my world petty criminals are unlikely to turn from a small time burglarly to sex crime and murder just because they are discovered: they run away, usually. To make this coherent you have to assume that he came for rape and murder from the start; and Guede is no more likely to have done that than the other two (rather less likely if one study I found is to be believed): or perhaps that he was fuelled by drugs in the same way that some believe AK and RS were (though again this seems less likely for Gueded than the other two given he had less money). There may be other narratives but nothing that has been proposed sounds even remotely plausible to me. This is what bemuses me from people who propose the lone wolf theory. Many of them demand a motive for AK and RS yet they are perfectly content with a complete absence of motive for Guede.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
I think it must come down to some people, so desperately wanting to believe in someone, in this case, Amanda's innocence, that the heart and mind, simply shut down to ANYTHING that would make her guilty. Everything, even the smallest detail, must be discounted. It's as though, if one tiny thing is allowed to be ceded, it may grow into doubt. So, anything but pure innocence, is blocked, disputed, vigorously denied, and woe to the person, or people, who cast dispersions , as to their guilt. Here's the thing though. Nobody's perfect, and if they were able to see some problems, as to their stories, alibi's, etc, they would have more credibility, than they have shown. They say they want to debate, to have a dialogue, but, in essence, they do not, if you're not on their page. To be honest, if I was on the fence, they would push me to the guilty side, because their arguments are so unyielding, so absolute. No ground given, ever, on anything. I do not judge them as people, ( I would assume that many are caring, productive human beings) but in this particular instance, common sense, and their better nature, seem to have taken a vacation. Of course, none of us will have any bearing on the outcome.

_________________
"You have been PERMANENTLY Banned!" - by .ORG eee-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Fiona wrote:
Solange305 wrote:
Quick question guys... I know the innocentisti (sp?) think Rudy killed Meredith partly because he had to confront her to get out of the cottage (she had locked the front door with her keys). Is there any reason why he could not have gone out the window he supposedly came in? Does anyone know their take on that? Just curious...


I really do not know but I suppose they would argue that Meredith discovered he was there.

This is one of the parts of the story proposed that I just cannot see merit in. It only works if you presume that there is such a thing as a "criminal class" for whom all normal values are suspended/absent. In my world petty criminals are unlikely to turn from a small time burglarly to sex crime and murder just because they are discovered: they run away, usually. To make this coherent you have to assume that he came for rape and murder from the start; and Guede is no more likely to have done that than the other two (rather less likely if one study I found is to be believed): or perhaps that he was fuelled by drugs in the same way that some believe AK and RS were (though again this seems less likely for Gueded than the other two given he had less money). There may be other narratives but nothing that has been proposed sounds even remotely plausible to me. This is what bemuses me from people who propose the lone wolf theory. Many of them demand a motive for AK and RS yet they are perfectly content with a complete absence of motive for Guede.


I don't think it even requires a "criminal class". It requires a mind so complex that a mountain of evidence was left behind to implicate three people when only one was involved. Murder, sexual assault, and robbery are not mutually exclusive crimes and one shouldn't rule out their combination simply because it is rare for them to happen all at the same time.

Here's an example of just what you said required a "criminal class" mentality and yet there's little materially different between these people and Guede, Knox, and Sollecito:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... index.html

The only difference I can detect is that the Connecticut killers had been imprisoned prior to this crime.

The father of the two murder victims, who survived an attack with a baseball bat during the home invasion, said this:

Dr Petit wrote:
“Evil exists in the world and we came face to face with it.”


Don't forget that each of the three--Guede, Knox, and Sollecito--fled the scene while there was still a possibility of saving Meredith's life. One of the three--it doesn't matter which--took both of her mobile phones to prevent even the remote possibility of her reaching help.

I don't see any difference in the psychological make-up of any of these people.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Some who argue the case for Amanda's innocence couldn't care less. They do it for the sake of argument, and would NEVER admit the evidence otherwise.

I don't know what it is about the evidence against Raffaele that just does not ring true to me. Against Amanda, the hard pieces fit in a continuous flow. All the way through her multiple confessions. Some of her actions afterward were very calculated to cover involvement, IMO. Some were shock and terror as the reality sunk in. ALL are subjective. Hard evidence is not subjective.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
I went outside much of tonight to soak in the rhythms of the Universe, watch the total Moon eclipse on this Winter Solstice 2010. Hasn't happened for 372 years.

Felt good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15523
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Idaho Innocence Project Key In International Trial


KIVITV

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Seattle, Washington
Professor Chris Halidekes? Since when.Patrick King?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Smurf attack:

Idaho Innocence Project Key In International Trial

Sollecito's DNA on the clasp: "It's my belief that's not from the murder, but from carry over, just an innocent carryover of DNA," Idaho Innocence Project Director Dr. Greg Hampikian said.

According to Hampikian the amount of DNA on the knife was tiny. "People maybe don't realize how easy DNA can be transferred by one person to another to another I mean that's why you get a cold," Hampikian said.

Over the weekend an Italian judge ordered the evidence to be looked at again. Now Hampikian and the Idaho Innocence Project hope their report can set Knox and her boyfriend free."- KIVI-TV

http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13717966

Translation:
SO WHAT IF THE NEW REVIEW COMES POSITIVE FOR SOLLECITO DNA ON THE CLASP. IT REALLY, REALLY MEANS NOTHING. wa-)) b-(( wa-))

. mop-) mop-) mop-) mop-) mop-) .


Last edited by piktor on Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15523
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Bard -


Hi Bard. It's okay. I was just a little off colour yesterday. Better now :)

Oh and for Mr Bard, I recommend a hot water bottle for the back. Fill it to the brim with boiling water (with all air out) and wrap in tea towel and have him rest his back on it. Heat is a marvel for pain and also acts as a great muscle relaxant.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
YAY for Harry Rag ;)

I'll be surprised if the bra clasp is actually any use to retest. We're talkng about a very small amount of material. Could there be any left? They will already have tried to derive all the material from it. I think they may very well just have to review data for the clasp. As for the knife, not finding any blood under the handle doesn't actually prove that the knife was not the murder weapon, and I think, like the clasp, that retesting for more DNA may well be futile.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
beans wrote:
Quote:
It is said that the bra was removed from Meredith after she died because there is blood spray on the bra that matches that on her chest.


Doesn't Massei reconstruct the scene as that these things, including the pillow, happened after Meredith had received the small wound but before her murder?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
Happy to see you, Michael, and very glad you're feeling better. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 78
Location: Suffolk, UK
All the media attention has been on the appeal made by the defences. But the prosecution have also appealed, haven't they? Have they asked for any additional evidence to be considered (other than just reserving the right to produce new witnesses to counter any new witnesses from the defence)?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15523
Location: England
Highscores: 113
I love this quote from Hampikian:

Quote:
Hampikian maintains there would have been more DNA if she was involved. "People maybe don't realize how easy DNA can be transferred by one person to another to another I mean that's why you get a cold," Hampikian said.



If then that's the case and DNA was spread around so easily, then one wonders why none of Amanda's DNA was in Meredith's room since she had lived there for two months, or why more of Raffaele's DNA wasn't found in the cottage or why more of Meredith's DNA wasn't found at Raffaele's apartment or why Raffaele's DNA wasn't found on his own knife in his own kitchen. There'd be 'everybody's' DNA 'everywhere' if Hampikian's model is correct.

Instead, we have Meredith's DNA that miraculously scored a bullseye on the knife blade and Raffaele's DNA that scored a bullseye on the bra clasp. Now, what are the odds of that?

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15523
Location: England
Highscores: 113
bucketoftea wrote:
Happy to see you, Michael, and very glad you're feeling better. :D



Thanks Bucket, good to see you too :)

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:48 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15523
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Smacker -


Raffaele's kitchen knife was found when police searched his apartment after his arrest (not before).

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2225
Michael wrote:
I love this quote from Hampikian:

Quote:
Hampikian maintains there would have been more DNA if she was involved. "People maybe don't realize how easy DNA can be transferred by one person to another to another I mean that's why you get a cold," Hampikian said.



If then that's the case and DNA was spread around so easily, then one wonders why none of Amanda's DNA was in Meredith's room since she had lived there for two months, or why more of Raffaele's DNA wasn't found in the cottage or why more of Meredith's DNA wasn't found at Raffaele's apartment or why Raffaele's DNA wasn't found on his own knife in his own kitchen. There'd be 'everybody's' DNA 'everywhere' if Hampikian's model is correct.

Instead, we have Meredith's DNA that miraculously scored a bullseye on the knife blade and Raffaele's DNA that scored a bullseye on the bra clasp. Now, what are the odds of that?


Greg Hampikian is an unworldly egghead with little or no emotional intelligence. I'd like to hear explanation for the multiple conflicting alibis and repeated lies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15523
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Guys -

If you're planning on posting within the next half hour or so, please ensure you type your posts out on a text editor before trying to post them. I'm going to be locking this thread.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15523
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The Machine wrote:
Michael wrote:
I love this quote from Hampikian:

Quote:
Hampikian maintains there would have been more DNA if she was involved. "People maybe don't realize how easy DNA can be transferred by one person to another to another I mean that's why you get a cold," Hampikian said.



If then that's the case and DNA was spread around so easily, then one wonders why none of Amanda's DNA was in Meredith's room since she had lived there for two months, or why more of Raffaele's DNA wasn't found in the cottage or why more of Meredith's DNA wasn't found at Raffaele's apartment or why Raffaele's DNA wasn't found on his own knife in his own kitchen. There'd be 'everybody's' DNA 'everywhere' if Hampikian's model is correct.

Instead, we have Meredith's DNA that miraculously scored a bullseye on the knife blade and Raffaele's DNA that scored a bullseye on the bra clasp. Now, what are the odds of that?


Greg Hampikian is an unworldly egghead with little or no emotional intelligence. I'd like to hear explanation for the multiple conflicting alibis and repeated lies.




Well, to be fair to him he doesn't deal with that part, only the sciency stuff. But that said, it is something I've noticed among quite a few scientists. They tend to think criminal cases are/should be tried on the basis of science...rather then law. Only the science is worth taking notice of and is the only evidence of merit. They also seem to think it's an exact science. There's a reason why judge and jury panels are not made up of scientists.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Fiona wrote:
Quote:
I wonder why people keep coming back to motive?


I think people are not psychologically equipped to deal well with "random acts" that "make no sense". It's part of the human make-up to seek for sense and meaning in everything. We don't feel satisfied as long as that seems to be missing.

Some can be satisfied with "Amanda was wildly jealous", "Raff was so smitten with her he did everything she wanted" and "Rudy was..." well I don't know what "...eager to show off? Seeking a bonding experience?" I'm not sure.

All of those seem seriously unrealistic and insufficient to me, so that while I don't post much about motive because I don't think there are any answers out there, I do often mull over the question in my mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ASMINISTRATOR NOTE: LOCKING THREAD!
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15523
Location: England
Highscores: 113
picture of a pumpkin
This topic has been locked by a Moderator
Reason: I am now locking this thread!

Please proceed to the brand new Main Discussion Thread: XXI. MAIN DISCUSSION, DEC 21 -

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 [ 6437 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Ergon and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

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


24,243,592 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group