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

Last visit was: Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:33 pm It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:34 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 6437 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
tom_ch wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
For unknown reasons, I am currently indulging my once in a while 48-72 hours on JREF habit. I have a question:

Is this Withnail guy as dumb as he sounds, or trolling me. Or both? We are talking dumber than what went through the window.


I think he must be Justinian's younger brother.

Tom

And Supernutjob must be both their father.

mul-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
SomeAlibi wrote:
Earthling wrote:
Massei also got Sollecito's address wrong a couple times.

As I read Massei the first time, I noted the errors but I didn't have the energy to send them in to the appropriate thread on PMF. Sorry. The second time I read thru it, I will (hopefully soon).

I hope the Italians have corrected these in their version but this is not the reason for the verdict, come on. Wrong address for Sollecito? Come on.



Earthling - it's not wrong address, it's got the wrong cell towers detailed - saying on one hand that Amanda had definitely left the flat on the 1st because the cell tower couldn't connect to Raffaele's flat and then on the very next page saying that the same cell tower did connect to his flat (several mentions). It's a material serious mistake because it undermines the reason for showing that Amanda definitely left the flat contrary to her testimony. Hopefully, yes, it has been corrected, but I'm going to write to Massei and ask him to clarify. I would be stomping all over this if I were the defence and it's a bad error in the original report.


I wouldn't touch it with a twelve-foot pole, SA. The Massei Report is not a primary court document. I am rather certain the original investigation documents don't contain these inconsistencies or they would have been noticed long before now.

The naming of the cell towers is part of the problem.

During the actual court trial, I'd be very surprised if the mobile telephony witnesses did not have maps and charts displayed to show where the coverage was and where it was not. If someone wrote down the wrong sector in their notes then you'd expect that to apply only to their notes. Otherwise, if the telephony expert clearly illustrated that the same sector was both inclusive and exclusive of a specific location then it would be not only reflected in everyone's notes but they'd be jumping up right there in the courtroom instead of waiting for a year and a half to pass.

I think you're looking at a typo. Let Katody write to Bongiorno if he thinks it's such a big deal. Same thing as for Dr Library Card's ToD determination. If they think it's such a game changer then let them offer their services to the defence teams.

They're bringing up these ridiculous nonsense points to get you all wound up and to expend energy where they wouldn't dream of doing so themselves. They get a good snicker out of reversing the burden of proof.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
The Bard wrote:
411 it might amuse you to know that when I phoned the emergency services one of the questions she asked was 'Have you got any pets', clearly in order to find out if we had a Pit Bull. I was so upset I just said "Yes, a bunny". She cracked up! It just seemed such a wierd question! I assured her Mungo was no threat to anyone.



She laughed!
Clearly she has never faced the full force of Bunny Disapproval!
They probably had to take care to send out the experienced Rabbit Wrangling ambulance.

(Though Mungo, of course, would intelligently allow medical help for Rabbit Servitors.
After all, how can a bunny get good service when the help can't lift or bend?
And all that yelping and groaning, so hard on delicate rabbit nerves, enough to put on off one's food. Almost.)

Hope all the meds are taking the edge off, and now that the experts are on it there will be a change.
As people are saying, this is an area that has seen vast improvement in recent years.

(Envious at your health care system, as always....)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
From onetivu.it: Posted December 17, 2010 (Friday) .

‘Three of the cases of the most exciting news of recent times will be treated tonight to "Fourth grade". They will therefore be of the murders of Sarah and Scazzi Meredith Kercher, the disappearance and the search for small Gambirasio Yara……
The murder of Meredith Kercher back to the headlines because of the conviction of Rudy Guede, to be added to that of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Perugia murder has already been made a fiction, although not yet concluded the case.’

For those in view. Well the Amanda Knox movie is realized for what it is, fiction/imaginary. Will require additional editing. How many endings did they shoot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Thanks again for kind words. Opiates have now kicked in and Mr Bard much more comfortable - and actually quite jolly, not least because I took a few minutes to buy husband-pleasing treats at the supermarket whilst waiting for the prescription. Chocolate biscuits! He's now able to lie down, in front of a roaring fire, his best boy by his side, while they watch some sort of football in a primitive chocolate biscuit fuelled father/son bonding exercise. Seems to be making them both very happy, so who am I to argue! Mungo is stretched out in front of the fire beside them. He fell asleep while the ambulance men were in attendance. His insouciance was marked...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
Doug Preston has written the following comment on The Daily Telegraph website:

"What I find most disturbing about this case are the virulently anti-Amanda folks who obsessively follow the case, post constantly, and appear to be so consumed with anger against Amanda that one wonders if they can be leading normal lives at all. The anonymity of the internet allows them the same sort of protection as the anonymity of the lynch mob. Here are individuals with no connection to the case, and yet they apparently spend most of their time and energy on a crusade to keep Amanda in prison, even to the point of mounting false, vile, and ad hominem attacks against Amanda's family, her legal team, journalists like Bob Graham and myself, Steve Moore, and anyone who comes to her defense.

Sociologists would do well to study these people and this case, as it seems a classic example of the internet allowing people who in previous times would have remained invisible (because of their obvious personal shortcomings) to suddenly play a prominent role in a major, ongoing news event.

I believe this phenomenon is not dissimilar to what happened at the Salem Witch Trials and other outbreaks of the persecution of women as witches in medieval England and Europe."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8209964 ... nough.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
The Machine wrote:
Doug Preston has written the following comment on The Daily Telegraph website:

"What I find most disturbing about this case are the virulently anti-Amanda folks who obsessively follow the case, post constantly, and appear to be so consumed with anger against Amanda that one wonders if they can be leading normal lives at all. The anonymity of the internet allows them the same sort of protection as the anonymity of the lynch mob. Here are individuals with no connection to the case, and yet they apparently spend most of their time and energy on a crusade to keep Amanda in prison, even to the point of mounting false, vile, and ad hominem attacks against Amanda's family, her legal team, journalists like Bob Graham and myself, Steve Moore, and anyone who comes to her defense.

Sociologists would do well to study these people and this case, as it seems a classic example of the internet allowing people who in previous times would have remained invisible (because of their obvious personal shortcomings) to suddenly play a prominent role in a major, ongoing news event.

I believe this phenomenon is not dissimilar to what happened at the Salem Witch Trials and other outbreaks of the persecution of women as witches in medieval England and Europe."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8209964 ... nough.html


Yawn...The Girl is off again. How he has the nerve to not include himself in that bracket beats me. I guess if you continue a personal vendetta against a prosecutor cos he asked you some nasty questions and made you scared BUT GO ON TO MAKE MONEY FROM IT then it's perfectly normal. Personally, I think he's got problems that need addressing. He seems to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Clearly his hour and a half with Mignini was enough to colour his entire life. He won't stop banging on about it - ok it helps shift copies of his book - but I think it goes deeper. He feels castrated by Mignini, that much is clear. The trauma has not left him after all this time. Mignini must be one scary guy!

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20101217/ten-uk-media-japan-comics-5fdf947.html

Japan's comics and animation industry intends to fight a ban on the sale to minors of comics and film depicting "extreme sexual acts" including rape, incest and child sex imposed by authorities in the capital, Tokyo.

Though Japanese comics, known as manga, cover a wide range of topics including romance, action -- some are even devoted to food -- a number feature violent sex acts, incest and sex with children or clearly underage characters.

The bill calls on the industry to regulate itself and prevent people under the age of 18 from buying or gaining access to both manga and animation, known as anime, containing material the government deems "unhealthy."

I wonder if asking the industry to "regulate itself" is really the best way to keep this stuff out of underage hands? But I'm glad for any action on this front. If they mostly come from Japan, that's the point of origin and easiest place to stop it.

====

And I agree with stilicho, SA. These people make us bear some ridiculous burden of proof for typos in Massei. Do they ever show gratitude that PMF translated the whole thing? Oh, the token "thank you," I guess.

I'm sure these errors would have been fixed before final publication. I doubt the testimony included this error. This is the best-paid defense team on the planet, and they would have caught it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
The Machine wrote:
Doug Preston has written the following comment on The Daily Telegraph website:

"What I find most disturbing about this case are the virulently anti-Amanda folks who obsessively follow the case, post constantly, and appear to be so consumed with anger against Amanda that one wonders if they can be leading normal lives at all. The anonymity of the internet allows them the same sort of protection as the anonymity of the lynch mob. Here are individuals with no connection to the case, and yet they apparently spend most of their time and energy on a crusade to keep Amanda in prison, even to the point of mounting false, vile, and ad hominem attacks against Amanda's family, her legal team, journalists like Bob Graham and myself, Steve Moore, and anyone who comes to her defense.

Sociologists would do well to study these people and this case, as it seems a classic example of the internet allowing people who in previous times would have remained invisible (because of their obvious personal shortcomings) to suddenly play a prominent role in a major, ongoing news event.

I believe this phenomenon is not dissimilar to what happened at the Salem Witch Trials and other outbreaks of the persecution of women as witches in medieval England and Europe."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8209964 ... nough.html


Preston has no concept of the new powers of social media. He, and the majority of the FOA, are still fully engaged in an old-world editorialize/manipulate vision of media and they can't seem to figure out why they haven't got any traction.

So, out of pure frustration, they wind up employing these bizarre analogies in their desperate attempts to come to terms with what is happening to them. Preston has a huge problem because he has staked his entire credibility portfolio on Amanda and Raffaele being railroaded.

What was it George Bailey called Old Man Potter - a warped, frustrated old man? There's an appropriate analogy for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Jumpy wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that Meredith had 43 stab wounds (!) but that those wounds included bruisings, etc. However, I also think it was said that she had defense wounds on her hands, along with wounds which implied that she was tormented with a knife. I hate typing that.


I also find that idea unbearable. It is horribly disturbing and that's how I felt when I first heard it mentioned on here (by, I think it was Michael). This is partly why I translated a good part of the autopsy material in the Massei report in spite of a great initial reluctance to look at it. Part of me felt that this violated Meredith's privacy. But another part of me felt that it was tremendously important to know whether that happened or not, making the difference between violence escalating out of control or the deliberate, slow, reasoned cruelty of torture. Not that either is forgivable, but it makes a difference. So I was greatly relieved to find that there is no mention at all whatsoever of any other knife wounds or scratches or anything similar (except the minuscule cuts in the skin of two or three fingers, which are hard to explain - they seem too small to be caused by the victim's actually fending off a huge sharp knife - yet who knows?) Anyway, nothing in the description sounds like deliberate torture. Meredith did not go through anything remotely like many other cases mentioned on here, the victims of Charles Ng, or young Ilan Halimi who was tortured for weeks before being killed in 2006, here in Paris. Not even for ten minutes. Thank God.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
The Bard wrote:
Quote:
At home waiting for an AMBULANCE. Mr Bard has collapsed with spinal pain. This has been going on for days, but worsened. He's on huge horse sized pain killers, muscle relaxants and other stuff and it's getting worse. He can't sit or lie down the pain is so bad. He has told me to leave him alone till the ambulance arrives. Unfortunately there is thick snow here, so ambulances delayed. Don't know whether to go with him in ambulance at the risk of getting stranded and Young Bard here on his own. Or stay here.


Oh, Bard. I feel for him so much. Could it be sciatica? That can be so excruciating. I had to be taken to hospital with it twice in a row a year ago and it was just agony. At first even pain killers didn't help. Then stronger pain killers worked more or less, but then after ten days I ran out and it came back. I called an osteopath against the better judgement of the many doctors in my family (who believe that osteopaths are close to quacks) and he saved me. He taught me pain relieving movements and I still use them even now when I feel that back pain approaching.

I don't know young Bard but most 14 year-olds are wonderfully mature in a crisis, suddenly feeling their newfound young adulthood. Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
The Machine wrote:
Doug Preston has written the following comment on The Daily Telegraph website:

....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8209964 ... nough.html


Doug Preston gives himself too much credit. Nobody's really heard of him since he's been overshadowed as mouthpiece for the groupies by Steve Moore.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
. bu-) Bunny Alert bu-) .


D. Preston has just posted at The Telegraph one of his poison comments. p-((( p-((( p-((( p-((( p-(((

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8209964 ... nough.html


Last edited by piktor on Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
RE JREF:
Glad to see someone's day is 'not a failure'
;)


Quote from nailsinhishead posted on JREF:
"I come on the internet to have a damned good argument, and if it doesn't turn nasty at some point i have to write the day off as a failure" s-((

As I scan JREF today, Nails certainly is not 'failing' to be as obnoxious nasty, and factless as he can be...all this with the continued tacit approval of the 'unbiased' Mods, and the silent approval of the rest of his innocentisti cabal.
tu-))

Mr Randi would be so proud of Nails;
such a lively friendly skeptic, ever so much in the spirit that the Randi Foundation intended. nnn-)) ta-))

And Mr Randi, I am sure can be proud of the unbiased Administration; the ones that tolerate repeated sheer insults and off topic diatribes from Nails, but bans Solange for apparently using dots ".........." in advertently in a couple posts ???.

Oh, and yes, that Moderator who was so 'unbiased' that s/he actually posted favoring innocence....s/he recently got promoted from Moderator to Administrator. huh-)

Again...one cannot make this stuff up


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: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/232219.asp

Amanda Knox: The judge who could set her free

"Prepare for major fireworks this Saturday, Dec. 19. We'll learn whether Judge Pratillo Hellmann will order independent review of the forensic evidence in this sensational case. A move that could set the two defendants free--or at least give them a fighting chance--if the DNA and computer evidence is debunked."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Seeming lack of interest in the Telegraph piece from almost everyone except our lot. Just proves that the Media machine is getting bored and moving on. It's clear to anyone who is unbiased that the appeals will fail. There is simply very little mileage in this news story any more - least of all in the UK. Almost every comment I see in UK press is anti-Knox. She's seen as a scuzzy little liar, and an emblem of arrogant youth who think they can get away with murder. The pushy parents are 100% to blame for this perception. We know all about pushy parents in the UK. We also know about media spin, having lived with Blair/Campbell for many years and seen it fall apart spectacularly. Nope, we're not buying. Funny how the normally vociferous innocenti are absent from the comments section. I think they are losing interest too. What's the point? Let's concentrate on kidding the spin-vulnerable on home soil so we can make a media career while the story still has a pulse. Sell sell sell. Dougie Preston, Steve Moore, Bruce Fisher, Candace Dempsey, Garfield, Madison...let make $$$....

Amanda who? Brilliant. Got lots of votes too. On home soil.

Tick tick tick....

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/232219.asp

Amanda Knox: The judge who could set her free

"Prepare for major fireworks this Saturday, Dec. 19. We'll learn whether Judge Pratillo Hellmann will order independent review of the forensic evidence in this sensational case. A move that could set the two defendants free--or at least give them a fighting chance--if the DNA and computer evidence is debunked."


Alright, now I'm confused - I thought there was NO EVIDENCE against these two in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
Suppose Hellman thinks that the lack of opportunity to independently test the double dna knife is inherently prejudicial and excludes it, notwithstanding the invitation to the defense to be present during the testing.


Dr. Stefanoni is an independent expert. Her forensic findings led to the release of Diya Lumumba.

Well, I suppose she is independent in the sense that she does not work directly for the police in Perugia or directly for the prosecutor, but as a member of a separate branch of the scientific police and as such follows certain protocols, etc.. I mean independent in the sense of someone who is not selected by any of the parties to the case who is given, say, the task of advising the court of the relative merits of the various contentions.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
Suppose Hellman thinks that the lack of opportunity to independently test the double dna knife is inherently prejudicial and excludes it, notwithstanding the invitation to the defense to be present during the testing.


Dr. Stefanoni is an independent expert. Her forensic findings led to the release of Diya Lumumba.

Well, I suppose she is independent in the sense that she does not work directly for the police in Perugia or directly for the prosecutor, but as a member of a separate branch of the scientific police and as such follows certain protocols, etc.. I mean independent in the sense of someone who is not selected by any of the parties to the case who is given, say, the task of advising the court of the relative merits of the various contentions.


I can understand the defence grasping at this as some sort of life preserver in a flash flood but why don't they simply submit the test results to their own experts? Actually, isn't that precisely what they did?

I really cannot figure out how an independent expert is going to be better at helping your client than one you paid good money for.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
smacker wrote:
Something you talked about long and hard has been how the groupies were happy to accept the forensics against Rudy but contested them where Biff and Anita are concerned......time to return to the real world, groupies.


In general, I see the DNA of Rudy was found, inside and on, the victim Meredith. This was not the case with anyone else.

In comparison to the knife, Rudys testing didn't produce "too low" readings and Rudys DNA testing didn't have the amplification issue attached. The knife was not found in the bedroom of the murder, where as Rudys DNA was. The knife also had no blood found on it.

For the purse, Rudys DNA was found but I'm not sure if he was ever questioned about that. No one elses DNA was found on Merediths purse.

Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Fly by Night wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/232219.asp

Amanda Knox: The judge who could set her free

"Prepare for major fireworks this Saturday, Dec. 19. We'll learn whether Judge Pratillo Hellmann will order independent review of the forensic evidence in this sensational case. A move that could set the two defendants free--or at least give them a fighting chance--if the DNA and computer evidence is debunked."


Alright, now I'm confused - I thought there was NO EVIDENCE against these two in the first place.


Don't fret, they're just having trouble keeping their stories straight.

The Food Blogger wrote:
Judge Hellmann is from the north--not tiny, clubby Perugia. He's said to be independent, even a bit of a maverick.


So, when the independent maverick from the cosmopolitan north tells the little darlings to have a nice 25 years in prison, I wonder what the next excuse will be.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
The Bard wrote:
OT OT

At home waiting for an AMBULANCE. Mr Bard has collapsed with spinal pain. This has been going on for days, but worsened. He's on huge horse sized pain killers, muscle relaxants and other stuff and it's getting worse. He can't sit or lie down the pain is so bad. He has told me to leave him alone till the ambulance arrives. Unfortunately there is thick snow here, so ambulances delayed. Don't know whether to go with him in ambulance at the risk of getting stranded and Young Bard here on his own. Or stay here.


OMG!

hugz-) for you Bard.

Wishing Mr. Bard well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?


Why not re-run the whole trial? We could do that--start to finish--on an annual basis. Each January, for the next 25 years (less for good behaviour and time served), AK and RS could be trundled into a courtroom to defend themselves against the charges. Then, each December, a verdict could be handed down and back to prison they'd go.

What are the independent experts going to discover that the geniuses hired by the defence teams couldn't? Or is that the game here? It's like asking for the recordings of the interrogation when you know there aren't any.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm
Posts: 608
Interesting. Someone has started removing comments left by SA, Piktor and others. It's a conspiracy, I tell you. Well, there's something weird going on.

Sending good vibes out to the Bard household.

Windfall.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
jfk1191 wrote:
smacker wrote:
Something you talked about long and hard has been how the groupies were happy to accept the forensics against Rudy but contested them where Biff and Anita are concerned......time to return to the real world, groupies.


In general, I see the DNA of Rudy was found, inside and on, the victim Meredith. This was not the case with anyone else.

In comparison to the knife, Rudys testing didn't produce "too low" readings and Rudys DNA testing didn't have the amplification issue attached. The knife was not found in the bedroom of the murder, where as Rudys DNA was. The knife also had no blood found on it.

For the purse, Rudys DNA was found but I'm not sure if he was ever questioned about that. No one elses DNA was found on Merediths purse.

Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


Personally, I don't think there is any harm in allowing independent experts to review the data. I'm sure they would come up with the same conclusions as everyone else who has reviewed it. It's already been reviewed multiple times. This is just a red herring by the lawyers, they are grasping at straws. If it gets denied, they can cry unfair. It it gets allowed, they can hope and drag out the appeal.

I hope it does get an independent review (though I consider it a waste of time, money and effort) because that way, no one gets to cry foul.

Those who "believe" in innocence are already larding their words with "if" because they know this appeal won't go anywhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
Suppose Hellman thinks that the lack of opportunity to independently test the double dna knife is inherently prejudicial and excludes it, notwithstanding the invitation to the defense to be present during the testing.


Dr. Stefanoni is an independent expert. Her forensic findings led to the release of Diya Lumumba.

Well, I suppose she is independent in the sense that she does not work directly for the police in Perugia or directly for the prosecutor, but as a member of a separate branch of the scientific police and as such follows certain protocols, etc.. I mean independent in the sense of someone who is not selected by any of the parties to the case who is given, say, the task of advising the court of the relative merits of the various contentions.


I can understand the defence grasping at this as some sort of life preserver in a flash flood but why don't they simply submit the test results to their own experts? Actually, isn't that precisely what they did?

I really cannot figure out how an independent expert is going to be better at helping your client than one you paid good money for.


The expert review would be needed if the scientific results were the only evidence that convicts.

What if the DNA evidence was thrown out. Could you convict without it?

You have the staging, the lies, the false accusation, the police testimony, the defendant's multiple alibis that don't mesh, Mrs. Mellas testimony in court exposing Knox's willful "confusion", the email and diaries. You add it up and it all points in one direction. No doubt about the result.

The prosecution narrative makes sense. The defence has no narrative.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
windfall wrote:
Interesting. Someone has started removing comments left by SA, Piktor and others. It's a conspiracy, I tell you. Well, there's something weird going on.

Sending good vibes out to the Bard household.

Windfall.


Wow, totally weird. Almost all the comments by SomeAlibi, Harry Rag and Piktor were removed and someone named "sterling" is saying they are part of this hate group and Michelle Moore is commenting now too.

Best wishes to the whole Bard household!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
windfall wrote:
Interesting. Someone has started removing comments left by SA, Piktor and others. It's a conspiracy, I tell you. Well, there's something weird going on.

Sending good vibes out to the Bard household.

Windfall.


My deleted comment had 7 "Recommended", the second most of all comments. SA had 4 "Recommended"

Pupenhausen has the most recommends with 12. This comment was removed too. (He/she also went after Preston)

Truth hurts. mop-)


Last edited by piktor on Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
Another really great article by John Kercher. It will bring anyone here to tears.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22790628/

I'm so glad that he is hitting back during the appeal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Doug Preston Rant
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

"What I find most disturbing about this case are the virulently anti-Amanda folks who obsessively follow the case, post constantly, and appear to be so consumed with anger against Amanda that one wonders if they can be leading normal lives at all. The anonymity of the internet allows them the same sort of protection as the anonymity of the lynch mob. Here are individuals with no connection to the case, and yet they apparently spend most of their time and energy on a crusade to keep Amanda in prison, even to the point of mounting false, vile, and ad hominem attacks against Amanda's family, her legal team, journalists like Bob Graham and myself, Steve Moore, and anyone who comes to her defense.

Sociologists would do well to study these people and this case, as it seems a classic example of the internet allowing people who in previous times would have remained invisible (because of their obvious personal shortcomings) to suddenly play a prominent role in a major, ongoing news event.

I believe this phenomenon is not dissimilar to what happened at the Salem Witch Trials and other outbreaks of the persecution of women as witches in medieval England and Europe."



Doug,

You're sounding a bit shrill there. Are things going badly for you?

Actually, I've been studying the phenomenon you describe. But, you've got it backwards. The interesting part here is why fellows like yourself crawl out of the woodwork to defend a convicted killer. Of course, the phenomenon is nothing new. Serial Killer Ted Bundy had dozens of female admirers and was known to receive up to 200 letters from his fans every day. Pretty amazing, no? But, why you? What's turning you on?

..

Do you even have a clue?

What is it about Amanda Knox that attracts men like Girlanda, Moore, and yourself? Curious minds want to know. It's got to more than a quick blow job or the erotic camping trip. Is it the thrill of knowing a real killer? Is it the power and charm of Knox's histrionic personality? Or, is this just a career thing?

The individuals who insist on justice for Meredith Kerchner want to live in a world where it's not possible for this killer to pretend nothing happened and get on with her life. Personally, I have a lovely daughter who is the age Meredith had when her life was ended prematurely by the killer you are evidently enthralled with. I don't want her running into Knox by coincidence one day - like Meredith did.

This is about justice. Look it up if you don't know what the word means.

N.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
WOW..Look who just crawled out of the woodwork on JREF

Just fits right in with the usual suspect's modus operandi over there

Brucie, he of unforgettable expertise in photoshopping his 'evidence' pictures fame, says:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bruce Fisher
Bruce Fisher's Avatar

The article written by Somealibi is a perfect example of how information is continuously misrepresented. The entire article stems from one blog entry taken out of context. If Somealibi would like to apologize to Steve and Michelle, I will send him some plastic flowers as a thank you.
Bruce Fisher is online now
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6670339
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh of course, Brucie.....so typical of your crowd tu-))

1) Things getting lonely down on your copycat, nobody looks at, website that you shamelessly have to personally spam everywhere and anywhere ???

2) All the JREFers are also great about saying every embarrassing fact is "out of context, misrepresented, misinterpreted, internalised false, etccccc; especially after the tragic statements about 'others' coming out of Rudy's failed Appeal
Is that the best you have ??

3) The most obnoxious of the JREFers are also so much more adept at throwing 'insider insulting low class zingers like your cheap childish shot about 'plastic'. la-)

The old hands at JREF are indeed so much better at that kind of thing; but still nice to know you constantly 'keep abreast' of the premier web site; PMF.

4) Speaking of copy cats; how's that blatantly exploitive johnnie come lately 'book' coming along ???


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:18 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm
Posts: 69
I've been reading here for a very long time. One thing I've never been able to figure out is why so much of the commentary is centred on what Candace, Frank and now JREF and Michelle Moore are spewing. I've always thought PMF was "above board" or above "other" boards -- a more professional membership, if you will, but this dwelling in the mud is uncharacteristic, cantankerous and certainly beneath PMF.

Granted, I don't contribute much, so do what you will. But I have to say, that some of the respected old-timers on this board would have responded to "just the facts" and stayed away from this mire. Just my 2 centavos.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
Michelle Moore is utterly deluded:

"Amanda has never changed her story."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
bedelia wrote:
Another really great article by John Kercher. It will bring anyone here to tears.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22790628/

I'm so glad that he is hitting back during the appeal.


Yep, it made me teary.

Two very brief, but honest articles have completely obliterated the expensive three year PR campaign. The multitude of posters couldn't even accomplish it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Please.... allow me to apologize for Somealibi.....

b-))

band-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
Suppose Hellman thinks that the lack of opportunity to independently test the double dna knife is inherently prejudicial and excludes it, notwithstanding the invitation to the defense to be present during the testing.


Dr. Stefanoni is an independent expert. Her forensic findings led to the release of Diya Lumumba.

Well, I suppose she is independent in the sense that she does not work directly for the police in Perugia or directly for the prosecutor, but as a member of a separate branch of the scientific police and as such follows certain protocols, etc.. I mean independent in the sense of someone who is not selected by any of the parties to the case who is given, say, the task of advising the court of the relative merits of the various contentions.


How about the Supreme Court; can they be considered an independent and autonomous body?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
Fly by Night wrote:
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
Suppose Hellman thinks that the lack of opportunity to independently test the double dna knife is inherently prejudicial and excludes it, notwithstanding the invitation to the defense to be present during the testing.


Dr. Stefanoni is an independent expert. Her forensic findings led to the release of Diya Lumumba.

Well, I suppose she is independent in the sense that she does not work directly for the police in Perugia or directly for the prosecutor, but as a member of a separate branch of the scientific police and as such follows certain protocols, etc.. I mean independent in the sense of someone who is not selected by any of the parties to the case who is given, say, the task of advising the court of the relative merits of the various contentions.


How about the Supreme Court; can they be considered an independent and autonomous body?

cl-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Emerald wrote:
Please.... allow me to apologize for Somealibi.....

b-))

band-)


You go, girl!!! Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) Yay-) cl-) cl-) cl-) cl-) cl-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
jfk1191 wrote:

In general, I see the DNA of Rudy was found, inside and on, the victim Meredith. This was not the case with anyone else.


Surprisingly, there was only one instance of Rudy Guede's DNA on Meredith's body.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:35 pm
Posts: 2
Bess, I totally agree. There are members of this dedicated hard working board who have translated, enlightened and kept us informed. I appreciate their time, effort, and hard work. But the endless "mud wrestling" with Candance, Frank, Michelle Moore, and JREF is distracting and as you say "beneath PMF."


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
The Bard wrote:
411 it might amuse you to know that when I phoned the emergency services one of the questions she asked was 'Have you got any pets', clearly in order to find out if we had a Pit Bull. I was so upset I just said "Yes, a bunny". She cracked up! It just seemed such a wierd question! I assured her Mungo was no threat to anyone.


I imagine everyone was impressed with how quickly Mungo hopped
into action, as soon as he heard about Mr. Bard's medical crisis!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Is it me... manically self-obsessed me.... or do these JREF types find me ever so slightly threatening? I keep on thinking "man you made yourself look bad there". Some of it is near hysterical ad hominem. Just me? :)

SA

p.s. Cheers Emerald. As I said to Bard tonight on a gchat, I'm so legendarily potty mouthed when I get going that I am in a constant battle with myself to not say what I really think here. I'm not a terribly polite or nice person in reality. So, I quite enjoy having my proxy flippers-of-the-bird!

_________________
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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
OT OT Update:

Ambulance arrived and said 'We can't take you to hospital, they're stacked up in the corridors!'. They gave him gas and air, which had no effect at all. They phoned an out of hours doctor service for someone to come out and give him a shot. He can't sit or lie down, even tho at max with heavy duty painkillers. Meanwhile GP phoned and immediately faxed four prescriptions over to local supermarket. Some sort of opiate, muscle-relaxants, more painkillers...so Young Bard and I wrapped up warm, said Happy Christmas to the Ambulance men (god bless 'em) and trudged through the snow for opiates. Young Bard mused on the way about whether he might be considered for a 'Children of Courage' Award as a Young Carer. Told him not to be stupid. Finally got drugs, now waiting for the flying doctor to turn up with painkilling injections. I love the NHS.

Young Bard somewhat traumatised to see Daddy screaming in agony but relieved he wasn't carted off. Although he still might be if it doesn't improve. Not pleasant. Sorry to tell you all about it, but I was banished and genuinely didn't know what to do. The UK is rrrrrrrrrubbish at snow. I could well have had to walk ten miles home!

Now cooking nice supper for everyone, fire alight, Mr Bard still in agony but opiates should start to kick in soon. He is ignoring the 'no alcohol' instruction on the packet. Mama Mia!!!!

Thank you everyone for your kind words...



Bard - please be careful about the alcohol and pain killers mix. Someone I loved very much died as a result of ignoring said combination.


SomeAlibi is right.

Combining the two is also a major cause of LIVER FAILURE. So, even if you don't die, you may get lucky and "only" need a liver transplant.

That's because many of the narcotic pain relievers contain some paracetamol (in the US, acetaminophen=Tylenol ). Consuming alcohol with paracetamol is a HUGE no-no. Alcohol competes with the enzymes that oxidize paracetamol which means that if the enzymes are needed in alcohol, they are less able to oxidize the paracetamol.

It doesn't take a lot of mixing the two to cause irreversible liver damage, or as SA said, even DEATH.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
The 411 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
OT OT Update:

Ambulance arrived and said 'We can't take you to hospital, they're stacked up in the corridors!'. They gave him gas and air, which had no effect at all. They phoned an out of hours doctor service for someone to come out and give him a shot. He can't sit or lie down, even tho at max with heavy duty painkillers. Meanwhile GP phoned and immediately faxed four prescriptions over to local supermarket. Some sort of opiate, muscle-relaxants, more painkillers...so Young Bard and I wrapped up warm, said Happy Christmas to the Ambulance men (god bless 'em) and trudged through the snow for opiates. Young Bard mused on the way about whether he might be considered for a 'Children of Courage' Award as a Young Carer. Told him not to be stupid. Finally got drugs, now waiting for the flying doctor to turn up with painkilling injections. I love the NHS.

Young Bard somewhat traumatised to see Daddy screaming in agony but relieved he wasn't carted off. Although he still might be if it doesn't improve. Not pleasant. Sorry to tell you all about it, but I was banished and genuinely didn't know what to do. The UK is rrrrrrrrrubbish at snow. I could well have had to walk ten miles home!

Now cooking nice supper for everyone, fire alight, Mr Bard still in agony but opiates should start to kick in soon. He is ignoring the 'no alcohol' instruction on the packet. Mama Mia!!!!

Thank you everyone for your kind words...



Bard - please be careful about the alcohol and pain killers mix. Someone I loved very much died as a result of ignoring said combination.


SomeAlibi is right.

Combining the two is also a major cause of LIVER FAILURE. So, even if you don't die, you may get lucky and "only" need a liver transplant.

That's because many of the narcotic pain relievers contain some paracetamol (in the US, acetaminophen=Tylenol ). Consuming alcohol with paracetamol is a HUGE no-no. Alcohol competes with the enzymes that oxidize paracetamol which means that if the enzymes are needed in alcohol, they are less able to oxidize the paracetamol.

It doesn't take a lot of mixing the two to cause irreversible liver damage, or as SA said, even DEATH.



It's alright 411, Bard informed me that she pried the whisky from poor (but fortunate) Mr Bard's hands. We've delivered value again!

_________________
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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
SomeAlibi wrote:
Is it me... manically self-obsessed me.... or do these JREF types find me ever so slightly threatening? I keep on thinking "man you made yourself look bad there". Some of it is near hysterical ad hominem. Just me? :)

SA



I do not think they find you threatening, SA. One would need a soupcon of self-awareness which does not appear to be in evidence...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 266
stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
The Machine wrote:
TomM wrote:
Suppose Hellman thinks that the lack of opportunity to independently test the double dna knife is inherently prejudicial and excludes it, notwithstanding the invitation to the defense to be present during the testing.


Dr. Stefanoni is an independent expert. Her forensic findings led to the release of Diya Lumumba.

Well, I suppose she is independent in the sense that she does not work directly for the police in Perugia or directly for the prosecutor, but as a member of a separate branch of the scientific police and as such follows certain protocols, etc.. I mean independent in the sense of someone who is not selected by any of the parties to the case who is given, say, the task of advising the court of the relative merits of the various contentions.


I can understand the defence grasping at this as some sort of life preserver in a flash flood but why don't they simply submit the test results to their own experts? Actually, isn't that precisely what they did?

I really cannot figure out how an independent expert is going to be better at helping your client than one you paid good money for.


that is it, rightly said..
and as for Stefanoni results they can hardly be excluded


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
jfk1191 wrote:
smacker wrote:
Something you talked about long and hard has been how the groupies were happy to accept the forensics against Rudy but contested them where Biff and Anita are concerned......time to return to the real world, groupies.


In general, I see the DNA of Rudy was found, inside and on, the victim Meredith. This was not the case with anyone else.

In comparison to the knife, Rudys testing didn't produce "too low" readings and Rudys DNA testing didn't have the amplification issue attached. The knife was not found in the bedroom of the murder, where as Rudys DNA was. The knife also had no blood found on it.

For the purse, Rudys DNA was found but I'm not sure if he was ever questioned about that. No one elses DNA was found on Merediths purse.

Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


My reference was to procedures rather than the individual results but my comments above were ambiguous at best. As regards independent review, there have been, confirmed by my learned friends here so many independent reviews that there may not be any indpendent bodies left to independently review. In short, it's looking mighty ugly for the gruesome twosome and their groupie friends and clan members.

I redict much gnashing of teeth, wailing and nastiness to come.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: A Pig calling Doves "Swine"
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
The Machine wrote:
Doug Preston has written the following comment on The Daily Telegraph website:

"What I find most disturbing about this case are the virulently anti-Amanda folks who obsessively follow the case, post constantly, and appear to be so consumed with anger against Amanda that one wonders if they can be leading normal lives at all. ..

Sociologists would do well to study these people and this case, as it seems a classic example of the internet allowing people who in previous times would have remained invisible (because of their obvious personal shortcomings) to suddenly play a prominent role in a major, ongoing news event.

I believe this phenomenon is not dissimilar to what happened at the Salem Witch Trials and other outbreaks of the persecution of women as witches in medieval England and Europe."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8209964 ... nough.html



:lol: :lol: :lol:

I didn't know Doug cared so much about all of us!Wow, I didn't realize he was THAT threatened by us!!!

He obviously finds proponents-of-justice-for-Meredith to be important enough to be studied by sociologists!! tou-)

"Obvious personal shortcomings?" "Obsessively following the case?"
Can we say "POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!"

Il bue che dà del cornuto all'asino
("The ox calling the donkey horned")

or even better....

"il maiale che dà del porco alla colomba"
(The PIG pig-) calling the DOVE(S)... SWINE!")





I didn't make up those expressions, Doug.
But... if the shoe fits... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Bess wrote:
I've been reading here for a very long time. One thing I've never been able to figure out is why so much of the commentary is centred on what Candace, Frank and now JREF and Michelle Moore are spewing. I've always thought PMF was "above board" or above "other" boards -- a more professional membership, if you will, but this dwelling in the mud is uncharacteristic, cantankerous and certainly beneath PMF.

Granted, I don't contribute much, so do what you will. But I have to say, that some of the respected old-timers on this board would have responded to "just the facts" and stayed away from this mire. Just my 2 centavos.


Mox wrote:
Bess, I totally agree. There are members of this dedicated hard working board who have translated, enlightened and kept us informed. I appreciate their time, effort, and hard work. But the endless "mud wrestling" with Candance, Frank, Michelle Moore, and JREF is distracting and as you say "beneath PMF."


Hi Bess
Hi Mox and welcome

Although I speak only for myself since I have made 2 posts today referencing JREF, may I respectfully offer these thoughts for your consideration:

1) Ignored and unchallenged would be considered by many as accepted.
As Co-Moderator Skep has pointed out, we do not want this to become a JREF echo board; she is absolutely correct.
Yes, as you correctly state... we *are* Waaaay above that.
But with all respect, the most blatantly erroneous and obnoxiously insulting things that are repeatedly said by the parties you mention IMHO need to be addressed and corrected; not ignored.
FOAKers are proficient in using the 'Big Lie' tactic of keep repeating a lie often enough, and some start to believe.
JREFers have a habit of throwing mud and lots of it directly at PMF.
Returning in kind, and correcting the above, of course risks some collateral mud on us, as you say.
But my personal opinion is that the risk reward is still strongly biased toward not allowing them free reign.

2) You might have missed the fact that the 'oldest old timer' here, and in my eyes one of if not *the* most respected; (our Founder) in fact spent most of today not away from, but in fact *on* JREF doing exactly what I suggest above is the best course.

Finally, I hear your well stated opinions, and certainly appreciate you sharing them.
Actually, your thoughts motivated mox to speak up for the first time....
hope he now shares thoughts with us more often.

Best Regards


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:41 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Tiny, Spooky, Clubby and Medieval.
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/232219.asp

Amanda Knox: The judge who could set her free

"Prepare for major fireworks this Saturday, Dec. 19. We'll learn whether Judge Pratillo Hellmann will order independent review of the forensic evidence in this sensational case. A move that could set the two defendants free--or at least give them a fighting chance--if the DNA and computer evidence is debunked."


Quote of the Day from Dimsay:
"Judge Hellmann is from the north--not tiny, clubby Perugia. He's said to be independent, even a bit of a maverick.
Let's see if he blinks on Saturday or if he takes a stand."


So.....the Cook now says Perugia is not only spooky and medieval, but also also "tiny and clubby."

Don't they sound like good names for some of the Seven Dwarves?
There's...Tiny, Clubby, Spooky...and l'il Medieval....(the one with the gargoyle face)...

And Hellmann is kinda mavericky.... :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tiny, Spooky, Clubby and Medieval.
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
The 411 wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/232219.asp

Amanda Knox: The judge who could set her free

"Prepare for major fireworks this Saturday, Dec. 19. We'll learn whether Judge Pratillo Hellmann will order independent review of the forensic evidence in this sensational case. A move that could set the two defendants free--or at least give them a fighting chance--if the DNA and computer evidence is debunked."


Quote of the Day from Dimsay:
"Judge Hellmann is from the north--not tiny, clubby Perugia. He's said to be independent, even a bit of a maverick.
Let's see if he blinks on Saturday or if he takes a stand."


So.....the Cook now says Perugia is not only spooky and medieval, but also also "tiny and clubby."

Don't they sound like good names for some of the Seven Dwarves?

Dimsay and friends are clearly clinging to straws if they need to avoid tiny and clubby......looking North for a rescue even ?
There's...Tiny, Clubby, Spooky...and l'il Medieval....(the one with the gargoyle face)...

And Hellmann is kinda mavericky.... :D


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
Raffaele's always had two addresses mentioned, 110 and 30.

I haven't gotten to the bottom of it yet, but I think one was early (or earlier) student digs (as in, on the official paperwork, maybe; or car licence), and the other was more recent, and hadn't made it into officialdom yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:37 am
Posts: 24
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.


"Knox Appeal Rests On Forensic Review" - Ian Collier, Sky News Online:

Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas, hinted at potential problems in the event the decision goes his stepdaughter's way.
He said: "The vast majority of forensics experts in Italy have already weighed in one way or another. I would imagine they are going to have a hell of a time (finding an expert)."


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
"MURDERER KNOX WAITS FOR DECISION"

Quote:
At the hearing in the same courtroom in Perugia where her original trial was played out, prosecutors will put forward their arguments against her appeal. Lawyers representing the civil parties in the case, Meredith Kercher's family and Diya "Patrick" Lumumba, a barman she falsely accused, will also speak.


THE PRESS ASSOCIATION

Good to hear.


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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:40 am 
Offline

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

‘Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas, hinted at potential problems in the event the decision goes his stepdaughter's way.
He said: "The vast majority of forensics experts in Italy have already weighed in one way or another. I would imagine they are going to have a hell of a time (finding an expert)."

Why do they even quote this schmuck. He’s hoping that Mark Waterbury and/or Chris Halkides gets a ring.
I think he's trying to say that nobody in Italy has been qualified to analyze, or objectively analyze this DNA. Middle age technology.


Last edited by DLW on Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:35 pm
Posts: 2
Stint7,
It is very very very late, so my reply will be brief, and I hope, coherent. First thanks for the welcome! Your thoughtful response to my comments are appreciated, and I heartily concur. I only feel uncomfortable when reading ugly personal comments that add nothing of value to an otherwise intelligent discussion. Of course, I realize these are the tense hours before the appeal. And I can always scroll... BTW, I value your contribution to this Board!

Mox (a "she")


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.



I searched the Massei report and Biondo and Garofano arent mentioned. So if I take your word for them being court appoin ted neutral-experts, thats only two.

Torricelli was hired by Maresca , not the Judges court and therefore, not considered neutral, imo.

The problem with lawyers/witnesses is once their paid they are puppets for their cause.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
jfk1191 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.


I searched the Massei report and Biondo and Garofano arent mentioned. So if I take your word for them being court appoin ted neutral-experts, thats only two.

Torricelli was hired by Maresca , not the Judges court and therefore, not considered neutral, imo.

The problem with lawyers is once their paid they are puppets for their cause.


Here's the issue with appointing "independent" experts, jfk.

First, the protocols or laboratory standards of the Polizia Scientifica would have to be presumed to be deficient. Why not establish that first? There must be something in the methodology as it existed at the time of the tests that could be proved to lead to false positives, contamination, or other hanky-panky. That's how the Houston crime lab--as an example--was exposed. There wouldn't be just a single instance of wrongdoing but a litany of them.

Second, the concept of "independence" assumes that there is a currently accepted protocol for selecting these experts. They'd show up at everyone's trials and not just those of Knox and Sollecito. Where was Guede's "independent" expert? Why isn't anyone demanding one appointed to review his DNA analysis?

Finally, there's the question of who the "independent" experts work for. Do they work in state laboratories? Private corporate laboratories? Universities? In each case, someone could simply argue that they weren't sufficiently independent to render a scientific opinion. I am not sure any scientists would find that acceptable let alone the lawyers and judicial officials who are expected to agree to their appointments.

The DNA evidence "is what it is". If the procedures are judged to be invalid then that's the decision of the courts. Everyone brought their own forensics experts with them to the first trial and they were there to review the work done by the Polizia Scientifica. Isn't that enough?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:59 am
Posts: 5
what if someone messed with objects in the case early on, before any legal reports were taken, to indicate one of the three primes? will we ever get the real truth? i respect the zeal and passion in this case, feels Shakespearian, human in the cast of diverse characters. we all need this tragedy to be finalized but can get no grasp. someone must know what Merideth saw, poor sweet girl, an Angel now.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
There are many "what ifs", in fact, an infinite number of them. All things are possible.

The lawyers must find one Likely Island in the Sea of Whatifs, to save their defendant. And the prosecution must land on Terra Firma, or Certainty Continent, to present a solid case for conviction.

Remaining all at sea, like the JREF trolls do, will not solve or decide the case.

Meredith, probably of Welsh origin, either from mere < mor = sea, dith < differaf ("I protect") = lord/ruler/protector
or from Maredudd <mor ("great") = great lord

Rhymes with Edith (name of a saint: ēadgȳð =~"Rich-Battle" *)


* The Old English naming convention was to mix-and-match name elements from the parents' generation and apply them to the children: in effect, the name elements became heirlooms and were passed down the generations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
jfk1191 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.



I searched the Massei report and Biondo and Garofano arent mentioned. So if I take your word for them being court appoin ted neutral-experts, thats only two.

Torricelli was hired by Maresca , not the Judges court and therefore, not considered neutral, imo.

The problem with lawyers/witnesses is once their paid they are puppets for their cause.

Neither Biondo nor Garofano was court-appointed. Biondo was head of the scientific police (Stefanoni's boss) and Garofano was a recently-retired Carabineiri forensic specialist who wrote a chapter in Darkness Descending that was critical of some aspects of the investigation by the scientific police, but nevertheless agreed that AK and RS were guilty.

That is the trouble with lawyers, that emphasis on zealously representing the interests of their clients.


Last edited by TomM on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 412
Highscores: 2
stilicho wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?


Why not re-run the whole trial? We could do that--start to finish--on an annual basis. Each January, for the next 25 years (less for good behaviour and time served), AK and RS could be trundled into a courtroom to defend themselves against the charges. Then, each December, a verdict could be handed down and back to prison they'd go.

What are the independent experts going to discover that the geniuses hired by the defence teams couldn't? Or is that the game here? It's like asking for the recordings of the interrogation when you know there aren't any.


Absolutely true!

Besides that, I am sure there is no such 'independent' expert. If you hire an expert you may have to pay him a large amount for his fee. Now I ask you= what do you think he will testify?
"He who has the gold make the rules" comes in my mind - just sayin'

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
The were three phone cells covering Raffaele's place:
  • Via Berardi* settore 7, its signal, "molto potente" (very strong), made it the "best server cell" with respect to Raffaele's house
  • Piazza Luppatelli settore 8, "potente" (strong)
  • and both the Via dell'Aquila - Torre dell'Acquedotto sett. 3 and 9. "potente" (strong)

To confirm the name of the cell "whose signal did not reach" Raffaele's house when Amanda's phone received the SMS from Patrick, I would have to check in the evidentiary bundle (or a coverage map).

Note that different service providers can use the same phone towers and have different cells (and cell coverage) without interfering with each other because they use different frequencies (and routing networks).


*also spelled Belardi
** also spelled Lupatelli


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 412
Highscores: 2
Mox wrote:
Bess, I totally agree. There are members of this dedicated hard working board who have translated, enlightened and kept us informed. I appreciate their time, effort, and hard work. But the endless "mud wrestling" with Candance, Frank, Michelle Moore, and JREF is distracting and as you say "beneath PMF."


I disagree!

Standing up for justice means also fighting against lies and calumniations, where ever they appear in public media.
We are not making the mud and the smear - and as we have this board as opportunity to express our deep disgust - I for me feel the need to use it.

The only thing where I am a bit - hmm, sceptical - is the off-topic picures, especially of pets.
But then - I will always scroll.

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
stilicho wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.


I searched the Massei report and Biondo and Garofano arent mentioned. So if I take your word for them being court appoin ted neutral-experts, thats only two.

Torricelli was hired by Maresca , not the Judges court and therefore, not considered neutral, imo.

The problem with lawyers is once their paid they are puppets for their cause.


Here's the issue with appointing "independent" experts, jfk.

First, the protocols or laboratory standards of the Polizia Scientifica would have to be presumed to be deficient. Why not establish that first? There must be something in the methodology as it existed at the time of the tests that could be proved to lead to false positives, contamination, or other hanky-panky. That's how the Houston crime lab--as an example--was exposed. There wouldn't be just a single instance of wrongdoing but a litany of them.

Second, the concept of "independence" assumes that there is a currently accepted protocol for selecting these experts. They'd show up at everyone's trials and not just those of Knox and Sollecito. Where was Guede's "independent" expert? Why isn't anyone demanding one appointed to review his DNA analysis?

Finally, there's the question of who the "independent" experts work for. Do they work in state laboratories? Private corporate laboratories? Universities? In each case, someone could simply argue that they weren't sufficiently independent to render a scientific opinion. I am not sure any scientists would find that acceptable let alone the lawyers and judicial officials who are expected to agree to their appointments.

The DNA evidence "is what it is". If the procedures are judged to be invalid then that's the decision of the courts. Everyone brought their own forensics experts with them to the first trial and they were there to review the work done by the Polizia Scientifica. Isn't that enough?

What is missing here is the perspective of the judge. It is a trial de novo and they could, in fact, redo the whole trial. The judge looking at it knows the defendants were convicted, and knows a lot about the case from its files and knows what the points of contention are from the briefs. The judges and the jurors are supposed to be impartial and they presume that AK and RS are innocent and they are to withhold judgment until after all the evidence is received.

I am guessing here, but I think that if a forensic review is ordered, it will be because Hellman thinks it would be helpful to the jury. Some judges have great confidence in prosecution witnesses who are on the public payroll, while others are less willing to do so. I would be surprised if it were not so in Italy. Here, the jury votes on whether to order the review, but I suspect they follow Hellman's lead on an issue like this.

Here's his problem. Parts of the investigation were less than textbook perfect. The defense experts claim the evidence should not be trusted, but Hellman knows they were hired to blow smoke and create doubt. Although Biondo reviewed Stefanoni's work and validated it, she is employed in a department he heads, so is he defending his department and his own leadership and supervision? Are the various lapses shown in the crime scene investigation tapes serious enough to actually compromise the condition of the evidence? If Hellman thinks he can understand the scientific techicalities and doesn't want to base it on which side's experts came off better in direct and cross-examination, he might think it would be useful for the court to hire an expert to review the data, the reports and the testimony and answer, perhaps, specific questions that the court had about specific items of evidence. He might think the DNA evidence "is what it is". And just want somebody to tell.

Understand, I am not predicting that he will do this, just that he could. And if he did, I think it would be very narrowly focused and not a far-ranging super review. It would be designed to help the jury. I have written before that most judges will not delegate the task of deciding significant issues to independent experts. They can and do appoint experts to advise the court on issues which require expert testimony where the evidence provided by the parties is not adequate. They can comment on the methods employed by the party-retained experts , or make their own findings.

Selection of the expert, in this country, is ultimately up to the judge. As a matter of practice--and it is not a frequent event--the judge will offer a list of prospective unbiased experts and appoint the one that the parties agree upon. But if the parties don't agree, no problem; the judge selects. The fees are divided among the parties pro rata, but that may be shifted to the losing party at the conclusion of the case.

None of this requires impeachment of the scientific police lab or its procedures.


Last edited by TomM on Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
jfk1191 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.



I searched the Massei report and Biondo and Garofano arent mentioned. So if I take your word for them being court appoin ted neutral-experts, thats only two.

Torricelli was hired by Maresca , not the Judges court and therefore, not considered neutral, imo.

The problem with lawyers/witnesses is once their paid they are puppets for their cause.


I didn't claim that these DNA experts were court appointed. Dr. Biondo testified at Rudy Guede's fast track trial in October 2008.

The Kerchers hired Professor Torricelli. It seems that you don't regard any expert as neutral, if they think Knox and Sollecito are guilty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
cherry46 wrote:
what if someone messed with objects in the case early on, before any legal reports were taken, to indicate one of the three primes? will we ever get the real truth? i respect the zeal and passion in this case, feels Shakespearian, human in the cast of diverse characters. we all need this tragedy to be finalized but can get no grasp. someone must know what Merideth saw, poor sweet girl, an Angel now.


Gee, why would anyone have done so?
Who is in this supposed conspiracy - the police, the labs, the roommates, Meredith's friends, random citizens of Perugia?
Why Would ANY, not all, ANY of the above target these three?
There is no coherent accounting for "someone" messing with "objects."
It isn't, after all, only a matter of DNA.
There's Amanda's outright lies, the lack of alibis - that even with each of them coming up with multiple attempts, the various witness, the faked break-in.

BTW, her name was Meredith (and it's Shakespearean).
And someone does know what happened: the three murderous thugs that literally dozens of independent and unbiased jurors have already found guilty.

Ho Hum.
Whac-A-Mole time, anyone?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706


Brad Pitt
Christina Aguilera
Steven Spielberg
Keith Richards
Emerald



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
Quote:
"Catnip here is probably the best proponent of a different kind of approach to knowledge which also yields interesting and helpful results: but there are many others."
— Fiona [XX.23] (17-Dec-2010)


Caption: “Huh, a flying fish: it’d be interesting to know if it’s flying to the water, or from the water."

Attachment:
relax_oct2010_23.JPG


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Whack-a-Mole-a-thon
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
Quote:
"Catnip, you are brilliant!"

— bedelia [XX.23] (18/12/-2010)

Caption:
Zebra to giraffe: “The antelope asked why it’s the lion that gets to be the king of the jungle, and he explained it to him.”
Attachment:
relax_oct2010_16.JPG


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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Sceptical Pets
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 2838
Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis
Quote:
"The only thing where I am a bit - hmm, sceptical - is the off-topic picures, especially of pets.
But then - I will always scroll."

— Pelerine [XX.24] (18-Dec-2010)


Luckily no-one's come to visit me at the zoo - I've scrolled myself:

Caption: “The lion’s not here anymore: his lawyer got him out on house arrest (=bail).”

Attachment:
relax_oct2010_33.JPG


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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
What time does the hearing begin?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
http://blog.seattlepi.com/realestatenew ... 232233.asp

Seattle-area home price drops among nation's biggest

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

Looks like all those people who re-mortgaged their homes/properties for la_) are even more screwed.

Amanda has never even apologized for the heinous crimes that caused the torturous death of another human being. Why would she ever care about this? Honestly, these are the things I'd like to put in a letter to her. Amanda has shored herself against the facts of the murder. Hitting her from another direction would be the only way to get in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
YoooooHoooooo

Where is everyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
jfk1191 wrote:

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.



Quote:
I searched the Massei report and Biondo and Garofano arent mentioned. So if I take your word for them being court appoin ted neutral-experts, thats only two.



Aside from Biondo being head of DNA police he is also Italy's representative on the international body which seeks to develop standard protocols for DNA testing so that they can be used and accepted across national borders. I have posted about that before. Sure, he could be defending his department: but there is no evidence to suggest that he is and he has a reputation to maintain both for himself and for his country. He has published on the issue of national databases, for example:
http://www2.ib.unicamp.br/caeb/Eduardo% ... t%2002.pdf

If it is to be assumed that he is dishonest because he has an interest then the task of finding someone who is to be trusted is indeed hopeless: who should the court turn to? Hampikian? He has a project to promote. Johnston and the others who may have signed the open letter Halides1 is so fond of? At least some of them have commercial interests to promote.

I do not say that they would not be honest and competent: I say that there is no reason to suppose that any of the experts already involved were not honest and competent. And it is that assumption which has to be accepted before it makes any sense to submit the evidence to further review.

In any court case one could continue to dispute the findings of anyone about anything ad nauseam. The courts have to decide when to call a halt: and there are rules about who may be defined as an "expert" witness. Once given that status they have to be accepted as people who will give expert opinion: there are certainly disputes within the expert community of course: and therefore the defence will call other experts to testify about those disputes in order to ensure that the decision makers are properly aware of areas of uncertainty. In essence that is no different from any other part of the trial: he says/she says, and the decision makers listen and make a judgement on the basis of the evidence presented. There is no particular mystique here: scientists are, in the end, witnesses and I am not persuaded that different processes apply because of the nature of their testimony: the same argument is being had here in relation to complex financial cases and there is a push to dispense with juries in those cases: I am opposed to that for two reasons: I think it is primarily cost driven; and I think it gives legitimacy to the idea that the lay person cannot ever hope to understand an arcane field. It does take time and committment: I think juries have that and take their task seriously. But more importantly it is an attack on the whole principle of justice we found on: we should not do that lightly because judgement by one's peers is there for a very good reason. If we take complex financial cases out of that system then the very rich and big corporations are in a privileged position (even more than they are now). The case is argued on the basis that there are too many acquittals: but I am not at all convinced. The same can be said for cases of rape, for example: yet any proposal to change the rules to deal with that is met with howls of outrage. I wonder what the difference is. You cannot say that it is because the issue of rape is easier to understand: there are loads of studies which show that the general public has almost no understanding of the subject.

It is certainly true that there have been cases where an expert has given very misleading testimony and this has resulted in wrongful conviction: but in those cases I have seen (Sally Clarke springs to mind) the expert testimony was not properly contested by others in his field: that is very far from the case here.

The demand for further review is a thinly veiled attack on the experts who have already testified: to me it is just more of the same old xenophobia which so annoys me; coupled with the obligation on the defence to use any and every argument which might serve to gain an acquittal: it is their job to try to spin things in a particular way and they will of course do that any way they can. But not all such arguments have merit. To justify further review the defence have to show actual dishonesty or actual incompetence: they have not done that yet and I do not think they can. As has been said many times, they can say certain things are possible: and you can say that of any forensic evidence: so none should ever be admitted on this reasoning. That won't fly.

On a related issue, I found this. It may have been posted before and if so I apologise. But it is relevant here because at least some of the very vociferous posters on the issue of independent review are picky about who counts as an expert: and others aren't. Does anyone know anything about this clown who is prepared to make such very strong statements on the basis of his "expertise"?


http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-se ... plains-why


Last edited by Fiona on Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
I'm here, Emerald. Just catching up, by reading. I saw your Birthday list. We're in good company... ;)

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
It's on the TV now, BBC. Knox in court, supposedly looking subdued, she gave a nod to ..whoever, and to, Mr Mellas "who has been so vocal on her belalf," bla bla bla.

Because of this case, I've become very sceptical of all reporters/TV journalists/journalists.
Listening to the way they speak, the tone, already tells me that most often the majority do not know much at all about the case and much like sheep, they do their bit and that's all.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
About neutrality.

One way it is guaranteed, is to have a government lab, but the scientists do not get to know which case and for who they are analysing.

There aren't many countries that do this, yet, maybe there is just one country doing it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
You always do intersting posts, Fiona. Reading the article in your link, It says Hendry's expertise is in accidents. Road accidents have to be processed in a hurry. I think it's very different, being an expert in accidents, and murder scenes. That's # one. Further down, he comes to the conculsion that this was not a staged break in. Right there, he loses all credibility, in my opinion. The experts have claimed, and backed up, their assertions, that it is indeed a fake break in. There were photos, and I now find him highly suspect.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
Oh, and doesn't Hendry look like another old guy? Tons of those, all for Amanda. sigh.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sceptical Pets
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm
Posts: 412
Highscores: 2
Catnip wrote:
Quote:
"The only thing where I am a bit - hmm, sceptical - is the off-topic picures, especially of pets.
But then - I will always scroll."

— Pelerine [XX.24] (18-Dec-2010)


Luckily no-one's come to visit me at the zoo - I've scrolled myself:

Caption: “The lion’s not here anymore: his lawyer got him out on house arrest (=bail).”

Attachment:
relax_oct2010_33.JPG




_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
I also find it interesting, that the Foakers keep finding obscure, retired people, to help bolster their cause.

How about an expert , dealing in breakins,,,oh, wait, better not. They may come to the same conclusion as the police.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Any updates?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
Zorba said it's on BBC. That means...we don't get to see it yet. Darn.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Fiona wrote:
Quote:
but in those cases I have seen (Sally Clarke springs to mind) the expert testimony was not properly contested by others in his field


Sally Clark had several medical experts testifying for her very properly. Roy Meadow's testimony outweighed theirs, not because of any uncontested medical expertise, but because he wrongly quoted statistics that purported to show that Sally's chance of being innocent was one in 73 million. The meaning and validity of this number was also contested in court. For example, several other British families were cited in which two babies had died of SIDS, showing that obviously this happens in more than 1 in 73 million families. But Roy Meadow kept narrowing the situation down. "Yes, but the probability of it happening in a non-smoking family...in a professional family...in a family of Sally Clark's social background..." He quoted statistics from a report on SIDS in England and multiplied them all together in an utterly unjustified manner. It was this little operation that was not properly contested in Sally's trial, because they did not call on any statistician witnesses. It had an enormous impact on judge, jury and public.

Roy Meadow is criminal, to my mind. On the first day that he testified at Sally's trial, he saw her with her lawyers during the lunch break, went over and said "This must be very hard for you. It's hard for me." That sticks in the throat, doesn't it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Catnip scrolled himself!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
That is why I said it was not properly contested, thoughtful. He was speaking outside his area of expertise and should not have been accorded "expert" status on this issue. This should have been made very explicit in court. I am not absolutely sure that this was as influential in court as has since been asserted: it is certainly grounds for overturning the conviction because nobody knows why and how the jury reached their verdict (unlike the situation in Italy). I am rubbish at maths and stats but it was plain from the outset that what he was saying was innumerate. To me, anyway. You say his testimony had an enormous impact on the public: well I am part of the very poorly educated public and I dismissed what he had to say on that subject as soon as I read it. It was laughable. Maybe the judge and jury and the rest of the public were swayed by this: maybe not. The court properly held that they could have been and so overturned the conviction: that is as it should be but it is all we can say on the issue


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:16 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
Amanda Knox seeks review of Kercher forensic evidence
18 December 2010 Last updated at 08:23 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12025862


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:19 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
photo gallery of Knox and Sollecito entering the court at Getty Images:
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Searc ... oduct=News


Last edited by donnie on Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
Thanks for the update, Donnie.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Quote:
Another really great article by John Kercher.


Yes, that was a wonderful article full of things that needed to be said loud and clear, in the British press.

He said he has read the Massei report over and over.

Do you think he reads Italian? Or...??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
stilicho wrote:
Quote:
Why not re-run the whole trial? We could do that--start to finish--on an annual basis. Each January, for the next 25 years (less for good behaviour and time served), AK and RS could be trundled into a courtroom to defend themselves against the charges. Then, each December, a verdict could be handed down and back to prison they'd go.


:D

Now, now, stilicho. That's no way to describe the appeal. Or rather, it's actually a good argument in favor of reviewing the evidence from scratch - so as to avoid the situation you're describing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
Christian Fraser has just reported live from the courtroom in Perugia for the BBC. He said that the double DNA knife was inconsistent with the knife wounds on Meredith's neck and that there is nothing that places Knox to the crime scene on the night of the murder. However, he did say that the circumstantial evidence is strong. He seems to think that if there is an independent review of the forensic evidence, it would be an indication that Knox and Sollecito would win their appeals.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
John Kercher may have down loaded the Report from here. If so, I hope he also saw how this site is for Meredith.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Who is Christian Fraser, and what is he basing this opinion on?

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
The Machine wrote:
Christian Fraser has just reported live from the courtroom in Perugia for the BBC. He said that the double DNA knife was inconsistent with the knife wounds on Meredith's neck and that there is nothing that places Knox to the crime scene on the night of the murder. However, he did say that the circumstantial evidence is strong. He seems to think that if there is an independent review of the forensic evidence, it would be an indication that Knox and Sollecito would win their appeals.


wtf)

Is that what the court says or just what the defense says?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
TomM wrote:
stilicho wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
I searched the Massei report and Biondo and Garofano arent mentioned. So if I take your word for them being court appoin ted neutral-experts, thats only two.

Torricelli was hired by Maresca , not the Judges court and therefore, not considered neutral, imo.

The problem with lawyers is once their paid they are puppets for their cause.


Here's the issue with appointing "independent" experts, jfk.

....

The DNA evidence "is what it is". If the procedures are judged to be invalid then that's the decision of the courts. Everyone brought their own forensics experts with them to the first trial and they were there to review the work done by the Polizia Scientifica. Isn't that enough?

What is missing here is the perspective of the judge. It is a trial de novo and they could, in fact, redo the whole trial. The judge looking at it knows the defendants were convicted, and knows a lot about the case from its files and knows what the points of contention are from the briefs. The judges and the jurors are supposed to be impartial and they presume that AK and RS are innocent and they are to withhold judgment until after all the evidence is received.

I am guessing here, but I think that if a forensic review is ordered, it will be because Hellman thinks it would be helpful to the jury. Some judges have great confidence in prosecution witnesses who are on the public payroll, while others are less willing to do so. I would be surprised if it were not so in Italy. Here, the jury votes on whether to order the review, but I suspect they follow Hellman's lead on an issue like this.

Here's his problem. Parts of the investigation were less than textbook perfect. The defense experts claim the evidence should not be trusted, but Hellman knows they were hired to blow smoke and create doubt. Although Biondo reviewed Stefanoni's work and validated it, she is employed in a department he heads, so is he defending his department and his own leadership and supervision? Are the various lapses shown in the crime scene investigation tapes serious enough to actually compromise the condition of the evidence? If Hellman thinks he can understand the scientific techicalities and doesn't want to base it on which side's experts came off better in direct and cross-examination, he might think it would be useful for the court to hire an expert to review the data, the reports and the testimony and answer, perhaps, specific questions that the court had about specific items of evidence. He might think the DNA evidence "is what it is". And just want somebody to tell.

Understand, I am not predicting that he will do this, just that he could. And if he did, I think it would be very narrowly focused and not a far-ranging super review. It would be designed to help the jury. I have written before that most judges will not delegate the task of deciding significant issues to independent experts. They can and do appoint experts to advise the court on issues which require expert testimony where the evidence provided by the parties is not adequate. They can comment on the methods employed by the party-retained experts , or make their own findings.

Selection of the expert, in this country, is ultimately up to the judge. As a matter of practice--and it is not a frequent event--the judge will offer a list of prospective unbiased experts and appoint the one that the parties agree upon. But if the parties don't agree, no problem; the judge selects. The fees are divided among the parties pro rata, but that may be shifted to the losing party at the conclusion of the case.

None of this requires impeachment of the scientific police lab or its procedures.


It sounds like you're saying there is a set of procedures in place to refer DNA evidence to "Laboratory B" or something similar. Other than digging through the entire Italian legal system to find out who these folks are, we have to either wait for Hellman to make this decision or assume that there is a "Laboratory B" in place.

That wouldn't surprise me and it would satisfy one of my presumptions about how a new review of the data might work. I don't think that's quite what jfk had in mind, though, nor the majority of those who repeat the "independent" expert demand.

I know that, in Canada, there have been several murder cases where "Laboratory B" was an American company with expertise we might not have here. I can't cite the cases off the top of my head but I've read about a few of them. This was done, though, by the prosecution and not the judge and it was always before the trial took place. I don't have any examples of this happening after the forensic results had already been evaluated in court.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:44 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
The Bard wrote:
Who is Christian Fraser, and what is he basing this opinion on?

He's the BBC's Paris Correspondent. From what I've heard, he's very well respected in the UK. Is this true? Not that it matters. I also wonder what is the basis for his opinion .Maybe he's just reporting the direct news from the courtroom? I highly doubt it however, that anyone ,apart from the defense, would say such things. He's basically repeating FOA's stories, isn't he?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
Emerald wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Christian Fraser has just reported live from the courtroom in Perugia for the BBC. He said that the double DNA knife was inconsistent with the knife wounds on Meredith's neck and that there is nothing that places Knox to the crime scene on the night of the murder. However, he did say that the circumstantial evidence is strong. He seems to think that if there is an independent review of the forensic evidence, it would be an indication that Knox and Sollecito would win their appeals.


wtf)

Is that what the court says or just what the defense says?


He clearly hasn't read the Massei report in its entirety. I've just sent him an e-mail pointing out his factual errors and the Massei report.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 266
The Court of Appeal of Perugia accepted the request of Procuratore Generale Giancarlo Costaiola to acquire the 3 verdicts against Rudy Guede (first degree, appeal and Supreme court) in the documents/evidence of the appeal trial against Anita and Biff. This is very bad news for the two but was hardly avoidable. See link

http://www.agi.it/rubriche/ultime-notiz ... anna_guede
MEREDITH: CORTE APPELLO ACQUISISCE SENTENZE CONDANNA GUEDE
(AGI) Perugia - La Corte d'Assise d'Appello di Perugia ha accolto la richiesta avanzata dal procuratore generale Giancarlo Costaiola di acquisire agli atti le sentenze di condanna di primo e secondo grado di Rudy Guede e il dispositivo della sentenza con cui la Corte di Cassazione ha confermato la pena a 16 anni per il giovane ivoriano accusato insieme a Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox dell'omicidio della studentessa inglese, Meredith Kercher .


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
JMO

If foreign independent experts are used they surely would not be US. Dutch maybe? I say that because then World Court is there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
The Bard wrote:
Who is Christian Fraser, and what is he basing this opinion on?


He's been reporting on this story since NOV 2007. I can't locate anything on today's proceedings yet.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Popper wrote:
The Court of Appeal of Perugia accepted the request of Procuratore Generale Giancarlo Costaiola to acquire the 3 verdicts against Rudy Guede (first degree, appeal and Supreme court) in the documents/evidence of the appeal trial against Anita and Biff. This is very bad news for the two but was hardly avoidable. See link

http://www.agi.it/rubriche/ultime-notiz ... anna_guede
MEREDITH: CORTE APPELLO ACQUISISCE SENTENZE CONDANNA GUEDE
(AGI) Perugia - La Corte d'Assise d'Appello di Perugia ha accolto la richiesta avanzata dal procuratore generale Giancarlo Costaiola di acquisire agli atti le sentenze di condanna di primo e secondo grado di Rudy Guede e il dispositivo della sentenza con cui la Corte di Cassazione ha confermato la pena a 16 anni per il giovane ivoriano accusato insieme a Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox dell'omicidio della studentessa inglese, Meredith Kercher .


This is essentially the motivations and supporting documents including any expert testimony, correct? If so, it should mean it can all be used in determining penalties for aggravating circumstances.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
stilicho wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Who is Christian Fraser, and what is he basing this opinion on?


He's been reporting on this story since NOV 2007. I can't locate anything on today's proceedings yet.


As soon as Christian Fraser claimed the double DNA knife was inconsistent with the knife wounds on Meredith's necks, it was clear that he is ignorant of the basic facts of the case and has been misinformed by the PR campaign.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Are they in Court to argue anything or are they only there to get the ruling?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Emerald wrote:
Are they in Court to argue anything or are they only there to get the ruling?


This is what Nick Pisa says:

Nick Pisa wrote:
Today judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman will hear final submissions by prosecutors and lawyers representing Meredith's family, before he and the jury retires to consider its decision.


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:14 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
stilicho wrote:


"Court sources say that there are plans to call Guede as a witness although he can refuse to attend the hearings. "

That would be interesting to see.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... court.html

Today her mother Edda Mellas, who was in court and is in Italy for Christmas, said: "Amanda is doing OK considering the circumstances. She really wanted to speak last week and it was very moving. It was something that she had wanted to do for a long time.

"She had been building up her strength to do it and she did well and hopefully the judge and jury will see that she meant every word of what she said. Speaking is not her strength but writing is."




Lawyers battled through heavy snow which has hit central Italy to make the trial in Perugia, which started an hour late to allow for the treacherous travel conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
"Speaking is not her strength but writing is."



In that case, shoot me now!

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
stilicho wrote:
Popper wrote:
The Court of Appeal of Perugia accepted the request of Procuratore Generale Giancarlo Costaiola to acquire the 3 verdicts against Rudy Guede (first degree, appeal and Supreme court) in the documents/evidence of the appeal trial against Anita and Biff. This is very bad news for the two but was hardly avoidable. See link

http://www.agi.it/rubriche/ultime-notiz ... anna_guede
MEREDITH: CORTE APPELLO ACQUISISCE SENTENZE CONDANNA GUEDE
(AGI) Perugia - La Corte d'Assise d'Appello di Perugia ha accolto la richiesta avanzata dal procuratore generale Giancarlo Costaiola di acquisire agli atti le sentenze di condanna di primo e secondo grado di Rudy Guede e il dispositivo della sentenza con cui la Corte di Cassazione ha confermato la pena a 16 anni per il giovane ivoriano accusato insieme a Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox dell'omicidio della studentessa inglese, Meredith Kercher .


This is essentially the motivations and supporting documents including any expert testimony, correct? If so, it should mean it can all be used in determining penalties for aggravating circumstances.


This is essentially the whole enchilada. If the Guede investigation is included, it is the same investigation that convicted Biff and Nita. The scientific investigation for Guede was not reviewed.

The DNA evidence will not be reviewed. Nothing will be reviewed.

As soon as Rome confirmed Guede's conviction, this case became a lot simpler to rule on.


Last edited by piktor on Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
Fraser on BBC24 atm

she came to court looking subdued...

microscopic DNA not enought to convict...

size of knife to wounds...

bra claps 'kicked' around the floor...

AK not placed at the scene...

He says these are the issues being brought up

They only show old video clips so far from last week and of Guede's re entry into the country after being aprehended in germany


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
donnie wrote:
Amanda Knox seeks review of Kercher forensic evidence
18 December 2010 Last updated at 08:23 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12025862


Interesting set of images that Getty has for sale there, Donnie.

Thanks for finding/sharing

The first pic of Amanda entering Court is quite a contrast to her first trial "here I am fans" demeanor; in fact it shows a pretty evident crocodile tear that Edda is so known for.
(pic# 107673947)
This is what apparently h9's BBC reporter characterizes as 'subdued'

Speaking of Edda and contrasts; her Courtroom attire also is quite a bit more appropriate than the First trial

Thanks again, Donnie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8211224/Amanda-Knox-back-in-court.html

Today her mother Edda Mellas, who was in court and is in Italy for Christmas, said: ........"She had been building up her strength to do it and she did well and hopefully the judge and jury will see that she meant every word of what she said. Speaking is not her strength but writing is."


If writing is her strength, Amanda could have written something more coherent to say.

It's interesting how Edda, Chris and Amanda are dressed more refined. At least they are appearing to have a little respect for the Italian court. I don't understand why it took their Italian defense team allowed the slovenly appearance before.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 266
zorba wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
"Speaking is not her strength but writing is."



In that case, shoot me now!


As discussed last week, it is very much both speaking and writing - but in particular writing - that may have doomed her fate, not her behaviour after the crime.
I omit a discussions on the horrors of her writing style and grammar.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
scroll on by ......

http://michelles-methoughts.blogspot.co ... l?spref=tw

"...I have now studied this case enough to see that it has been turned into one of the most convoluted cases in history..."

"...Some people disagree with me, and this is OK.
I take very seriously what I believe and why. We are all responsible for this.
I feel very confident in what I believe-period."


Last edited by H9 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
I am terribly tired of repeated lies. That is shameful


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
capealadin wrote:
Quote:
John Kercher may have down loaded the Report from here. If so, I hope he also saw how this site is for Meredith.


I would be proud if he did download it from here. But if it is hurtful to him to see the details and circumstances of Meredith's death continually discussed and Amanda accorded as much attention as a minor celebrity, then this is not a place for him to browse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
scroll on by ......

http://michelles-methoughts.blogspot.co ... l?spref=tw

"...I have now studied this case enough to see that it has been turned into one of the most convoluted cases in history..."


I actually love Celestial's posts...it is like reading one of those satirical columns in Private Eye...

"methoughts by michelle". Bless.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Fraser on BBC24 atm

she came to court looking subdued...

microscopic DNA not enough to convict...

size of knife to wounds...

bra claps 'kicked' around the floor...

AK not placed at the scene...

He says these are the issues being brought up

They only show old video clips so far from last week and of Guede's re entry into the country after being apprehended in Germany



This is what nudged me to write what I did above, after seeing a short clip of him.
In the bit I saw it said he was the European correspondent.

He hadn't even said all of the things added here but he immediately struck me as yet another one earning a wage.

There may be some good ones somewhere, well, obviously Barbie and Andrea are, but a whole selection of British journalists (shame on them), all enjoying a wonderful life in Italy, many who are males married to Italian women, seem to me to be quite full of shit, Tom Kington for instance, seems like one of a typical breed, like a rock star's child who can't match dad, following nevertheless in the footsteps thereof but having nothing to say themselves, where journalism is like work in the factory on the production line, maybe the boss or some handy technician knows what's going on (the bigger picture) but most of the employees just keep boxing the stuff in having no idea about what anyone else is doing, how each bit fits in with the others, not understanding all the bits in the factory and how or why it works or fails.

Peter Ham n Eggs is also married to an Italian, lives in Italy and it seems those who do live there get the jobs reporting there (certainly for the BBC and the British newspapers . did they go there to work or where they there enjoying the sun n wine when they decided they'd like to stay?) but they may in fact be less than useless, to me, from what I've listened to (read-seen) they must be very glad with their nice jobs there, but maybe they share traits with someone like Sollecito, the perfect and classical example of the spoilt brat (the rich son waits for his father to die, the poor just drink and cry > and thanks Lou for that line), as arrogant as they come who thinks he is above everyone and everything else, poor old Peter never has a single good word to say about Italy or anyone Italian.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Meredith: Court accepts Guede's sentence as per Prosecution application.
iammepress/it

Sorry if this has been posted already. I just now started to read and haven't seen your posts yet.


Last edited by Jools on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Emerald wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8211224/Amanda-Knox-back-in-court.html

Today her mother Edda Mellas, who was in court and is in Italy for Christmas, said: ........"She had been building up her strength to do it and she did well and hopefully the judge and jury will see that she meant every word of what she said. Speaking is not her strength but writing is."


Ah, Yes, Edda.

Thanks so much for that interesting impartial.....errrrr....soundbite.
Marriott the master could not have worded that better....but than again just maybe he did ???

May I just add that from all I have seen to date:

1) I heartily agree that she has shown in nearly every never ending rambling, semi coherent, off topic sentence that she utters that"speaking is not her strength".

2) However after reading her writings particularly 'the best truths that she can remember 'gift', the diaries, and the rape stories about 'what chicks want'... may I be permitted to observe that you have raised a very 'weak' offspring in more ways than one.


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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Quote:
I have now studied this case enough to see that it has been turned into one of the most convoluted cases in history


I'd really like to see that list; and how AK fits on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:13 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
This was posted two hours ago:

Court mulls review for Knox case in Italy murder trial
December 18, 2010 - 9:04PM

Quote:

She entered the court with her head down on Saturday and greeted a friend.

Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said earlier that the case against her was "full of grey areas" and that it was "a huge miscarriage of justice".


Prosecutors say the gruesome killing was the culmination of a drug-fuelled sexual assault on Kercher, who was in Perugia as part of an exchange programme.
– [ Brisbane Times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:18 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
Fraser just reported on BBC that the defense said that decision about accepting Guede's sentence doesn't really matter, beacuse he's been tried on a seperate trial. They're not worried about it, not at all.

Is this a right way of thinking or just a wishful thinking?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
Emerald wrote:
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8211224/Amanda-Knox-back-in-court.html

Today her mother Edda Mellas, who was in court and is in Italy for Christmas, said: ........"She had been building up her strength to do it and she did well and hopefully the judge and jury will see that she meant every word of what she said. Speaking is not her strength but writing is."


If writing is her strength, Amanda could have written something more coherent to say.

It's interesting how Edda, Chris and Amanda are dressed more refined. At least they are appearing to have a little respect for the Italian court.




Hello Emerald, nice to see you, and I hope things are going well for you, don't know if it is freezing cold where you are, it is here, I find it doesn't help when it is so cold.

If they had not had such odd fellows around them, much of their own choosing and design, then they might have gained some kind and sensible advice about the things that matter just to start off with. I mean, a person could go dressed in a pair of tattered n torn old jeans and should not ever be convicted because of that, it'd be ridiculous if anyone got convicted because of their choice of clothing. The idea of doing your best to look tidy by choosing a non-flamboyant choice of clothing shows one has grasped just how serious the matter is, as a mark of respect to the court. If you go to a job interview you also tend to do your best to look presentable.

I happen to have seen, in the east end of London, old time criminals, pretty much London gangsters, who when going to court, all had their suits and ties ready, and they also seemed to enjoy wearing them, much like going to a wedding or a funeral. The more successful crooks having their coveted pure silk socks sent in for the court appearances.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
@Donnie
"Well they would say that, wouldn't they" [/Mandy Rice Davies]


Last edited by Fiona on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
donnie wrote:
Fraser just reported on BBC that the defense said that decision about accepting Guede's sentence doesn't really matter, beacuse he's been tried on a seperate trial. They're not worried about it, not at all.

Is this a right way of thinking or just a wishful thinking?


Sadly Donnie, he is talking out of his posterior.

Sad for him.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Raffie's Court entry:

If Manders seems "subdued" entering court, as per BBC;
looks like Raffie might be trying to 'take up the slack'

FWIW;
it could be just lighting, but compared to surrounding healthy looking guards, Raffie's complexion seems to have taken on a pasty, whitish, milky, 'jailbird pallor' appearance


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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:24 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
Prosecution is agreeing to hearing Alessi and Aviello's testimony contested in court, but not to Curatolo's.

Libero


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
donnie wrote:
Fraser just reported on BBC that the defense said that decision about accepting Guede's sentence doesn't really matter, beacuse he's been tried on a seperate trial. They're not worried about it, not at all.

Is this a right way of thinking or just a wishful thinking?


With the exception of Ghirga crying in court, the defence lawyers have always acted very confident in this case. It has made no difference to the judges' decisions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
now a video on BBC24... but the knife info clarified a bit more (ie.. the knife not matching all the wounds)

'forensics and motivation a problem for the prosecution'

fraser reporting outside courtroom


Last edited by H9 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Nick Pisa live from Perugia has just said in Sky News, that prosecution have also requested for an extension of 90 days, as it stands at the moment the rial has a time limit till June, therefore in case the Court agrees to the reopening of trial, i.e. accepts new tests to be carry out and the mafiosi witnesses to be heard it could extend longer than that.
Hence the request of extension is needed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Catnip wrote:
Prosecution is agreeing to hearing Alessi and Aviello's testimony contested in court, but not to Curatolo's.

Libero


That's goodbye to the discotheque owners or organisers of the shuttle buses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:33 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
The prosecution "does not oppose" Alessi and Aviello being heard, reserving the right of rebuttal; all other defence submissions have been opposed.

Corrirere dello Sport


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
zorba wrote:
Hello Emerald, nice to see you, and I hope things are going well for you, don't know if it is freezing cold where you are, it is here, I find it doesn't help when it is so cold.

If they had not had such odd fellows around them, much of their own choosing and design, then they might have gained some kind and sensible advice about the things that matter just to start off with. I mean, a person could go dressed in a pair of tattered n torn old jeans and should not ever be convicted because of that, it'd be ridiculous if anyone got convicted because of their choice of clothing. The idea of doing your best to look tidy by choosing a non-flamboyant choice of clothing shows one has grasped just how serious the matter is, as a mark of respect to the court. If you go to a job interview you also tend to do your best to look presentable.

I happen to have seen, in the east end of London, old time criminals, pretty much London gangsters, who when going to court, all had their suits and ties ready, and they also seemed to enjoy wearing them, much like going to a wedding or a funeral. The more successful crooks having their coveted pure silk socks sent in for the court appearances.


"When in Rome....."

I do not expect them to dress as though directly off the pages of Vogue. Amanda, especially, has no access to boutique wear or a personal stylist. ~~BUT~~ When the Family shows up in court dressed in short-shorts, scanty tops, posing for pictures to be sold to the highest bidder, it makes a huge difference, IMO. They were admonished, but chose to do it repeatedly.

Amanda wore the ridiculous clothes with messages on them. She acted abominably.

Raffaele was there, dressed in the same casual style, but without the arrogant attitude or messages.

The only reason Amanda is judged so harshly is because the Circus continued to put her out there. Were we supposed to listen and not judge? Ain't gonna happen from me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 975
Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic
TomM wrote:
(..)

What is missing here is the perspective of the judge. It is a trial de novo and they could, in fact, redo the whole trial. The judge looking at it knows the defendants were convicted, and knows a lot about the case from its files and knows what the points of contention are from the briefs. The judges and the jurors are supposed to be impartial and they presume that AK and RS are innocent and they are to withhold judgment until after all the evidence is received.

I am guessing here, but I think that if a forensic review is ordered, it will be because Hellman thinks it would be helpful to the jury. Some judges have great confidence in prosecution witnesses who are on the public payroll, while others are less willing to do so. I would be surprised if it were not so in Italy. Here, the jury votes on whether to order the review, but I suspect they follow Hellman's lead on an issue like this.

Here's his problem. Parts of the investigation were less than textbook perfect. The defense experts claim the evidence should not be trusted, but Hellman knows they were hired to blow smoke and create doubt. Although Biondo reviewed Stefanoni's work and validated it, she is employed in a department he heads, so is he defending his department and his own leadership and supervision? Are the various lapses shown in the crime scene investigation tapes serious enough to actually compromise the condition of the evidence? If Hellman thinks he can understand the scientific techicalities and doesn't want to base it on which side's experts came off better in direct and cross-examination, he might think it would be useful for the court to hire an expert to review the data, the reports and the testimony and answer, perhaps, specific questions that the court had about specific items of evidence. He might think the DNA evidence "is what it is". And just want somebody to tell.

Understand, I am not predicting that he will do this, just that he could. And if he did, I think it would be very narrowly focused and not a far-ranging super review. It would be designed to help the jury. I have written before that most judges will not delegate the task of deciding significant issues to independent experts. They can and do appoint experts to advise the court on issues which require expert testimony where the evidence provided by the parties is not adequate. They can comment on the methods employed by the party-retained experts , or make their own findings.

Selection of the expert, in this country, is ultimately up to the judge. As a matter of practice--and it is not a frequent event--the judge will offer a list of prospective unbiased experts and appoint the one that the parties agree upon. But if the parties don't agree, no problem; the judge selects. The fees are divided among the parties pro rata, but that may be shifted to the losing party at the conclusion of the case.

None of this requires impeachment of the scientific police lab or its procedures.


I just want to add, Tom, that an important aspect is the judge already have also all the defence expert reports. They have plenty of material criticizing the prosecutor's experts.
Now, to hire new experts, they would nead a reason to do it. Not trusting police experts is itself not a sufficient reason, since effective objections might already be contained in the defense reports.
In this case, what happens is the defense report didn't give the court enough reasons to doubt of the scientific evidence.
Moreover, the court should expect that new experts bring some new knowledge, some new criticism and reasons for doubt, that shall contain something different, something more or differently motivated from what said in the defensive reports.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Jools wrote:
That's goodbye to the discotheque owners or organisers of the shuttle buses.


huh-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:44 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
Prosecution says:

On the knife, and the time of death, further testing will not add any new information, and the existing information is substantial.

The bra-clasp can't have been contaminated with Raffaeles DNA, because it remained inside Meredith's room, where Raffaele never went.

Libero


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:45 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
Emerald wrote:
Jools wrote:
That's goodbye to the discotheque owners or organisers of the shuttle buses.


huh-)


If the court accepts the prosecution submission, then those witnesses do not have to come and testify.

Edited to add:
The defence is saying that Curatolo's tesimony exonerates their clients, because it proves they can't have done it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Aw, the former in-laws greet each other the continental way. k-((


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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Is that Curt's Dad?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
Emerald wrote:
Is that Curt's Dad?


It's Sollecito's.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Jools wrote:
Aw, the former in-laws greet each other the continental way. k-((


Could not help but thinking about what Edda might be saying:

1) You did not really mean that about 'the day that Raffie met my daughter was the worst day in his life'....Did you ??

2) Sorry we cannot help much with your 'making water run uphill'.
You see Marriott is very expensive and the Fundraisers have..uh... well... not raised many 'funds'

3) Uhhh; could I ask you a quick medical question about this problem my neighbor has ...?

4) You know all this stuff about younger guys for husbands is not really all it is built up as


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Jools wrote:
Aw, the former in-laws greet each other the continental way. k-((


Shithead is wearing a tie! th-)


Last edited by piktor on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
Emerald wrote:
zorba wrote:
Hello Emerald, nice to see you, and I hope things are going well for you, don't know if it is freezing cold where you are, it is here, I find it doesn't help when it is so cold.

If they had not had such odd fellows around them, much of their own choosing and design, then they might have gained some kind and sensible advice about the things that matter just to start off with. I mean, a person could go dressed in a pair of tattered n torn old jeans and should not ever be convicted because of that, it'd be ridiculous if anyone got convicted because of their choice of clothing. The idea of doing your best to look tidy by choosing a non-flamboyant choice of clothing shows one has grasped just how serious the matter is, as a mark of respect to the court. If you go to a job interview you also tend to do your best to look presentable.

I happen to have seen, in the east end of London, old time criminals, pretty much London gangsters, who when going to court, all had their suits and ties ready, and they also seemed to enjoy wearing them, much like going to a wedding or a funeral. The more successful crooks having their coveted pure silk socks sent in for the court appearances.


"When in Rome....."

I do not expect them to dress as though directly off the pages of Vogue. Amanda, especially, has no access to boutique wear or a personal stylist. ~~BUT~~ When the Family shows up in court dressed in short-shorts, scanty tops, posing for pictures to be sold to the highest bidder, it makes a huge difference, IMO. They were admonished, but chose to do it repeatedly.

Amanda wore the ridiculous clothes with messages on them. She acted abominably.

Raffaele was there, dressed in the same casual style, but without the arrogant attitude or messages.

The only reason Amanda is judged so harshly is because the Circus continued to put her out there. Were we supposed to listen and not judge? Ain't gonna happen from me.


Definitely, yet even Sollecito, I mean, his dad does know how to dress because he is that type of respectable (was at least) gentleman, yet not once has R. Sollecito looked exactly right, for the son of a prominent urologist he looks greasy, more like a used car salesman, he could have started a garage with Mr Girlanda if he had not been such a fool. His choice of colours always, to me at least, looks mental. Like now, he goes into court, on the day that is so important to him, yet puts an old jumper on, no shirt, and then has this all-of-a sudden set of smiles he's been having lately, much like a gormless idiot, he looks like he too has no sense of space or time, looks like someone out on a social event. He's been in his cell, he does not have access to Internet, he's dependent on the piles of magazines and newspapers he will have, then on thinking about Knox, seeing photos of him, of her and her always with the nutty smiling, he thought he ought to get in on the act too. He has, and sadly for him and for her, they never ever meet up in the middle because meantime, she has been in her cell, reading her piles of magazines and newspapers and seeing him, she thought she'd better tone it down and her family has probably advised as much.
So now he's locked into his movie like one of those dogs with lockjaw after a bite, and Knox, she'd encapsulated in her own cocoon of a movie the one she's been designing. Maybe both are going to be in tears when the supreme court rejects their crocodilian behaviour and endorses the sentences.

Sollecito, he hasn't dressed arrogantly, like using dress as a sign of contempt towards everything, but he is however, in my view, a very arrogant swine.

Knox was out of her mind (still was) when she walked into court in that insane T-shirt, it looked like the letters had been scrawled onto it in blood. How crude could anyone ever have made it?
A young lady is murdered, in one of the most awful ways, and then someone says, all you need is love, huh, the context, how mockingly awful, to do that, because there was only one person who needed just a little bit of love, and that was Meredith.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
Christian Fraser was giving a brief summary of the defence's case and not his own opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:00 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
For dessert, if I had to choose between a tiramisu and a trifle, I would definitely go for the better one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Caption competition!

Image


"You said my daughter ruined your son's life"
"It was misreporting madam, now please don't squeeze quite so hard"

_________________
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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:49 pm
Posts: 158
LOL!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
Catnip wrote:
For dessert, if I had to choose between a tiramisu and a trifle, I would definitely go for the better one.


I ordered that stuff once and the waiter showed up with a blindfolded horse.

I said, No, mask a pony!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:14 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
Knox Appeal Rests On Forensic Review
10:37am UK, Saturday December 18, 2010
Amanda Knox is in court to learn whether she will be granted a full review of the forensic evidence used to convict her of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... sic_Review


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Fiona wrote:
Quote:
well I am part of the very poorly educated public and I dismissed what he had to say on that subject as soon as I read it


Would you have said innocent or guilty if you had been on the jury?

If you say innocent (as I most certainly would have) then it means you don't represent the majority public view. Which wouldn't surprise me! I'm not sure you're quite as poorly educated as you'd have me believe...given your spelling, just as one example!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
What does Raffaele know that we don't...

He looks like he's got his bags packed and is looking forward to going home to me.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Catnip wrote:
Quote:
The defence is saying that Curatolo's tesimony exonerates their clients, because it proves they can't have done it.


This makes no sense. If the defence is insisting that there were no shuttle buses on Nov. 1st so Curatolo must either be mistaken about what he saw or about the date, then how can it exonerate their clients??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
cath wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.


"Knox Appeal Rests On Forensic Review" - Ian Collier, Sky News Online:

Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas, hinted at potential problems in the event the decision goes his stepdaughter's way.
He said: "The vast majority of forensics experts in Italy have already weighed in one way or another. I would imagine they are going to have a hell of a time (finding an expert)."



I suspected something like this might happen. I know what his game is. He is setting the stage and angling for experts from outside of Italy to be brought in...and by outside I mean from the USA. Mellas wants experts in there that will bat for the team and he's already got some names chalked up for that team. A real 'independent' review is the last thing Mellas wants, he wants to load the deck. This is what he's starting to fish for.

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
donnie wrote:
Knox Appeal Rests On Forensic Review
10:37am UK, Saturday December 18, 2010
Amanda Knox is in court to learn whether she will be granted a full review of the forensic evidence used to convict her of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... sic_Review


Interesting to note that Judge Hellman granted the defense request to extend the deadline for Appeal completion by 90 days.

This makes the Appeal potentially running into september 2011; almost as long as the original trial.

And the FOAKers keep whining about how 'unfair' this 'third world' legal system is ??? huh-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
thoughtful wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Quote:
The defence is saying that Curatolo's tesimony exonerates their clients, because it proves they can't have done it.


This makes no sense. If the defence is insisting that there were no shuttle buses on Nov. 1st so Curatolo must either be mistaken about what he saw or about the date, then how can it exonerate their clients??


Are the defence lawyers claiming there were no public or private buses in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:40 am
Posts: 241
Location: CH
The 411 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
411 it might amuse you to know that when I phoned the emergency services one of the questions she asked was 'Have you got any pets', clearly in order to find out if we had a Pit Bull. I was so upset I just said "Yes, a bunny". She cracked up! It just seemed such a wierd question! I assured her Mungo was no threat to anyone.


I imagine everyone was impressed with how quickly Mungo hopped
into action, as soon as he heard about Mr. Bard's medical crisis!


Stop showing bunny pictures, it's making me hungry! bu-)

Tom


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
jfk1191 wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.



I searched the Massei report and Biondo and Garofano arent mentioned. So if I take your word for them being court appoin ted neutral-experts, thats only two.

Torricelli was hired by Maresca , not the Judges court and therefore, not considered neutral, imo.

The problem with lawyers/witnesses is once their paid they are puppets for their cause.



Biondo testified in the pre-trial.

Experts representing the victims are independent for they have no agenda. The only dog in the fight the victims have is the truth and at the end of the day that's all they want and the truth is independent.

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
I can't imagine the court would accept US experts. It's a very long shot if that's what he's up to.

If the trial goes on till 2011 it will be months more pain for the Kerchers. I just hope this doesn't happen.

Thank you to everyone for updates and commentary.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Michael wrote:
cath wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.


"Knox Appeal Rests On Forensic Review" - Ian Collier, Sky News Online:

Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas, hinted at potential problems in the event the decision goes his stepdaughter's way.
He said: "The vast majority of forensics experts in Italy have already weighed in one way or another. I would imagine they are going to have a hell of a time (finding an expert)."



I suspected something like this might happen. I know what his game is. He is setting the stage and angling for experts from outside of Italy to be brought in...and by outside I mean from the USA. Mellas wants experts in there that will bat for the team and he's already got some names chalked up for that team. A real 'independent' review is the last thing Mellas wants, he wants to load the deck. This is what he's starting to fish for.


This isn't a Fast Track trial; with two sides still in heavy disagreement on a few specific pieces, why not bring in one more court-appointed expert?

I highly doubt the court can't find one more "referee expert" in all of Italy. They're obviously aware of the media frenzy this case will generate over the next few months too and will have had the past few months to think this all through, before today's verdict.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
jfk1191 wrote:
I highly doubt the court can't find one more "referee expert" in all of Italy. They're obviously aware of the media frenzy this case will generate over the next few months too and will have had the past few months to think this all through, before today's verdict.


There is no need for a "referee expert". The prosecution and defence experts all testified at the trial. The defence experts were unable to prove there had been any contamination. The results of non-repetitive tests are allowed to be entered as evidence in Italy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
cath wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.


"Knox Appeal Rests On Forensic Review" - Ian Collier, Sky News Online:

Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas, hinted at potential problems in the event the decision goes his stepdaughter's way.
He said: "The vast majority of forensics experts in Italy have already weighed in one way or another. I would imagine they are going to have a hell of a time (finding an expert)."



I suspected something like this might happen. I know what his game is. He is setting the stage and angling for experts from outside of Italy to be brought in...and by outside I mean from the USA. Mellas wants experts in there that will bat for the team and he's already got some names chalked up for that team. A real 'independent' review is the last thing Mellas wants, he wants to load the deck. This is what he's starting to fish for.


This isn't a Fast Track trial; with two sides still in heavy disagreement on a few specific pieces, why not bring in one more court-appointed expert?

I highly doubt the court can't find one more "referee expert" in all of Italy. They're obviously aware of the media frenzy this case will generate over the next few months too and will have had the past few months to think this all through, before today's verdict.



The preceding judges decided that nothing was contaminated.
They also found nothing wrong about Stefanoni's work or that of any of the other professionals from the various fields.

There has to come a time when enough is enough and I fear, for Knox and Sollecito, that time has already been and gone.
One more expert, then another one, then another one.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
Just read John's piece, and he writes so well, there's a bit in there, sorrow is not enough/the word to describe how terrible it is for them.


MR John Kercher senior: "But when we open our Christmas cards, it is certain that there will be a few signed from her. We always do that. We have to believe that she is still with us"

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
zorba wrote:

The preceding judges decided that nothing was contaminated.
They also found nothing wrong about Stefanoni's work or that of any of the other professionals from the various fields.

There has to come a time when enough is enough and I fear, for Knox and Sollecito, that time has already been and gone.
One more expert, then another one, then another one.


Of course you're right. This is near that time.
The time when enough is enough, as Rudy found out, is the final Appeal at the Supreme Court, right?

If Judge Hellman is to use the preceding judges verdicts, whats the point of having a trial?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
zorba wrote:
The preceding judges decided that nothing was contaminated.
They also found nothing wrong about Stefanoni's work or that of any of the other professionals from the various fields.

There has to come a time when enough is enough and I fear, for Knox and Sollecito, that time has already been and gone.
One more expert, then another one, then another one.


I've been reliably informed that juries usually have enough common sense and cynicism to reject defence claims of contamination. It's an insult to the intelligence of the judges and jury to expect them to believe that the double DNA knife and bra clasp were both contaminated.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:06 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
cath wrote:
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Do you think there is any harm, in allowing independent experts to review the data?
I think this review would answer the questions for me, I'd accept it either way. I hope they allow the independent experts to review all of it.
There's no concern for public safety, imo, the two are in prison so take the time to study the data.
Why would it not be allowed?


There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

The Kerchers hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni's findings.

DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano also reviewed the DNA and forensic evidence and he came to the same conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith's murder.


"Knox Appeal Rests On Forensic Review" - Ian Collier, Sky News Online:

Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas, hinted at potential problems in the event the decision goes his stepdaughter's way.
He said: "The vast majority of forensics experts in Italy have already weighed in one way or another. I would imagine they are going to have a hell of a time (finding an expert)."



I suspected something like this might happen. I know what his game is. He is setting the stage and angling for experts from outside of Italy to be brought in...and by outside I mean from the USA. Mellas wants experts in there that will bat for the team and he's already got some names chalked up for that team. A real 'independent' review is the last thing Mellas wants, he wants to load the deck. This is what he's starting to fish for.


This isn't a Fast Track trial; with two sides still in heavy disagreement on a few specific pieces, why not bring in one more court-appointed expert?

I highly doubt the court can't find one more "referee expert" in all of Italy. They're obviously aware of the media frenzy this case will generate over the next few months too and will have had the past few months to think this all through, before today's verdict.



WHY do so? We've heard from a ton of experts...why is 'one more' needed? What's the cause for this 'need'? What is the deficit in the collective testimony from all the other experts that needs to be filled?

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Google Translation:

Roma, December 18 (Adnkronos) -''We hope to be admitted to Perugia those tests which were denied at first instance.'' He says to people, the weekly Hachette Rusconi-directed by Monica Moscow in the current issue Monday 'December 20, Chris Mella, father of Amanda Knox acquired. ''We do not know what will be the decision of the jury-but-still Mellas, of course, the beginning of this process seems very different from that of the first degree.''

The whole family of Amanda Knox is in Perugia to follow the proceedings of Appeals for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The request of the defense of the girl, who was sentenced at first instance in 26 years 'imprisonment (25 years for Raffaele Sollecito) and' to be made on the alleged non-partisan expert Amanda's DNA found on knife in the kitchen of Sollecito Raffaele. The defense also asked to be heard as a witness Aviello Luciano, associate justice sentenced for crimes of the Camorra. Aviello accuses his brother of being the author of the murder of Meredith.



LIBERO

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
What are the court hours today ? or, more to the point, when does the court announce its decision concerning the possibility of a forensics review ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
The Machine wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
I highly doubt the court can't find one more "referee expert" in all of Italy. They're obviously aware of the media frenzy this case will generate over the next few months too and will have had the past few months to think this all through, before today's verdict.


There is no need for a "referee expert". The prosecution and defence experts all testified at the trial. The defence experts were unable to prove there had been any contamination. The results of non-repetitive tests are allowed to be entered as evidence in Italy.


Maybe the Judge will agree with this perspective.

imo, to offer more time for convicts to get a day out of prison, with two prisoners who will obviously contradict each other, seems a waste of everyones time.

the time, if allowed, would be better spent on the scientific evidence, maybe even the material/substance on the pillow or the audiometric testing. this would be new evidence of more importance.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Google Translation:

Perugia, December 18 - (Adnkronos) - The prosecutor general of Perugia has a negative opinion on requests for technical and scientific expertise advanced by the defenses of both defendants. According to Giancarlo pg Costagliola and Manuela pm Comfortable, who took turns in the intervention there 'no need to re-skill.

In particular, the defense had requested further study on the knife, the alleged murder weapon, timetable and modalities' of the death of Meredith. For this analysis according to the prosecution would not need the advice of a counselor who could add anything to what is already 'known. Furthermore, according to the prosecution, the evidence already 'exist for these topics are abundant.

Sollecito's defense had also requested a report on the hook of bra of Meredith, where he was isolated the DNA of the student from Puglia. On defense, the DNA would be there 'for contamination. The prosecutor argued that Manuela Convenient hook that can not 'have contaminated because it' s always been the scene of the crime. Where if the DNA of Meredith may have contaminated something, could not have happened the same with that reminder, that it 's never entered the room of Meredith. The prosecution has also expressed a negative opinion for the skill and Raffaele Sollecito on the computer for the simulation of the crime of theft in the chalet.



LIBERO

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
smacker wrote:
What are the court hours today ? or, more to the point, when does the court announce its decision concerning the possibility of a forensics review ?



My guess would be in two to three hours.

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
My impatience trait is never far from the surface but it stuck its head up quite rudely this morning......


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
jfk1191 wrote:
imo, to offer more time for convicts to get a day out of prison, with two prisoners who will obviously contradict each other, seems a waste of everyones time.

the time, if allowed, would be better spent on the scientific evidence, maybe even the material/substance on the pillow or the audiometric testing. this would be new evidence of more importance.


Knox and Sollecito have contradicted each other repeatedly.

Has ever been a murder trial where the defendants have given three different alibis and been found not guilty?

There's no need for audiometric test. It's perfectly possible to hear someone scream through double glazing.

I don't object to the stain on the pillow being tested.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Michael wrote:
smacker wrote:
What are the court hours today ? or, more to the point, when does the court announce its decision concerning the possibility of a forensics review ?



My guess would be in two to three hours.


Last week the decision came at 6:30 - 7:00PM UK time. My guess is it will be the same this week.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
piktor wrote:
Michael wrote:
smacker wrote:
What are the court hours today ? or, more to the point, when does the court announce its decision concerning the possibility of a forensics review ?



My guess would be in two to three hours.


Last week the decision came at 6:30 - 7:00PM UK time. My guess is it will be the same this week.


Michael,

thanks; I've sent my impatience trait packing............swapped it for a dose of reality.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Google Translation:


Perugia, December 18, 2010 - Do not oppose the defense request to hear some new witnesses but say no to the provision of new expert reports, the Attorney General and substitutes pg representing the prosecution in the appeal process under way in Perugia Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, convicted in first instance to 26 and 25 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher.



The two boys are now in the classroom . In the same class are present at the hearing, among others, the father and sister Raffaele, Francesco Sollecito, Vanessa and Amanda's mother and stepfather, and Chris Edda Mellas. During replication the Attorney General, Giancarlo Costaiola, has not opposed the request of the defenses of the two former sweethearts of the witnesses feel sorry Aviello Luciano, investigated by the prosecutor of Perugia for the crime of slander, and Mario Alessi bricklayer Sicilian convicted for the murder of little Tommaso Onofri and said he had picked up in prison confidences Rudy Guede in relation foreignness of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder of British student.



The Pg has not opposed the request to hear even some of the same prison inmates, to Viterbo, where for a period of time and Alessi Guede, were held together. No, instead, the ability to suffer in the classroom heads Antonio Curatolo, the homeless in the first trial claimed to have seen Amanda and Raffaele Piazza Grimana just a short distance from the house of the crime, the night Meredith was killed and the request to hear new witnesses who, according to the defense Sollecito, denied allegations of the homeless.



Opposition across the board, however , because of the new appraisals requested by the defense. On that audiometry, in relation to the URL Nara cribs, an elderly lady who lives a few meters from the murder house, claims to have heard the night of the murder (according to the accusation you could never reproduce the exact conditions of the evening). An expert allegedly "unnecessary" because the woman's statements are considered "reliable." No to new findings on DNA found on the knife believed to be the murder weapon (which was detected on the DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher), to those medical conditions and those related to the bedroom window of Filomena Romanelli (Italian's roommate he shared the house with the victim and Amanda) through which the burglary, according to the prosecution, would have attempted to simulate the theft within the house on Via della Pergola.



To take the word was then the public minister, Manuela Convenient , one of the judges who, together with Giuliano Mignini, represented the prosecution in the first trial for two former sweethearts. Comfortable in particular has focused on genetic evaluations conducted by forensic on the knife believed to be the murder weapon and the hook of the victim's bra, which has been isolated the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito. The judge noted in court as "the results of genetic testing on the knife and the hook of bra has been discussed in prior and during the first trial, by an impressive list of witnesses" and that, during the visits in murder house the forensic traces found 460, 228 of whom find.



"In those from which DNA was extracted - said Comfortable -, this last result is due or accused, or Rudy Guede, or the victim and one of the defendants. " The judge then spoke of "inconsistency of the criticism of the work of forensic science" and "groundless and inadmissible the request of the defense as to the question of genetics." So the hypothesis of a possible contamination of specimens, often supported by argument and dismissed by the prosecution. "The contamination is a fact and not opinion - said the judge - and how that evidence should be provided. The defenses were unable to prove this fact because there was no contamination. "



With regard in particular to the victim's bra hook , convenient claimed as' though this has been found in it after the first inspection of forensics, the latter has never left the room of the crime, "the same room inhabited only by Meredith and in which "Raffaele is never entered" after the discovery of the body of Mez. For convenience, therefore, "the potential pollution of Sollecito is nothing." The word now passes to the civil parties. The Court's decision in relation to requests made in the classroom is expected in the day.

Agi

Guede, sentence confirmed



LA NAZIONE

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
Yes but it isn't simplistic like that is it JFK!

You need to see things according to the Italian reality, according to their system. Their system is the one that the UK & USA versions are, in part, based on. There are differences though.

When a person says the word jury, anyone from the USA or the UK automatically thinks in terms of an American or British judicial reality, yet, there is NO jury system in Italy, so it's nonsense actually, to keep referring to the civil judges & lay judges as jurors.
Why this is, comes from the fact that the roles they take, are not played out as they are in America or Britain.
The reason it is wrong to use terms that adhere to totally different legal concepts is because it is misleading and doesn't help understand what is taking place.

In relation to this case people talk about appealing as if they have won some battle, but in the USA and UK people do not even get an appeal granted very easily at all, there must be very solid grounds for granting an appeal.

In Italy the appeals are a matter of course, yet it does not mean that the judges in session at the appeal totally disregard all that their predecessors decided.

Therefore, there has to be something that is totally different, not like a totally unreliable witness, a convicted killer, a mafia employee, killer of children, rapist. If a man steps up and says it was me, I did it and I killed two women one in 2004, the other in 2005, I raped them and afraid to be caught by them going to the police, I killed them, knifing one and strangling the other and reveals things only he could know as the killer, that is something new and something damning. He'd have his DNA tested and it'd, for instance, tuyrn out to match thhe DNA found under one of the victim's fingernails, then that is new and credible, viable evidence.

What Knox and Sollecito's people are up to is not new, and they are already costing the state a fortune, yet the state has to go through with viewing the evidence.
They are not about to ignore the work of all kinds of trustworthy professionals, who worked on coming to the right decisions., Stefanoni went through a very strict interview selection process to get the job she has. She is backed up by all kinds of people involved in the case, because they too have told their story and everything they all said, is consistent.
On the other hand, all of the experts from Knox and Sollecito, were hired in, and they were hired in to say what Knox and Sollecito's families wanted them to say, if they had not agreed to interpret things in their favour they'd have been fired and other experts hired until they said what was needed.

If those experts however, had been able to show that they had truly reasonable explanations, on important points, then their testimony would have been deemed valid and acceptable. As it was, none of them had ways to explain-away the most important and vital elements.
So the stipendiary and lay judges deliberated and decided that the case for the prosecution was the one that fit in with the truth.

To deny all of this, the presiding judge and his colleague would have to be able to agree with the defense and say, Oh yes, so a vast amount of very worthy and upstanding persons, from friends of Meredith to housemates, to police, interpreters, different police forces, all colluded with one another in telling lies and that Knox & Sollecito are totally honest persons, also, the blood and the mixed traces were just coincidences/chance happenings, even though logically that can never be.

The truth is in fact; nothing, not a single thing fits together in Knox and Sollecito's puzzle.

All of these upheavals that these two new judges would have to to through, would be taking place before they even give it to the lay judges.
How can they accept responsibility for wasting the lay judges' time, when nothing Knox & Sollecito's teams came up with works out/fits in or is logically possible?

When you are on trial for genocide, and you then dig up and bring in Rudolph Hess as a jolly character witness who just so happens to have the key to the truth, it's called desperation
not evidence or common sense.

The only thing that is contaminated is the mentality behind Knox & Sollecito's defence.

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


Last edited by zorba on Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:09 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Michael wrote:
Google Translation:


Perugia, December 18, 2010 - Do not oppose the defense request to hear some new witnesses but say no to the provision of new expert reports, the Attorney General and substitutes pg representing the prosecution in the appeal process under way in Perugia Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, convicted in first instance to 26 and 25 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher.



The two boys are now in the classroom . In the same class are present at the hearing, among others, the father and sister Raffaele, Francesco Sollecito, Vanessa and Amanda's mother and stepfather, and Chris Edda Mellas. During replication the Attorney General, Giancarlo Costaiola, has not opposed the request of the defenses of the two former sweethearts of the witnesses feel sorry Aviello Luciano, investigated by the prosecutor of Perugia for the crime of slander, and Mario Alessi bricklayer Sicilian convicted for the murder of little Tommaso Onofri and said he had picked up in prison confidences Rudy Guede in relation foreignness of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder of British student.



The Pg has not opposed the request to hear even some of the same prison inmates, to Viterbo, where for a period of time and Alessi Guede, were held together. No, instead, the ability to suffer in the classroom heads Antonio Curatolo, the homeless in the first trial claimed to have seen Amanda and Raffaele Piazza Grimana just a short distance from the house of the crime, the night Meredith was killed and the request to hear new witnesses who, according to the defense Sollecito, denied allegations of the homeless.



Opposition across the board, however , because of the new appraisals requested by the defense. On that audiometry, in relation to the URL Nara cribs, an elderly lady who lives a few meters from the murder house, claims to have heard the night of the murder (according to the accusation you could never reproduce the exact conditions of the evening). An expert allegedly "unnecessary" because the woman's statements are considered "reliable." No to new findings on DNA found on the knife believed to be the murder weapon (which was detected on the DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher), to those medical conditions and those related to the bedroom window of Filomena Romanelli (Italian's roommate he shared the house with the victim and Amanda) through which the burglary, according to the prosecution, would have attempted to simulate the theft within the house on Via della Pergola.



To take the word was then the public minister, Manuela Convenient , one of the judges who, together with Giuliano Mignini, represented the prosecution in the first trial for two former sweethearts. Comfortable in particular has focused on genetic evaluations conducted by forensic on the knife believed to be the murder weapon and the hook of the victim's bra, which has been isolated the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito. The judge noted in court as "the results of genetic testing on the knife and the hook of bra has been discussed in prior and during the first trial, by an impressive list of witnesses" and that, during the visits in murder house the forensic traces found 460, 228 of whom find.



"In those from which DNA was extracted - said Comfortable -, this last result is due or accused, or Rudy Guede, or the victim and one of the defendants. " The judge then spoke of "inconsistency of the criticism of the work of forensic science" and "groundless and inadmissible the request of the defense as to the question of genetics." So the hypothesis of a possible contamination of specimens, often supported by argument and dismissed by the prosecution. "The contamination is a fact and not opinion - said the judge - and how that evidence should be provided. The defenses were unable to prove this fact because there was no contamination. "



With regard in particular to the victim's bra hook , convenient claimed as' though this has been found in it after the first inspection of forensics, the latter has never left the room of the crime, "the same room inhabited only by Meredith and in which "Raffaele is never entered" after the discovery of the body of Mez. For convenience, therefore, "the potential pollution of Sollecito is nothing." The word now passes to the civil parties. The Court's decision in relation to requests made in the classroom is expected in the day.

Agi

Guede, sentence confirmed



LA NAZIONE


Michael, I can't make head or tail of this. What's happening?

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Prosecutor Giancarlo Costagliola said a review would be "useless" and that "this court has all the elements to be able to come to a decision."

Knox, a 23-year-old from Seattle, was hunched and pale as she was escorted into the courtroom. Her mother, Edda Mellas, was in court and said she would stay to spend Christmas with her daughter.

ALLEN PIZZEY reporting from Perugia for CBS

The video showing the live interview with Edda Mellas during a court break today is not yet up on the site. She did not seem as confident and defiant as usual, in fact, she said she was "scared"...

_________________
“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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:40 pm
Posts: 56
"manuela convenient". that made me laugh :)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Google Translation:


Perugia, December 18, 2010 - Do not oppose the defense request to hear some new witnesses but say no to the provision of new expert reports, the Attorney General and substitutes pg representing the prosecution in the appeal process under way in Perugia Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, convicted in first instance to 26 and 25 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher.



The two boys are now in the classroom . In the same class are present at the hearing, among others, the father and sister Raffaele, Francesco Sollecito, Vanessa and Amanda's mother and stepfather, and Chris Edda Mellas. During replication the Attorney General, Giancarlo Costaiola, has not opposed the request of the defenses of the two former sweethearts of the witnesses feel sorry Aviello Luciano, investigated by the prosecutor of Perugia for the crime of slander, and Mario Alessi bricklayer Sicilian convicted for the murder of little Tommaso Onofri and said he had picked up in prison confidences Rudy Guede in relation foreignness of Amanda and Raffaele in the murder of British student.



The Pg has not opposed the request to hear even some of the same prison inmates, to Viterbo, where for a period of time and Alessi Guede, were held together. No, instead, the ability to suffer in the classroom heads Antonio Curatolo, the homeless in the first trial claimed to have seen Amanda and Raffaele Piazza Grimana just a short distance from the house of the crime, the night Meredith was killed and the request to hear new witnesses who, according to the defense Sollecito, denied allegations of the homeless.



Opposition across the board, however , because of the new appraisals requested by the defense. On that audiometry, in relation to the URL Nara cribs, an elderly lady who lives a few meters from the murder house, claims to have heard the night of the murder (according to the accusation you could never reproduce the exact conditions of the evening). An expert allegedly "unnecessary" because the woman's statements are considered "reliable." No to new findings on DNA found on the knife believed to be the murder weapon (which was detected on the DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher), to those medical conditions and those related to the bedroom window of Filomena Romanelli (Italian's roommate he shared the house with the victim and Amanda) through which the burglary, according to the prosecution, would have attempted to simulate the theft within the house on Via della Pergola.



To take the word was then the public minister, Manuela Convenient , one of the judges who, together with Giuliano Mignini, represented the prosecution in the first trial for two former sweethearts. Comfortable in particular has focused on genetic evaluations conducted by forensic on the knife believed to be the murder weapon and the hook of the victim's bra, which has been isolated the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito. The judge noted in court as "the results of genetic testing on the knife and the hook of bra has been discussed in prior and during the first trial, by an impressive list of witnesses" and that, during the visits in murder house the forensic traces found 460, 228 of whom find.



"In those from which DNA was extracted - said Comfortable -, this last result is due or accused, or Rudy Guede, or the victim and one of the defendants. " The judge then spoke of "inconsistency of the criticism of the work of forensic science" and "groundless and inadmissible the request of the defense as to the question of genetics." So the hypothesis of a possible contamination of specimens, often supported by argument and dismissed by the prosecution. "The contamination is a fact and not opinion - said the judge - and how that evidence should be provided. The defenses were unable to prove this fact because there was no contamination. "



With regard in particular to the victim's bra hook , convenient claimed as' though this has been found in it after the first inspection of forensics, the latter has never left the room of the crime, "the same room inhabited only by Meredith and in which "Raffaele is never entered" after the discovery of the body of Mez. For convenience, therefore, "the potential pollution of Sollecito is nothing." The word now passes to the civil parties. The Court's decision in relation to requests made in the classroom is expected in the day.

Agi

Guede, sentence confirmed



LA NAZIONE


Michael, I can't make head or tail of this. What's happening?


With the FOA relying on google translations it's little wonder that some of the stuff they come out with is hard to comprehend.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
Tara wrote:
Quote:
Prosecutor Giancarlo Costagliola said a review would be "useless" and that "this court has all the elements to be able to come to a decision."

Knox, a 23-year-old from Seattle, was hunched and pale as she was escorted into the courtroom. Her mother, Edda Mellas, was in court and said she would stay to spend Christmas with her daughter.

ALLEN PIZZEY reporting from Perugia for CBS

The video showing the live interview with Edda Mellas during a court break today is not yet up on the site. She did not seem as confident and defiant as usual, in fact, she said she was "scared"...


As scared as Meredith Kercher was when Mellas' killing daughter stuck the knife in?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
smacker, bard - make some curry! how about some spicy vindaloo!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
The Bard wrote:
Michael, I can't make head or tail of this. What's happening?



Essentially, the prosecution are objecting to all requests for further tests and witnesses EXCEPT for the admitting of the the two criminals and in Aviello's case, even some of his previous cell mates.

The defence have finished making their request. The prosecution have finished making their objections. Right now, the lawyers for the victims are making their presentations which shouldn't take long. Once that's done the judges will retire to consider all the requests and objections and return with a decision some time late afternoon or early evening today.

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 516
smacker wrote:
My impatience trait is never far from the surface but it stuck its head up quite rudely this morning......


Hi smacker,

I suspect there are many (of us) here who are just as “on edge” as you seem to be.

In London with family for social outing but sneaking a check here (PMF) on the hand held PC from time to time. Appreciate greatly the updates from those at their desks.

Keep the faith.

Kind regards,

H

ps whats with this snow in London?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
The telehearing would be a good solution then they could plead from the comfort of the prison, via videoconferencing.

Last week I translated a site survey for a new courtroom layout; the courtroom had to be set up in such a way as to allow the telehearings as well as ordinary court sessions. These videoconferences for telehearings are used in a few places in the world.

Saves the state a lot of dosh, time and energy too.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
The Machine wrote:
Quote:
Are the defence lawyers claiming there were no public or private buses in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder?


No. They are referring only to the shuttle buses sent by the discos. Those are the ones that Curatolo referred to precisely in his testimony. As far as I remember, he said nothing about city buses. Presumably they don't have the same appearance at all; at any rate he mentioned the shuttle buses and not the others.

This is the point the defence is hoping to exploit according to Raffaele's appeal document, but it seems unclear exactly how they are going about it or whether they will be allowed to do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Smacker wrote:
With the FOA relying on google translations it's little wonder that some of the stuff they come out with is hard to comprehend.


Indeed!

But for us, some of our translators will be along later and will render some proper translations so things will be clearer. We'll have to put up with Google translations until then. Court days on PMF usually start this way. BUT...Catnip and Jools earlier gave some brief posts announcing the key points of today's business.

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
bedelia wrote:
smacker, bard - make some curry! how about some spicy vindaloo!


currently dreaming......

chopped onions, garlic, ginger.....fry
add 2 tbs Patak's vindaloo curry paste.....fry
add 2 lbs chopped tomatoes, salt to taste, black pepper, stir, ......bring to the boil
add 2lbs cubed lamb........return to boil
simmer 2 hours
add 2 tps garam masala, 1 lb boiled, cubed potatoes, stir, add lemion juice

demolish.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
jfk1191 wrote:
This isn't a Fast Track trial; with two sides still in heavy disagreement on a few specific pieces, why not bring in one more court-appointed expert?

I highly doubt the court can't find one more "referee expert" in all of Italy. They're obviously aware of the media frenzy this case will generate over the next few months too and will have had the past few months to think this all through, before today's verdict.


The trial is over. This is the appeal. They still have the Supreme Court.

As the lawyers here said, "Only if there is something new to add." It's been gone over and over. There is nothing new to add. It's just desperation on the part of the defense team. Just like Amanda's statement last week.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Michael wrote:
Google Translation:

Roma, December 18 (Adnkronos) -''We hope to be admitted to Perugia those tests which were denied at first instance.'' He says to people, the weekly Hachette Rusconi-directed by Monica Moscow in the current issue Monday 'December 20, Chris Mella, father of Amanda Knox acquired. ''We do not know what will be the decision of the jury-but-still Mellas, of course, the beginning of this process seems very different from that of the first degree.''

The whole family of Amanda Knox is in Perugia to follow the proceedings of Appeals for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The request of the defense of the girl, who was sentenced at first instance in 26 years 'imprisonment (25 years for Raffaele Sollecito) and' to be made on the alleged non-partisan expert Amanda's DNA found on knife in the kitchen of Sollecito Raffaele. The defense also asked to be heard as a witness Aviello Luciano, associate justice sentenced for crimes of the Camorra. Aviello accuses his brother of being the author of the murder of Meredith.



LIBERO

Oh, Chris Mellas has another “exclusive” in GENTE. I guess he is cashing in while living in Perugia. :roll:

From Above article: “We hope that in Perugia they accept to do those tests which were denied at first instance trial”. Chris Mellas, stepfather of Amanda Knox, talks to GENTE the weekly magazine on Monday December 20, issue. “We don’t know what the judges will decide, – says Mellas- but for sure the beginning of this trial seems very different from that of the first instance”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
jfk wrote:
Quote:
Of course you're right. This is near that time.
The time when enough is enough, as Rudy found out, is the final Appeal at the Supreme Court, right?

If Judge Hellman is to use the preceding judges verdicts, whats the point of having a trial?


I agree with this point of view. I doubt that appeals courts in general wish to simply repeat the previous trial all the way down to accepting its conclusions, in order to avoid the appearance of the rigmarole that stilicho quite hilariously evoked above.

Also, there are some requests from the defence that are not repetitions of previous tests (the audiometric test, for example, or the pillowcase stain), and of course the Raffaele computer contradictory evidence. Perhaps they will form the object of a separate decision than the DNA questions. Presumably the court will be able to choose to allow some and reject others.

As for Alessi and Aviello, I'm not surprised that the prosecution doesn't object. They probably think the defence will be shooting itself in the foot by putting those two on the stand.


Last edited by thoughtful on Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Mellarse hasn't got his head around the fact that this isn't a trial.................


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
How come everyone is getting snow but us? First the Midwest, then Virginia, now Europe. My kids are dying for some snow! Just let them go to school for the week so I can finish my Christmas shopping.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Michael, I can't make head or tail of this. What's happening?



Essentially, the prosecution are objecting to all requests for further tests and witnesses EXCEPT for the admitting of the the two criminals and in Aviello's case, even some of his previous cell mates.

The defence have finished making their request. The prosecution have finished making their objections. Right now, the lawyers for the victims are making their presentations which shouldn't take long. Once that's done the judges will retire to consider all the requests and objections and return with a decision some time late afternoon or early evening today.


I believe they had a break for lunch and next to speak are the civil parties. So decision could be in later today.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
thoughtful wrote:
jfk wrote:
Quote:
Of course you're right. This is near that time.
The time when enough is enough, as Rudy found out, is the final Appeal at the Supreme Court, right?

If Judge Hellman is to use the preceding judges verdicts, whats the point of having a trial?


I agree with this point of view. I doubt that appeals courts in general wish to simply repeat the previous trial all the way down to accepting its conclusions, in order to avoid the appearance of the rigmarole that stilicho quite hilariously evoked above.

Also, there are some requests from the defence that are not repetitions of previous tests (the audiometric test, for example, or the pillowcase stain), and of course the Raffaele computer contradictory evidence. Perhaps they will form the object of a separate decision than the DNA questions. Presumably the court will be able to choose to allow some and reject others.

As for Alessi and Aviello, I'm not surprised that the prosecution doesn't object. They probably think the defence will be shooting itself in the foot by putting those two on the stand.


There are numerous checks and balances in the Italian legal system. Judge Hellman knows that everything the appeals court does will be subject to review at the Supreme Court level, and there can be no doubt that everything will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Hellman will do no less, but surely no more, than his interpretation of Italian law demands knowing that he is not making those decisions in a vacuum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Posts: 658
Location: New York
thoughtful wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Quote:
Are the defence lawyers claiming there were no public or private buses in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder?


No. They are referring only to the shuttle buses sent by the discos. Those are the ones that Curatolo referred to precisely in his testimony. As far as I remember, he said nothing about city buses. Presumably they don't have the same appearance at all; at any rate he mentioned the shuttle buses and not the others.

This is the point the defence is hoping to exploit according to Raffaele's appeal document, but it seems unclear exactly how they are going about it or whether they will be allowed to do so.


Yeah the Perugia city buses (which are huge - so large that they make you laugh) and the shuttle buses (which are small, maybe 12 seaters, to head up through the city gate there) do look quite different.

Beats me why shuttle buses are needed except maybe to bring the drunks and dopeheads back down. The central plateau of the massif is not very large. It can be walked end to end in 15 minutes.

Peter Quennell


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
I'd best take my own advice and go make a curry since it will probably be a few hours!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
Fast Pete wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Quote:
Are the defence lawyers claiming there were no public or private buses in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder?


No. They are referring only to the shuttle buses sent by the discos. Those are the ones that Curatolo referred to precisely in his testimony. As far as I remember, he said nothing about city buses. Presumably they don't have the same appearance at all; at any rate he mentioned the shuttle buses and not the others.

This is the point the defence is hoping to exploit according to Raffaele's appeal document, but it seems unclear exactly how they are going about it or whether they will be allowed to do so.


Yeah the Perugia city buses (which are huge - so large that they make you laugh) and the shuttle buses (which are small, maybe 12 seaters, to head up through the city gate there) do look quite different.

Beats me why shuttle buses are needed except maybe to bring the drunks and dopeheads back down. The central plateau of the massif is not very large. It can be walked end to end in 15 minutes.

Peter Quennell


Were any shuttle buses running on 1 November 2007?

Are there any halls of residence outside of Perugia?


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
I have no time to translate the La Nazione article (sorry!) but here's a quick summary of the main points.

1) The decision is awaited in an hour.

2) The prosecution does not object to hearing Aviello and Alessi. They do object to hearing Curatolo again, and to hearing new witnesses whose testimony would contradict his declarations.

3) They do object to all new expertises requested by the defence including the audiometric test for Nara Capezzali, and on the knife, on the pathological findings and on Filomena's window.

4) Manuela Comodi spoke on behalf of the prosecution. She recalled how much the DNA results were already discussed by many witnesses.

5) On the subject of contamination she said "contamination is a fact not a hypothesis. It was not proven by the defence because it was not there".

6) On the subject of the bra clasp she said contamination was impossible because it never left Meredith's room and Sollecito never went in there after Meredith's death.

7) Now it is the turn of the civil parties.

Sadly, I have to go out now. I'd like to participate in the hourly updates. I will have a quick look in before taking my kids to a fair devoted to 19th century amusements and going to my sister-in-law's for dinner...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
The Machine wrote:
Quote:
Were any shuttle buses running on 1 November 2007?


Apparently Raffaele's defence has established with witnesses to prove it that there were none. These are specific shuttle buses sent by certain specific discos to bring students there and home. We're not talking about generic shuttle buses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
thoughtful wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Quote:
Were any shuttle buses running on 1 November 2007?


Apparently Raffaele's defence has established with witnesses to prove it that there were none. These are specific shuttle buses sent by certain specific discos to bring students there and home. We're not talking about generic shuttle buses.


I've missed something; what difference does this make ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
bedelia wrote:
I'd best take my own advice and go make a curry since it will probably be a few hours!


Okay then, we'll be round at 6

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Posts: 658
Location: New York
bedelia wrote:
How come everyone is getting snow but us? First the Midwest, then Virginia, now Europe. My kids are dying for some snow! Just let them go to school for the week so I can finish my Christmas shopping.


Well New York sure is getting plenty of ice Bedelia! So many nights below freezing. And again this year there are three large open-air ice rinks in Manhattan.

We saw the Messiah at Lincoln Center last night, pretty amazing, tonight is the last night if you can make it. And make sure to see the ABT's totally new Nutcracker ballet in Brooklyn.

Bergdorf Goodman's windows are my favorite again this year. I'll throw up some images later on my New York area blog.

We New Yorkers maybe should do lunch monthly or something. Please message me anyone who is on board for this? The Seattle group runs rings around us.

Pete


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Bruce Fisher has PM'd me on JREF to say that he has no respect for me. I am heartbroken. Welling up.

_________________
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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce Fisher has PM'd me on JREF to say that he has no respect for me. I am heartbroken. Welling up.


he has no respect for an anonymous poster ? Ooh, hit me again with that feather.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Google translation:

"Perugia, December 18, 2010 - The Court of Assizes of Appeal in Perugia has retreated into closed session to decide on the hearing request to reopen the investigation made by the defense of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The Court's decision is expected in about an hour."

http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... v=_t&twu=1


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Goggle Translation:

MEREDITH: WORD accused, NO TO REOPENING INQUIRY

(AGI) - Perugia, 18 December - In the third hearing of the appeal process under which the defendants are in Perugia Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, convicted in first instance to 26 and 25 years in prison for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher ( and present, as before, in class), took the floor first to the representatives of the prosecution.

Objected to the request to reopen the debate last Saturday had been backed by the defenses of the two young people. On them, presumably in the late afternoon, you must 'say the Court, in rejecting or accepting in toto in whole or in part the possibility' to have new appraisals and the examination of new witnesses.

For the prosecution, in point of law, he explained why he opposes' the attorney general Giancarlo Costagliola, while Manuela PM Comfortable, together with Giuliano Mignini applied to the process, and 'enter into the case reaffirming the goodness' and accuracy of work carried out by forensic and post. No opposition and 'expressed the examination of new witnesses (the repentant Aviello Luciano, investigated by the public prosecutor of Perugia for slander, Mario Alessi, convicted for the murder of Tommaso Onofri said he had been able to have the same Rudy who's now ex- Amanda and Raffaele had foreign boyfriends murder, some inmates of Viterbo where Guede and Alessi had been together for a period.

Instead rejected the requests to hear Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man who had reported seeing Amanda and Raffaele the night of the crime not far from the house of horrors and new witnesses who denied allegations of Curatolo - Ed.) In opening the hearing (adjourned for lunch and resumed at around 15) the Court after a brief closed session agreed to a request from the Attorney General to acquire part of the sentence by which the Supreme Court has definitively confirmed the sentence to 16 Rudy Guede years and the grounds of the first and second degree dependent dell'ivoriano. In the appeal process is referred to a crime committed by most 'people. The Court also ordered the suspension of the period of custody during the 90 days passed since the conviction at first instance to Sollecito and Knox and the filing of its reasons, so slip 'in September, the terms of imprisonment that were set for early next June. For plaintiffs, the Florentine lawyer Francesco Maresca representing the victim's family, criticized the defense strategy developed in the field by the defendants which it believes WOULD BE trying to change the structure of the process by the principle that everything would be redone . Present at the hearing, among others, his mother and stepfather of Amanda, and Chris Edda Mellas, Vanessa and Francesco Sollecito, Raffaele's father and sister.



ASCA

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce Fisher has PM'd me on JREF to say that he has no respect for me. I am heartbroken. Welling up.


I'm sure you are going to loose a lot of sleep from now on! What a Fishy pillock wan-) he is!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce Fisher has PM'd me on JREF to say that he has no respect for me. I am heartbroken. Welling up.


You have been privately taken to the woodshed. sp-))

Mr. Fisher is one tough hombre. wa-))

Now that he's done with you, it's back to mop-) wm) mop-) wm) mop-) wm) ss)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Perhaps the defining post of Mary H8's career on JREF. Here you go, bottom line about who Mary is as a person, she believes homeless people have mental health issues by dint of them being homeless:

Originally Posted by Mary_H
Do you really want to go there, SomeAlibi? I challenge you to ask a legitimate mental health professional what their opinion is of someone who sleeps on a park bench, year round, for a decade.


My reply:

You think homeless people are homeless by choice? That the tens of millions of homeless people around the world all have mental health problems? Your insult against the homeless is absolutely breathtaking. Try going and working for a homeless persons charity for a couple of days and educating yourself. What a terrible statement to make.

_________________
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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
SomeAlibi wrote:
Perhaps the defining post of Mary H8's career on JREF. Here you go, bottom line about who Mary is as a person, she believes homeless people have mental health issues by dint of them being homeless:

Originally Posted by Mary_H
Do you really want to go there, SomeAlibi? I challenge you to ask a legitimate mental health professional what their opinion is of someone who sleeps on a park bench, year round, for a decade.


My reply:

You think homeless people are homeless by choice? That the tens of millions of homeless people around the world all have mental health problems? Your insult against the homeless is absolutely breathtaking. Try going and working for a homeless persons charity for a couple of days and educating yourself. What a terrible statement to make.


Somealibi encountered Curatolo as he is: compos mentis, astute, smart and dapper with an umbrella.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce Fisher has PM'd me on JREF to say that he has no respect for me. I am heartbroken. Welling up.


It's probably a typo. He means that he has no spaghetti for you.

Guys try all kinds of pick-up lines these days. Don't fall for it. The guy's an idiot.

.


Last edited by norbertc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Oh dear, Ghirga is not amused: p-(((


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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
piktor wrote:
...

:lol:
Te iba a contestar pero ya veo que te has dado cuenta. :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Michael wrote:
Goggle Translation:

[border]MEREDITH: WORD accused, NO TO REOPENING INQUIRY....

...rejected the requests to hear Antonio Curatolo


So Antonio will not be recalled to the stand.

Michael wrote:
Goggle Translation:

...the Court after a brief closed session agreed to a request from the Attorney General to acquire part of the sentence by which the Supreme Court has definitively confirmed the sentence to 16 Rudy Guede...


Amanda and Raffaele - meet Rudy Guede...
and Rudy, this is Amanda and this is Raffaele
Please play nice :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Jools wrote:
piktor wrote:
...

:lol:
Te iba a contestar pero ya veo que te has dado cuenta. :lol: :lol:


LOL indeed. b-((

I'm taking a bike ride. drin-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
stint7 wrote:
Jools wrote:
Aw, the former in-laws greet each other the continental way. k-((


Could not help but thinking about what Edda might be saying:

1) You did not really mean that about 'the day that Raffie met my daughter was the worst day in his life'....Did you ??

2) Sorry we cannot help much with your 'making water run uphill'.
You see Marriott is very expensive and the Fundraisers have..uh... well... not raised many 'funds'

3) Uhhh; could I ask you a quick medical question about this problem my neighbor has ...?

4) You know all this stuff about younger guys for husbands is not really all it is built up as



Stint: HA!!! HA!!!
FOUR good ones!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Nick Pisa on the phone with Sky News, now on TV:

"JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE."


Last edited by Jools on Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
NICK PISA JUST PASSED THE PHONE TO EDDA MELLAS, SHE IS TELLING SKY NEWS THAT SHE THRILLED WITH THE NEWS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa for Sky News on TV now:

JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE.


what is there to test on the knife ?

Surely this is bad news for AK and RS, since all the rest of the forensic evidence cannot be challenged.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4104
Location: London
I suppose Mellas hopes that a new test on the bra clasp somehow says it's Guede's DNA.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
smacker wrote:
Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa for Sky News on TV now:

JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE.


what is there to test on the knife ?

Surely this is bad news for AK and RS, since all the rest of the forensic evidence cannot be challenged.


Is not really a test is more of a review of what was tested. Basically another expert giving an evaluation, his/her opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Jools wrote:
smacker wrote:
Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa for Sky News on TV now:

JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE.


what is there to test on the knife ?

Surely this is bad news for AK and RS, since all the rest of the forensic evidence cannot be challenged.


Is not really a test is more of a review of what was tested. Basically another expert giving an evaluation, his/her opinion.


Not sure what Edda is thrilled about......this changes nothing other than prove the Italian judicial system is extremely reasonable, even in the case of convicted murderers.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 269
Jools wrote:
Michael wrote:
Google Translation:

Roma, December 18 (Adnkronos) -''We hope to be admitted to Perugia those tests which were denied at first instance.'' He says to people, the weekly Hachette Rusconi-directed by Monica Moscow in the current issue Monday 'December 20, Chris Mella, father of Amanda Knox acquired. ''We do not know what will be the decision of the jury-but-still Mellas, of course, the beginning of this process seems very different from that of the first degree.''

The whole family of Amanda Knox is in Perugia to follow the proceedings of Appeals for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The request of the defense of the girl, who was sentenced at first instance in 26 years 'imprisonment (25 years for Raffaele Sollecito) and' to be made on the alleged non-partisan expert Amanda's DNA found on knife in the kitchen of Sollecito Raffaele. The defense also asked to be heard as a witness Aviello Luciano, associate justice sentenced for crimes of the Camorra. Aviello accuses his brother of being the author of the murder of Meredith.



LIBERO

Oh, Chris Mellas has another “exclusive” in GENTE. I guess he is cashing in while living in Perugia. :roll:

From Above article: “We hope that in Perugia they accept to do those tests which were denied at first instance trial”. Chris Mellas, stepfather of Amanda Knox, talks to GENTE the weekly magazine on Monday December 20, issue. “We don’t know what the judges will decide, – says Mellas- but for sure the beginning of this trial seems very different from that of the first instance”.



It would seem that having lost the media battle in the US, Mellas is in Italy to take up the media battle in the local press while the appeal is in session....

Pat


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 269
smacker wrote:
Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa for Sky News on TV now:

JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE.


what is there to test on the knife ?

Surely this is bad news for AK and RS, since all the rest of the forensic evidence cannot be challenged.


I think its actually more relevant for Raf then AK.... the rest of the mixed blood evidence and luminol footprints is still enough to hold amanda over, I think; but if raf's knife is thrown out along with the bra strap, what is left to connect him could potentially leave room for reasonable doubt in his case:
witness testimony (curatolo)
half a footprint on the bathmat
inconsistent story of the evening...
coroners testimony on how the murder occurred


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:44 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
BREAKING: Knox Wins Key Evidence Review

An Italian court has granted Amanda Knox a review of evidence in the Meredith Kercher murder case.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... rder_Trial


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
smacker wrote:
Quote:
I've missed something; what difference does this make ?


Well, we'll see, maybe none. The point expressed in Raffaele's appeal is that since Curatolo claims he saw those shuttle buses on the evening where he saw Amanda and Raffaele in the basketball court, and there were actually no shuttle buses that evening, he may have got it mixed up with another evening.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Jools wrote:
smacker wrote:
Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa for Sky News on TV now:

JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE.


what is there to test on the knife ?

Surely this is bad news for AK and RS, since all the rest of the forensic evidence cannot be challenged.


Is not really a test is more of a review of what was tested. Basically another expert giving an evaluation, his/her opinion.


You don't think they'll remove the handle?
There was talk of testing this way for blood/dna.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: BARBIE: Now on Mexico's Most Wanted List!!!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm
Posts: 1386
piktor wrote:
Jools wrote:
piktor wrote:
...

:lol:
Te iba a contestar pero ya veo que te has dado cuenta. :lol: :lol:


LOL indeed. b-((

I'm taking a bike ride. drin-)



TWO CRIME STORIES FROM MEXICO TODAY...

First, there are 140 prisoners (some of 'em are violent offenders)who have escaped from a Mexican prison in Nuevo Laredo...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/1 ... break.html

Secondly, THERE'S ANOTHER (And I think equally-compelling)
breaking crime story from MEXICO...

FAKE BARBIE DOLLS HEADED FOR THE U.S.--- FROM MEXICO!!
eee-) n-(( eee-) :shock:
What is the world coming to, Piktor?!?!?!?!?


"SAN LUIS - Customs and Border Protection says border agents seized 141 cartons of fake Barbie and Moxie Girlz dolls headed for the U.S. from Mexico.

The boxes of fake dolls :lol: were found inside a truck Nov. 29 at the San Luis port of entry in southwestern Arizona.

Border agents were conducting a shipment inspection of a container of various dolls from China when they discovered items resembling Barbie and Moxie Girlz dolls.

The fake dolls were removed and held for potential copyright infringement.

Representatives from Mattel toys and MGA Entertainment were contacted. Photographs of both types of dolls were verified as being violations of copyright infringement.

The Border Patrol says the seized dolls are valued at $61,000.
nw)

____________________________________________________________________

Have a nice bike ride, Piktor....but PLEASE BE CAREFUL!!! Keep an eye out for anyone who looks suspicious!!!!
According to Mexican police officials, this gal (below) was spotted along a bike path near your home... eee-)



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
pataz1 wrote:
smacker wrote:
Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa for Sky News on TV now:

JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE.


what is there to test on the knife ?

Surely this is bad news for AK and RS, since all the rest of the forensic evidence cannot be challenged.


I think its actually more relevant for Raf then AK.... the rest of the mixed blood evidence and luminol footprints is still enough to hold amanda over, I think; but if raf's knife is thrown out along with the bra strap, what is left to connect him could potentially leave room for reasonable doubt in his case:
witness testimony (curatolo)
half a footprint on the bathmat
inconsistent story of the evening...
coroners testimony on how the murder occurred


I don't think the bra clasp will be thrown out. The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of his foot and he left a bare bloody footprint in the hallway. He gave three different alibis which all turned out to be false.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
Jools wrote:
smacker wrote:
Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa for Sky News on TV now:

JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE.


what is there to test on the knife ?

Surely this is bad news for AK and RS, since all the rest of the forensic evidence cannot be challenged.


Is not really a test is more of a review of what was tested. Basically another expert giving an evaluation, his/her opinion.


I think this is reasonable and appropriate - awesome actually. Not surprising given how hotly contested these two items have been and the court is clearly anticipating the Supreme Court review - and making its job easier in the long run.

Bring it!

ETA: I'm left wondering what Edda is going to say to the USA networks, however, given that she has repeatedly told them in the past there was no evidence. Awk-Ward!!


Last edited by Fly by Night on Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Delighted to hear the DNA evidence is to be re-examined. This way the results will be confirmed and all the grandstanding can stop. I don't blame the court for authorizing this

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman has also apparently agreed to the requestioning of a tramp who put Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the drime, but referred to buses in his evidence which would not necessarily have been running on the Bank Holiday that Miss Kercher was killed.- Nick Pisa

No word on the Audiometric testing?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Ooh, just scrolled down farther and saw the breaking news. New testing on the knife and bra clasp. Nothing yet on the other contested points (Nara's window, pillowcase stain, Curatolo-shuttle buses etc.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm
Posts: 1014
Location: Seattle
thoughtful wrote:
Ooh, just scrolled down farther and saw the breaking news. New testing on the knife and bra clasp. Nothing yet on the other contested points (Nara's window, pillowcase stain, Curatolo-shuttle buses etc.)


Really - new testing?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
pataz1 wrote:
It would seem that having lost the media battle in the US, Mellas is in Italy to take up the media battle in the local press while the appeal is in session....

Pat


Ha, ha. I thought you said, "Mellas is in Italy to make up…" the news.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
The Bard wrote:
Delighted to hear the DNA evidence is to be re-examined. This way the results will be confirmed and all the grandstanding can stop. I don't blame the court for authorizing this


I feel the same way! Same thing happened in our court case, the judge asked for college transcripts. Costs more for the lawyer but in the end it's worth it to have an unassailable decision.


Last edited by bedelia on Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Fly by Night wrote:
Quote:
Really? New testing?


I was just quoting Jools above from Nick Pisa: "JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE."

We'll soon know more about what this involves exactly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 16109
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Google Translation:


MEREDITH: REPORT ON THE COURT HAS KNIFE AND BRA BAILS


December 18, 2010 17:59

(AGI) - Perugia, December 18 - The Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia has ordered a further study on the genetic knife believed to be the murder weapon of Meredith Kercher (on which were found traces of DNA from forensic attributed to Amanda and Meredith ) and on the hook and where the victim's bra 'was isolated DNA from Sollecito .
LISTENING TO THE PROVISIONS OF NEW WITNESSES
The Court has thus' accepted part of recommendations made by the defenses of the two former sweethearts. The judges also ordered the hearing of new witnesses. According to the report prepared by the Court must 'be carried out if possible dirattamente by analysis of the findings or, alternatively, by assessing the degree of reliability' of the investigations carried out by forensic genetics, with any references in relation to the contamination. The experts appointed by the Court will Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti University 'La Sapienza of Rome.
HEARING POSTPONED TO 15 JANUARY
The hearing and 'was therefore postponed to next January 15 for appointment of the independent experts. The courts are reserved on whether you play as witnesses to Mario Alessi Aviello and Luciano, as he accepted the request of defense urge to hear three new witnesses who denied allegations of homeless Curatolo.



AGI

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

COUNTDOWN TO FINAL APPEAL

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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:37 am
Posts: 24
thoughtful wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Quote:
Really? New testing?


I was just quoting Jools above from Nick Pisa: "JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE."

We'll soon know more about what this involves exactly.



Jools quoted Nick Pisa who said: An Italian court has granted Amanda Knox a review of evidence in the Meredith Kercher murder case.


Jools wrote:
smacker wrote:
Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa for Sky News on TV now:

JUDGE HAS AGREE TO GRANT NEW FORENSIC TEST ON TWO ITEMS. THE BRA CLASP AND THE KNIFE.


what is there to test on the knife ?

Surely this is bad news for AK and RS, since all the rest of the forensic evidence cannot be challenged.


Is not really a test is more of a review of what was tested. Basically another expert giving an evaluation, his/her opinion.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
Listened to Nick Pisa's phone call online, and he mentions the Judge allowed several witnesses to be requestioned. He only specifically mentions Curatolo.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Right, that's clear now. It's going to be a new examination of the previously collected evidence.

Here's the complete article from the Telegraph. It seems today's activities are over. Curatolo will be requestioned. They don't give news on the window or stain.

Quote:
Amanda Knox has been granted a review of key forensic evidence as part of the appeal against her conviction in the Meredith Kercher murder case.

The American cried as she heard that DNA evidence found on a knife in Sollecito's apartment and on the clasp of Miss Kercher's bra would be re-examined by a team of independent experts.

The defence maintains that the evidence was inconclusive as the DNA samples were so small and has also argued it may have been contaminated when analysed.

However, the prosecution has argued that there is no evidence of contamination and no other reason for Miss Kercher's DNA to be found on the blade.

"Meredith's DNA was on the blade, the knife was found in Sollecito's kitchen and Meredith had never been to his house," said second prosecutor Manuela Comodi.

Amanda Knox taken into court in Perugia for appeal against murder conviction

Amanda Knox, in court to hear that DNA evidence could be re-examined

The new ruling is a significant victory for Knox and Sollecito, who are both trying to overturn their convictions for stabbing Miss Kercher after a sex game in 2007.

Knox's mother Edda Mellas told Sky News she was "thrilled" with the decision and that Knox would be "relieved".

She said: "It looks like they have an open mind to really look at this case again and see a mistake has been made."

The lower courts had previously rejected an outside check on the two key pieces of evidence, but the new ruling raises hopes for the defendents' appeals.

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman has also apparently agreed to the requestioning of a tramp who put Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime.

The defence claims the man referred to buses in his evidence which would not necessarily have been running on the Bank Holiday when Miss Kercher was killed.

Journalist Nick Pisa, who was in the court, said Amanda's family were in tears when the decision was announced and Knox's mother Edda Mellas hugged her daughter in celebration.

Sollecito also cried as he hugged his father.

When a reporter shouted to ask how Knox felt, Pisa said she did not say anything, but turned and smiled.

The court has now adjourned while the judge puts together a timetable for future hearings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
‘The court selected two experts from Rome's Sapienza University to review the evidence. The experts will be formally given the task at the trial's next session on Jan. 15.’

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/ ... 45383.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: More Pics from Today...
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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







Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
GOOGLE translate of Yahoo Search page for Meredith Kercher sorted by time

Perhaps our Italian experts could clarify, but a review of the reports coming out of Italy state that:

Quote:
In the process of appeal for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the defense scores a point: the Court of Assizes of Appeal Criminal Tribunal of Perugia has in fact ordered to be made, new surveys on the English girl hook bra murdered on the hook which was isolated the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito. In addition, further analysis also will be placed on the knife believed to be the murder weapon, which were isolated the DNA of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher.

The experts - said the court - will have to examine the DNA evidence and give the genetic code. If this is not possible, the experts will evaluate the exams already on record...


YAHOO.IT Search Meredith Kercher

_________________
“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: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
thoughtful wrote:
Fiona wrote:
Quote:
well I am part of the very poorly educated public and I dismissed what he had to say on that subject as soon as I read it


Would you have said innocent or guilty if you had been on the jury?

If you say innocent (as I most certainly would have) then it means you don't represent the majority public view. Which wouldn't surprise me! I'm not sure you're quite as poorly educated as you'd have me believe...given your spelling, just as one example!


I have no idea whether I would have said innocent or guilty if I was on the jury. I do not know what the evidence was. But I would not have accepted Meadows statistics since they were clearly wrong. That is my point. I am very poorly educated wrt maths and stats but what he proposed was obviously not correct: nor was he in any position at all to discuss that since he is not a statistician


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
DLW wrote:
‘The court selected two experts from Rome's Sapienza University to review the evidence. The experts will be formally given the task at the trial's next session on Jan. 15.’

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/ ... 45383.html


If this report is true, then it's obvious the court had decided on this step in advance. So, there will be no delay while the issue of who conducts the review is debated.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 [ 6437 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

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


24,550,995 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group