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

Last visit was: Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:09 am It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:10 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



 [ 6437 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am
Posts: 286
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.- AP


That didn't seem difficult for them to find experts.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:38 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
norbertc wrote:
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.



Nope, it will be done by Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of University 'La Sapienza of Rome. That was very quick work indeed.

They are also going to admit the witnesses that say there were no buses. I'm not sure the Telegraph has it right that Curatolo is going to be questioned again though, the Italian media isn't reporting that.

I find it quite interesting how the defence went shopping with a long list of requests for tests, reviews and new witnesses, only got half of what they asked for and yet were so ecstatic at the result. It's an indicator of their desperation I think.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Is anyone else getting "SERVICE UNAVAILABLE" on the TJMK site?

Pete?

_________________
“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 5:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Tara wrote:
Is anyone else getting "SERVICE UNAVAILABLE" on the TJMK site?

Pete?



Yeah, I'm getting that too. It must be due to the fact that TJMK will have been bombarded by a lot of traffic over these past few hours.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
OT - but so interesting.

Fiona wrote:
Quote:
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.


Well, given that she was acquitted on appeal on the medical evidence, it seems hard not to conclude that the statistical evidence played a weighty role in the jury's mind. Especially when one bears in mind that Roy Meadow testified against several women in similar situations, and at least three or four of them were then acquitted on appeal after pressure from the Royal Statistical Society was brought to bear. Presumably, remarkable new medical evidence did not show up in all of those cases. So it must have been something else that made all those first juries convict.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Google Translation:

MEREDITH: COURT DECIDES FOR REOPENING HEARING, NEW TEST

(AGI) - Perugia, 18 Dec - reopening the debate as proposed by the defense of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the requests for reopening, presented by the defense last Saturday, were accepted by the Court that recently and 'out of the closed session. New tests on the knife and then will be placed on the hook of the bra of Meredith Kercher, on which the scientific analysis were centralized and the interest on which they had found traces of DNA from Sollecito. Mario Alessi also convicted for the murder of Tommaso Onofri will be 'heard in relation to the story of Rudy Guede, who allege that to kill Meredith Kercher was a stranger, on which the investigation would never direct.



ASCA


So, Mario Alessi will also be heard. No mention of Aviello though.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:37 am
Posts: 24
Tara wrote:
Is anyone else getting "SERVICE UNAVAILABLE" on the TJMK site?

Pete?


You can always check this here:

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com

Type in the URL and you will see if it is just unavailable for you or for everyone.
The message I got is that TJMK is down for everyone.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Michael wrote:
norbertc wrote:
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.



Nope, it will be done by Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of University 'La Sapienza of Rome. That was very quick work indeed.

They are also going to admit the witnesses that say there were no buses. I'm not sure the Telegraph has it right that Curatolo is going to be questioned again though, the Italian media isn't reporting that.

I find it quite interesting how the defence went shopping with a long list of requests for tests, reviews and new witnesses, only got half of what they asked for and yet were so ecstatic at the result. It's an indicator of their desperation I think.



I forgot to post this last week, but here's what button wrote (eclectic chapbook):

Quote:
Meredith Kercher Homicide -

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

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

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

Knox was convicted by a lower court last year of killing her mixed-race flatmate, Meredith Kercher, while she was zonked on drugs.

Defense is hoping to discredit some DNA and technical forensic evidence, but even if they succeed in eliminating some items, there's a mountain of other evidence.NB: The press coverage will make a lot more sense to you if you keep in mind that Knox was stoned out of her skull at the time of this homicide.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Posts: 655
Location: New York
Tara wrote:
Is anyone else getting "SERVICE UNAVAILABLE" on the TJMK site?

Pete?


On TJMK being down.

A denial of service? Possible but I dont think so.

But there has been a flood of readers, it jumped to 200 plus in several minutes. Then the site went down or maybe was yanked by the hoster.

I did report very quickly. They have not got back to me yet.

This only ever happens when a big media site points to TJMK. On previous occasions it was the BBC (twice) and the New York Times site - one of the blogs there.

Gigantic sites like NBC's (the biggest media site in the world) can handle hundreds of thousands of hits all at once.

I guess we never expected to be that gigantic!

Pete

*********

Added: What they can do if the demand remains huge is to throttle back to 3-400 readers. They did that last in the 3 days after the verdict.

The inability of big media sites to send readers to other sites is absolutely awesome.

We could move TJMK to our own tied server but the hosters dont support those and it virtually would mean us hiring a paid technician.


Last edited by Fast Pete on Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
OT but worth mentioning:

I saw that Doug Preston had commented on all the "nobodies" who in the dreaded internet age have acquired power that they are not qualified to have, by which he means the power to express an opinion that is inferior because they are, after all, nobodies, and have a chance of being heard. Leaving aside the obvious flaw in his own thinking, which is basically that he seems to be leading his own dual witchhunt -- against Mignini and also against anyone who believes that AK and RS got a fair trial in Italy -- while condemning those whose focus is justice for Meredith Kercher (I noticed that he avoids all mention of her name), I would just like to point out that if it were not for these same nobodies, then Doug Preston would not be an n+1 nobody. Who does he think reads his books? Nobody who is anybody, that's for sure. He writes formulaic fiction for people who don't want to be challenged by literature. He writes escapist fiction for people on vacation, in flight, between jobs, whatever. I think it is great that the market for this stuff is served by people like Doug Preston and other, generally more able, writers. I too have been stranded in airports or run out of good reading material while looking to pass the time.
A couple of weeks ago, someone posted one of Doug's tweets, which had the same thrust and tone. He was appalled by the unwashed masses, just like he is appalled by the internet because it is a great equalizer. On the internet, Doug is just one more nobody, weighing in. He can't force anyone to see and bow to his superiority, and that really pisses him off. I just can't figure out why he thinks he should be counted among "the elite". He seems like a pretty ordinary guy to me. He's not handsome; he doesn't present well on television; his books are in my view not even good schlock fiction; nobody I know has ever heard of him.
I would like to see the sociologists turn their attention to the Doug Prestons of this world: minor minor celebrities with no appeal in the cold digital age beyond what they can manufacture for themselves by writing glowing reviews of their own work. He must cringe every time he thinks about his live appearance on Anderson Cooper; he was just excruciatingly dull, out of his element, unable to express a thought.

ETA: The other point worth mentioning is that Doug Preston complains that people like himself are the victims of ad hominem attacks in what is surely a group ad hominem that paints an unflattering and inaccurate portrait of people whose opinion differs from his own. But in fact, the gist of the attacks on Preston and Moore is not personal at all: Moore has been rightly questioned on his credentials and has been called out for his factual inaccuracies. As for Preston, he has used this case to settle his own grievance against Mignini. He was called on it from the start, and he just can't get over it. How dare all those nobodies out there question him?! Damn that internet. Things were way better when the nobodies had no voice. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. Sorry, Doug. You have been unmasked.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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



Nope, it will be done by Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of University 'La Sapienza of Rome. That was very quick work indeed.

They are also going to admit the witnesses that say there were no buses. I'm not sure the Telegraph has it right that Curatolo is going to be questioned again though, the Italian media isn't reporting that.

I find it quite interesting how the defense went shopping with a long list of requests for tests, reviews and new witnesses, only got half of what they asked for and yet were so ecstatic at the result. It's an indicator of their desperation I think.


My view is that the court's decisions are wise. It will seek confirmation on some of the more contested evidence and will hear some new testamony. The previous findings will be confirmed - or not. If yes, the conviction is confirmed.

If not, then the judges / jury will need to decide if the remaining evidence is enough to convict - or not.

Without this due diligence a Supreme Court appeal might have been successful. Regardless of my convictions regarding Knox and Sollecito, it would be terrible if a mistake were made. Furthermore, this will surely cause the parents of the defendants to finally accept the verdict - should it be confirmed.

As for Mr. Kerchner, it's not my place to speculate. I wish him and his family the strength to cope with the situation.

.


Last edited by norbertc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Do we have a link to the Preston interview?

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
thoughtful wrote:
OT - but so interesting.

Fiona wrote:
Quote:
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.


Well, given that she was acquitted on appeal on the medical evidence, it seems hard not to conclude that the statistical evidence played a weighty role in the jury's mind. Especially when one bears in mind that Roy Meadow testified against several women in similar situations, and at least three or four of them were then acquitted on appeal after pressure from the Royal Statistical Society was brought to bear. Presumably, remarkable new medical evidence did not show up in all of those cases. So it must have been something else that made all those first juries convict.


Sure it was probably important: but we really do not know. That is an advantage of the Italian system over that in the UK: the reasons for decision are given


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
norbertc wrote:

My view is that the court's decisions are wise. It will seek confirmation on some of the more contested evidence and will hear some new testamony. The previous findings will be confirmed - or not. If yes, the conviction is confirmed.

If not, then the judges / jury will need to decide if the remaining evidence is enough to convict - or not.

Without this due diligence a Supreme Court appeal might have been successful. Regardless of my convictions regarding Knox and Sollecito, it would be terrible if a mistake were made. Furthermore, this will surely cause the parents of the defendants to finally accept the verdict - should it be confirmed.

As for Mr. Kercher, it's not my place to speculate. I wish him and his family the strength to cope with the situation.


Agreed. Better to review it now so that the Supreme Court will confirm the sentences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Court rules DNA in Amanda Knox case will be reviewed by independent team
By Steve Shay
2010-12-18 updated 23 minutes ago


WEST SEATTLE HERALD

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
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 ?
***.

In Darkness Descending Garofano wrote that police should have separated the plastic handle from the knife and checked for blood there.

ETA: If they do and find a quantity of Meredith's blood, the defense will be very, very sorry that they asked for this. I really do not understand why the defense would want to test the knife; if they don't find blood it doesn't help the defense, but if they do... . No upside, but a huge downside.


Last edited by TomM on Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
TomM 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 ?
***.

In Darkness Descending Garofano wrote that police should have separated the plastic handle from the knife and checked for blood there.


I would tend to agree with that. I really do think it is a good thing that the evidence is being reviewed. I was thinking about this. If Curt and Edda see that the evidence is reviewed, and it comes back with the same conclusions (as I suspect it will) then it might help them come to terms with the truth, ultimately. There does indeed come a point where you can't keep testing and retesting, and this is where the question is decided. If there are flaws in the testing methods these will come out. If there is a route for contamination, it will emerge. I can't see how the clasp can have been contaminated, personally, but it is absolutely right that the court shows it is bending over backwards to show a fair conviction. The sad thing is that this will be adding to the Kercher's agony, but it cannot, and should not, be avoided. If there were errors we need to know about them. The jury will decide on what weight to give any errors that have occurred. I just hope the end comes quickly now. It is actually quite painful to witness Edda's joy at this news. It is a human tragedy on so many levels.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Google Translation:

LCorte d'Assas Criminal Court of Appeals of Perugia has ordered new appraisals on the hook of the bra of Meredith Kercher, where there was isolated the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito, and on the knife found at the crime scene, but were found where the DNA Meredith and Amanda Knox. The experts of the Assize Court of Appeals, therefore, should first check whether you can still do the analysis, otherwise it will check the operations already carried out by other experts. The courts have also granted the opportunity to listen to other witnesses , as required by Sollecito's defense. In particular, these texts would be valuable to the young lawyers in the Apulian refute the story of the witness, in the first trial, who claimed to have seen Amanda and Raffaele together the night of the crime, was killed near their home where the American student. The judges have reserved the possible invecen listening as witnesses and Luciano Aviello Mario Alessi , respectively murderess of Tommaso Onofri (and former fellow prisoner of Rudy Guede) Camorra and repented (who claims to know who the real killer of the girl ).

At the news of the decision of the Court, Amanda and Raffaele began to cry, the two have always pleaded not guilty. According to Giulia Bongiorno , Sollecito's defense attorney, said: "We are facing a turning point of the case. A turning point that the defense is relying on for years and therefore we welcome the new investigation because it finally comes to light that the truth is not that crystallized in decision at first instance. " Edda Mellas, Amanda's mother, said: "This is the first happy day in a long time."
The hearing was postponed until January 15 next to the designation of experts, which will be Carla Vecchiotti Stefano Conti and La Sapienza University in Rome.



LIBERO

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Google Translation:

Meredith murder: father Sollecito, victory for justice and truth '


Perugia, December 18 (Adnkronos) - "This 'a victory for justice and truth'." And 'what he said, visibly pleased, Francesco Sollecito, Raffaele Sollecito's father, sentenced at first instance in 25 years' imprisonment for the murder of Meredith Kercher, after learning the news of the decision of the judges who granted the reopening of 'preliminary hearing in the appeal process.



ADNKRONOS

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

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


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


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

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
[quote="SomeAlibi"]Caption competition!

Image


"Yep, the mote is still in there."
(Biblical themed)

"So sorry, I'm only interested in younger men."


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Well, it's a nice gesture towards the defence. ih)

The evidence all points to culpability. Throw out the knife and you still convict. Throw away the clasp and you still have the rest of evidence that points in one direction.

What if the new review endorses the results. ss-) ss-)

Does anyone know how long it would take the experts to review the documents?


Last edited by piktor on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
I really wonder if the defense will actually call Aviello to testify. He claims that his brother did the crime. His claim that Rudy was not involved will be hard to maintain in light of the fact that a final judgment of guilt, along with other materials from Rudy's case have been received. I have always thought that you should only put a witness on the stand if you thought they were believable. Why shoot your case in the foot by putting on a witness with a history of fabrications who will contradict something that the judicial system believes has been established beyond a reasonable doubt as a fact?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Just looking at the discussion on JREF concerning mental health and the homeless. Thank you for making a stand SomeAlibi, against this bigotry. MaryH8 is attempting to backtrack from her position of suggesting that because Mr Curatolo sleeps on a bench this is 'proof' that he is mentally ill - the implication being that someone with mental health problems is neccessarily, through dint of their medical condition - less of a credible witness; that in some way those with mental health issues are somehow less than everyone else, not to be trusted, inherently dishonest, not like everyone else. I find this line of comment, and her weasel words in trying to wriggle out of it absolutely disgusting. She even tries to ingratiate herself by describing herself as mentally ill, citing her major depression. By her reasoning no-one should give any weight at all to anything she says. She is clearly one of the 'lunatic' people, or 'nutters' that Withnail - with Mary's tacit approval- is now delighting in calling this much vilified group of sufferers.

As someone who has worked with the mentally ill in one capacity or another for most of my life, and more recently for a major mental health charity tackling stigma, I find these comments from a supposedly educated woman absolutely appalling. MaryH8 should consider her words and how they reflect on her; they show her gross ignorance. Just when you think the FOA can't go any lower (we expect no less from Withnail) they just go one step further.

I suggest MaryH8 spends some time with mentally ill patients, and also with the homeless. She might be surprised to find they don't have two heads and horns, and are just like everyone else, apart from the 'sin' of having an illness.

What a revolting board the JREF has turned into.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Wonder if all the groupies so busy giving each other high fives about the 'great news' today read the 'rest of the story'.

Barbie Nadeau notes on Daily Beast:

1)The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
So all the FOAKer armchair, library card, google de gook and you tubey do 'scientists' impressed few with their endless braying about how wrong Judge Massei was ....except of course themselves

2)....the judge also threw a curve ball. Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1

Just my opinion, but #2 above probably is much more significant, than the independent review of TWO forensic items which is apparently the cause of such unrestrained and unintelligent glee.


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


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
p.s I urge people to go and look at the last couple of pages on JREF where this matter is discussed. I could not bear to repeat her comments, and Withnail's, but they really are a study in prejudice and ignorance.

People who actually work with the seriously mentally ill and know what they're talking about, witness the bullying and prejudice aimed at this group at first hand. There has just been a murder of a young man here, who was considered 'different' and mentally ill, by a group of four thugs who thought it would be good fun to kick him to death.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
TomM 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 ?
***.

In Darkness Descending Garofano wrote that police should have separated the plastic handle from the knife and checked for blood there.

ETA: If they do and find a quantity of Meredith's blood, the defense will be very, very sorry that they asked for this. I really do not understand why the defense would want to test the knife; if they don't find blood it doesn't help the defense, but if they do... . No upside, but a huge downside.



I think this is one of those situations where you need to be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.
The *possibility* of a problem with these two bits of evidence has been made much of by family and friends.
In fact, so far as I can tell, that possibility is almost the entire defense, beyond the claim the characters of the defendants precludes their participation.
But it only counts as long as there is any uncertainty.
The bra clasp does not seem really to be any problem - wasn't there an abundance of material from Raff on it.
The knife, oh my.
At worst, we end up where we started.
But if they take the thing apart and find anything more of Meredith on it, it will be game, set, and match.
I think the defense had to ask for these things, but must have been hoping for a refusal.
While it is painful for everyone that the process will drag on yet further, the upside will be a complete shutting down of any claims that anything less than justice has been done.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
stint7 wrote:
Wonder if all the groupies so busy giving each other high fives about the 'great news' today read the 'rest of the story'.

Barbie Nadeau notes on Daily Beast:

1)The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
So all the FOAKer armchair, library card, google de gook and you tubey do 'scientists' impressed few with their endless braying about how wrong Judge Massei was ....except of course themselves

2)....the judge also threw a curve ball. Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1

Just my opinion, but #2 above probably is much more significant, than the independent review of TWO forensic items which is apparently the cause of such unrestrained and unintelligent glee.


#2

Oh my.
Maybe, just maybe, this might get interesting.
I wonder whether Rudy - who can't really be counting much on his final appeal, given the fairly comprehensive smack down of his last day in court - might not be getting near the point of just coming out with what happened?
Or enough, perhaps, to throw some light onto motive.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
stint7 wrote:
Wonder if all the groupies so busy giving each other high fives about the 'great news' today read the 'rest of the story'.

Barbie Nadeau notes on Daily Beast:

1)The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
So all the FOAKer armchair, library card, google de gook and you tubey do 'scientists' impressed few with their endless braying about how wrong Judge Massei was ....except of course themselves

2)....the judge also threw a curve ball. Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1

Just my opinion, but #2 above probably is much more significant, than the independent review of TWO forensic items which is apparently the cause of such unrestrained and unintelligent glee.





We have to hope these two forensic specialists at the university aren't disciples of Francesco Bruno and unpaid consultant to the Sollecito team who works at the same university.

Time for Rudy, feeling all of those 16 years on his head which would never have happened without Biff and Anita, to get in there, and in the vernacular, to blow their shit 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 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
lauowolf wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Wonder if all the groupies so busy giving each other high fives about the 'great news' today read the 'rest of the story'.

Barbie Nadeau notes on Daily Beast:

1)The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
So all the FOAKer armchair, library card, google de gook and you tubey do 'scientists' impressed few with their endless braying about how wrong Judge Massei was ....except of course themselves

2)....the judge also threw a curve ball. Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1

Just my opinion, but #2 above probably is much more significant, than the independent review of TWO forensic items which is apparently the cause of such unrestrained and unintelligent glee.


#2

Oh my.
Maybe, just maybe, this might get interesting.
I wonder whether Rudy - who can't really be counting much on his final appeal, given the fairly comprehensive smack down of his last day in court - might not be getting near the point of just coming out with what happened?
Or enough, perhaps, to throw some light onto motive.



Rudy lost his final appeal yesterday - he's completely done. Time to be nervous if you are Biff and Anita.

_________________
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 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
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 never had any thought about him, never read his site, didn't know a thing about him, except that he must be pretty stupid to be an FOA. And possibly greedy as well, isn't he publishing a book?

But when I saw his post this week referencing "plastic flowers," I lost any capacity to EVER have any respect for a man who would so denigrate the memorial you so respectfully gave Meredith.

NOTE THIS, MR. FISHER, if you're reading: SA respectfully placed SILK (NOT plastic) flowers on Meredith's gate, after making a valiant effort on a SUNDAY afternoon (not the easiest time to buy flowers) to get REAL flowers, then failing that, HEROICALLY finding (miraculously) some BEAUTIFUL SILK FLOWERS, then getting up at 6 am to put them there.

And YOU SIR, DENIGRATE THAT???!!!!

ASSHOLE. ta-))

Sorry there's no other word for you and I say it PROUDLY.

m-))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Quote:
Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.


Now, why didn't I think of that.

The BullShit supertanker is about to get a torpedo just about where it really hurts.

Problem is, he better tell a really good story. He was convicted for murder, after all.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
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 think that makes him the only one, SA, cos you're one of my heroes.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:48 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
TomM wrote:
I really wonder if the defense will actually call Aviello to testify. He claims that his brother did the crime. His claim that Rudy was not involved will be hard to maintain in light of the fact that a final judgment of guilt, along with other materials from Rudy's case have been received. I have always thought that you should only put a witness on the stand if you thought they were believable. Why shoot your case in the foot by putting on a witness with a history of fabrications who will contradict something that the judicial system believes has been established beyond a reasonable doubt as a fact?

Hi Tom,
I guess this's why prosecutors haven't objected to Aviello's testifying. ;) And BTW defense had submitted the request prior to Rudy's final sentencing, although outcome of his final appeal was pretty predictable according to my opinion.

About the forensic evidence, I think contamination is extremely difficult to demonstrate, hardly possible in this case. About the knife-which I have considered the weakest evidence all along-, the court could decide that LCN DNA is not acceptable-maybe-Defense is taking a big chance here because further testing may reveal Meredith's blood on the handle if it 's going to be taken apart,in which case it would be it for Knox and Sollecito. The independent tests may also show no evidence of blood on the knife but so what? The rest of the evidence would still stand.

So far, I haven't read anything about tests on the pillow stain, nor about audiometric testing to challenge Nara's testimony.But will be interesting to see what the witnesses discrediting Curatolo have to say.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:50 pm 
Offline
Forensics Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 845
The Bard wrote:
p.s I urge people to go and look at the last couple of pages on JREF where this matter is discussed. I could not bear to repeat her comments, and Withnail's, but they really are a study in prejudice and ignorance.

People who actually work with the seriously mentally ill and know what they're talking about, witness the bullying and prejudice aimed at this group at first hand. There has just been a murder of a young man here, who was considered 'different' and mentally ill, by a group of four thugs who thought it would be good fun to kick him to death.

Hi Bard,
just checked in and learned about Mr Bard ordeal. Hope everything is fine now :)
hugz-)
N.

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


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

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

Oh my.
Maybe, just maybe, this might get interesting.
I wonder whether Rudy - who can't really be counting much on his final appeal, given the fairly comprehensive smack down of his last day in court - might not be getting near the point of just coming out with what happened?
Or enough, perhaps, to throw some light onto motive.


If Guede says it was a confrontation between a defensive Meredith and an angry Knox that was out of her mind and that escalated to a prank that led to death, it would be believable.

If he says he was asleep at the loo and saw and heard nothing, he is useless. He ran off and did not call for any help, after all.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 504
Location: USA
The Bard wrote:
Just looking at the discussion on JREF concerning mental health and the homeless. Thank you for making a stand SomeAlibi, against this bigotry. MaryH8 is attempting to backtrack from her position of suggesting that because Mr Curatolo sleeps on a bench this is 'proof' that he is mentally ill - the implication being that someone with mental health problems is neccessarily, through dint of their medical condition - less of a credible witness; that in some way those with mental health issues are somehow less than everyone else, not to be trusted, inherently dishonest, not like everyone else. I find this line of comment, and her weasel words in trying to wriggle out of it absolutely disgusting. She even tries to ingratiate herself by describing herself as mentally ill, citing her major depression. By her reasoning no-one should give any weight at all to anything she says. She is clearly one of the 'lunatic' people, or 'nutters' that Withnail - with Mary's tacit approval- is now delighting in calling this much vilified group of sufferers.

As someone who has worked with the mentally ill in one capacity or another for most of my life, and more recently for a major mental health charity tackling stigma, I find these comments from a supposedly educated woman absolutely appalling. MaryH8 should consider her words and how they reflect on her; they show her gross ignorance. Just when you think the FOA can't go any lower (we expect no less from Withnail) they just go one step further.

I suggest MaryH8 spends some time with mentally ill patients, and also with the homeless. She might be surprised to find they don't have two heads and horns, and are just like everyone else, apart from the 'sin' of having an illness.

What a revolting board the JREF has turned into.

cl-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Withnail went to one of the top 5 humanities universities in the world for his law degree you know.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
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 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
SomeAlibi wrote:
Withnail went to one of the top 5 humanities universities in the world for his law degree you know.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



my only comment on that supposed factoid is to invite a closer look at my avatar here.
"On the internet...."


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
Well I am officially scared now: we are all going to be sued for libel. Or some of us are. Or something dead scary, anyway


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Earthling wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce Fisher has PM'd me on JREF to say that he has no respect for me. I am heartbroken. Welling up.

I never had any thought about him, never read his site, didn't know a thing about him, except that he must be pretty stupid to be an FOA. And possibly greedy as well, isn't he publishing a book?

But when I saw his post this week referencing "plastic flowers," I lost any capacity to EVER have any respect for a man who would so denigrate the memorial you so respectfully gave Meredith.

NOTE THIS, MR. FISHER, if you're reading: SA respectfully placed SILK (NOT plastic) flowers on Meredith's gate, after making a valiant effort on a SUNDAY afternoon (not the easiest time to buy flowers) to get REAL flowers, then failing that, HEROICALLY finding (miraculously) some BEAUTIFUL SILK FLOWERS, then getting up at 6 am to put them there.

And YOU SIR, DENIGRATE THAT???!!!!

ASSHOLE. ta-))

Sorry there's no other word for you and I say it PROUDLY.

m-))



Bruce Fisher has amply demonstrated that he has no regard for the facts and no respect for the truth. He is agenda driven. No fact is too petty for him to resist the temptation to distort it so that it suits his agenda. I don't think honest, intelligent folks are taken in by this tactic. I am interested in knowing how he got his book published. I suppose he went through an online vanity press. I think it may turn out to be inadvertently humorous. Remember, this is the guy who recruited the Moores.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Personally, I've no expectation that should Rudy testify it will have an impact on the appeal at all, other then to create a media event. He's not going to give a more truthful account that includes his involvement in the actual murder, along with the pair...he has his eyes on the European Court in Strasbourg, still thinking he has a chance...he's not going to jeopardise that with any public 'confession'. And until he tells the 'whole' truth, he's never going to come over as fully credible on the stand.

What I think is more important and will have more power is that now that he has been convicted in the third degree his whole case evidence is now available to the appeal court...all that stuff the defence didn't want admitted. And if he agrees to testify, then all his earlier statements will be admissible also. This is bad news for the defence.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
SomeAlibi wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Wonder if all the groupies so busy giving each other high fives about the 'great news' today read the 'rest of the story'.

Barbie Nadeau notes on Daily Beast:

1)The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
So all the FOAKer armchair, library card, google de gook and you tubey do 'scientists' impressed few with their endless braying about how wrong Judge Massei was ....except of course themselves

2)....the judge also threw a curve ball. Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1

Just my opinion, but #2 above probably is much more significant, than the independent review of TWO forensic items which is apparently the cause of such unrestrained and unintelligent glee.


#2

Oh my.
Maybe, just maybe, this might get interesting.
I wonder whether Rudy - who can't really be counting much on his final appeal, given the fairly comprehensive smack down of his last day in court - might not be getting near the point of just coming out with what happened?
Or enough, perhaps, to throw some light onto motive.



Rudy lost his final appeal yesterday - he's completely done. Time to be nervous if you are Biff and Anita.



I am a bit disappointed about the TOD reexamination. I was so hoping to see LongJohns called to the stand as an expert.:)

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
SomeAlibi wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Wonder if all the groupies so busy giving each other high fives about the 'great news' today read the 'rest of the story'.

Barbie Nadeau notes on Daily Beast:

1)The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
So all the FOAKer armchair, library card, google de gook and you tubey do 'scientists' impressed few with their endless braying about how wrong Judge Massei was ....except of course themselves

2)....the judge also threw a curve ball. Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1

Just my opinion, but #2 above probably is much more significant, than the independent review of TWO forensic items which is apparently the cause of such unrestrained and unintelligent glee.





We have to hope these two forensic specialists at the university aren't disciples of Francesco Bruno and unpaid consultant to the Sollecito team who works at the same university.Time for Rudy, feeling all of those 16 years on his head which would never have happened without Biff and Anita, to get in there, and in the vernacular, to blow their shit up.



From what I have seen of academia, they are more likely to be bitter rivals who loathe him.:)

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
Michael wrote:
Personally, I've expectation that should Rudy testify it will have an impact on the appeal at all, other then to create a media event. He's not going to give a more truthful account that includes his involvement in the actual murder, along with the pair...he has his eyes on the European Court in Strasbourg, still thinking he has a chance...he's not going to jeopardise that with any public 'confession'. And until he tells the 'whole' truth, he's never going to come over as fully credible on the stand.

What I think is more important and will have more power is that now that he has been convicted in the third degree his whole case evidence is now available to the appeal court...all that stuff the defence didn't want admitted. And if he agrees to testify, then all his earlier statements will be admissible also. This is bad news for the defence.


What is the deal with the Strasburg thing?
This isn't part of the regular Italian package of trial + two reviews, is it?
And if it isn't, how is he paying for it - I thought he had court appointed lawyers.
Does Italy pay for an appeal beyond its own system?
(And, oh my gawd, does this mean we have to expect this additional appeal for the unlovely duo?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm
Posts: 608
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Wonder if all the groupies so busy giving each other high fives about the 'great news' today read the 'rest of the story'.

Barbie Nadeau notes on Daily Beast:

1)The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
So all the FOAKer armchair, library card, google de gook and you tubey do 'scientists' impressed few with their endless braying about how wrong Judge Massei was ....except of course themselves

2)....the judge also threw a curve ball. Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... mainpromo1

Just my opinion, but #2 above probably is much more significant, than the independent review of TWO forensic items which is apparently the cause of such unrestrained and unintelligent glee.





We have to hope these two forensic specialists at the university aren't disciples of Francesco Bruno and unpaid consultant to the Sollecito team who works at the same university.Time for Rudy, feeling all of those 16 years on his head which would never have happened without Biff and Anita, to get in there, and in the vernacular, to blow their shit up.



From what I have seen of academia, they are more likely to be bitter rivals who loathe him.:)


What she said.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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


No idea what the snow in London's all about. I used to live in Tooting, SW17 land of the Indian restaurant, but now live in Virgina, USA where.......we have snow. All this curry talk left me in a bad place; all I could think of was curry so I've been out for a lamb vindaloo, veg curry and naan bread. $10.95 excluding drinks. American curry shops all do buffets at lunchtime, so, to quote Mr Creosote "I'm absolutely stuffed" and burp "I couldn't eat another thing".


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Earthling wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce Fisher has PM'd me on JREF to say that he has no respect for me. I am heartbroken. Welling up.

I never had any thought about him, never read his site, didn't know a thing about him, except that he must be pretty stupid to be an FOA. And possibly greedy as well, isn't he publishing a book?

But when I saw his post this week referencing "plastic flowers," I lost any capacity to EVER have any respect for a man who would so denigrate the memorial you so respectfully gave Meredith.

NOTE THIS, MR. FISHER, if you're reading: SA respectfully placed SILK (NOT plastic) flowers on Meredith's gate, after making a valiant effort on a SUNDAY afternoon (not the easiest time to buy flowers) to get REAL flowers, then failing that, HEROICALLY finding (miraculously) some BEAUTIFUL SILK FLOWERS, then getting up at 6 am to put them there.

And YOU SIR, DENIGRATE THAT???!!!!

ASSHOLE. ta-))

Sorry there's no other word for you and I say it PROUDLY.

m-))



Bruce Fisher has amply demonstrated that he has no regard for the facts and no respect for the truth. He is agenda driven. No fact is too petty for him to resist the temptation to distort it so that it suits his agenda. I don't think honest, intelligent folks are taken in by this tactic. I am interested in knowing how he got his book published. I suppose he went through an online vanity press. I think it may turn out to be inadvertently humorous. Remember, this is the guy who recruited the Moores.



One can self publish now via the Internet and sell it on Amazon, it's quite easy. In fact, anyone can publish any worthless piece of rubbish...or even that which is offensive and perverted. Recently, there was a furore about a paedophile who published a paedophile guidebook on Amazon. It was only removed after international protest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11731928

If a paedophile can self publish a paedophilia hand book on Amazon, I can't see how it would be a problem for Fisher to do so too.

It's the double edged sword of the internet and worldwide web. It allows amazing freedoms people couldn't have dreamed of years ago...but it also means quality gets drowned in quantity, much of which is drivel. For this reason, the groupies all lining up to write their books is self defeating since what demand is there going to be for them from a public that is already suffering information overload and is drowning in a sea of drivel? There was a time when those interested in the case would maybe buy a book on it when a new one came out, when a book on the case was actually a commodity...now that a book seems to come out every five minutes that commodity status by it merely existing no longer exists...the more of a thing, the cheaper it becomes. People instead will switch...those with an interest, if they did not already, will swap to only buying books written by authors they consider qualified and reputable. What I mean is, they'll be even more choosy then they were before. Bruce will write and publish his book as will Waterbury, but only friends, family and groupies will buy them and the media won't use them as sources.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:55 pm 
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:
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.


I can see those two elements requiring a fresh set of experts if the judge thought the results might inform the court of something they don't know. They already know the attack began and ended in Meredith's room and who was involved. They also know that Meredith's scream was heard but not by a large number of witnesses.

I had thought your original issue was a review of the existing evidence (mainly the DNA procedures).

Why wasn't the review of the evidence by defence experts sufficient as a competing perspective to that presented by the Polizia Scientifica? What did they miss in the first trial?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
nicki wrote:
TomM wrote:
I really wonder if the defense will actually call Aviello to testify. He claims that his brother did the crime. His claim that Rudy was not involved will be hard to maintain in light of the fact that a final judgment of guilt, along with other materials from Rudy's case have been received. I have always thought that you should only put a witness on the stand if you thought they were believable. Why shoot your case in the foot by putting on a witness with a history of fabrications who will contradict something that the judicial system believes has been established beyond a reasonable doubt as a fact?

Hi Tom,
I guess this's why prosecutors haven't objected to Aviello's testifying. ;) And BTW defense had submitted the request prior to Rudy's final sentencing, although outcome of his final appeal was pretty predictable according to my opinion.

About the forensic evidence, I think contamination is extremely difficult to demonstrate, hardly possible in this case. About the knife-which I have considered the weakest evidence all along-, the court could decide that LCN DNA is not acceptable-maybe-Defense is taking a big chance here because further testing may reveal Meredith's blood on the handle if it 's going to be taken apart,in which case it would be it for Knox and Sollecito. The independent tests may also show no evidence of blood on the knife but so what? The rest of the evidence would still stand.

So far, I haven't read anything about tests on the pillow stain, nor about audiometric testing to challenge Nara's testimony.But will be interesting to see what the witnesses discrediting Curatolo have to say.


Hi Nicki. I was thinking that testing the bra clasp might have risks for AK's defense. Two different defense experts found minute traces compatible with AK on it. I assume the defense believes that techniques of testing have not advanced over the last three years to the point where more definitive results are now possible. If they are wrong about that, the case could get even worse for them.

The defense argument on contamination never made sense to me. They seemed to be saying the evidence that our clients were in the room is unreliable because it shows our clients were in the room.

I don't see this as a big victory for the defense. I am getting the impression that Hellman is a careful judge who wants to be sure that all the "i"s are dotted and all the "t"s are crossed. I don't think he has made a decision about guilt, but I think he does know that he might conclude they were guilty, and that the sentence might even be increased. I don't think his appointment of forensic experts reflects a lack of confidence in the forensic police. I would guess that he thinks they are probably correct, and that the defense has blown some minor flaws all out of proportion, and he expects an unbiased review by people who don't have an investigation to defend to set this straight. But he is willing to let the chips fall.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
SomeAlibi wrote:
Withnail went to one of the top 5 humanities universities in the world for his law degree you know.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


You did see that.........

He also showed how refined he was after all that top level legal training by referring to you personally as a 'bottom feeder' while discussing his post graduate alma mater

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6672706

Of course he did edit it out to now show only a blank post with a few dots
.... if the Mods happen to check

Real classy fellow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
TomM wrote:
nicki wrote:
TomM wrote:
I really wonder if the defense will actually call Aviello to testify. He claims that his brother did the crime. His claim that Rudy was not involved will be hard to maintain in light of the fact that a final judgment of guilt, along with other materials from Rudy's case have been received. I have always thought that you should only put a witness on the stand if you thought they were believable. Why shoot your case in the foot by putting on a witness with a history of fabrications who will contradict something that the judicial system believes has been established beyond a reasonable doubt as a fact?

Hi Tom,
I guess this's why prosecutors haven't objected to Aviello's testifying. ;) And BTW defense had submitted the request prior to Rudy's final sentencing, although outcome of his final appeal was pretty predictable according to my opinion.

About the forensic evidence, I think contamination is extremely difficult to demonstrate, hardly possible in this case. About the knife-which I have considered the weakest evidence all along-, the court could decide that LCN DNA is not acceptable-maybe-Defense is taking a big chance here because further testing may reveal Meredith's blood on the handle if it 's going to be taken apart,in which case it would be it for Knox and Sollecito. The independent tests may also show no evidence of blood on the knife but so what? The rest of the evidence would still stand.

So far, I haven't read anything about tests on the pillow stain, nor about audiometric testing to challenge Nara's testimony.But will be interesting to see what the witnesses discrediting Curatolo have to say.


Hi Nicki. I was thinking that testing the bra clasp might have risks for AK's defense. Two different defense experts found minute traces compatible with AK on it. I assume thee defense believes that techniques of testing have not advanced over the last three years to the point where more definitive results are now possible. If they are wrong about that, the case could get even worse for them.

The defense argument on contamination never made sense to me. They seemed to be saying the evidence that our clients were in the room is unreliable because it shows our clients were in the room.

I don't see this as a big victory for the defense. I am getting the impression that Hellman is a careful judge who wants to be sure that all the "i"s are dotted and all the "t"s are crossed. I don't think he has made a decision about guilt, but I think he does know that he might conclude they were guilty, and that the sentence might even be increased. I don't think his appointment of forensic experts reflects a lack of confidence in the forensic police. I would guess that he thinks they are probably correct, and that the defense has blown some minor flaws all out of proportion, and he expects an unbiased review by people who don't have an investigation to defend to set this straight. But he is willing to let the chips fall.


Yes, in fact the care argues to me a tendency towards guilt.
Packaging up the case all airtight and tidy before finishing it up.
There is so much other compelling evidence that is not being revisited, that it does not look as if it is a matter of a questioning of the conclusion of guilt, merely of removing any doubt from either or both of these pieces of evidence.
That then removes any possibility of claiming bias/contamination, while ultimately even tossing them out wouldn't demonstrate innocence.
As I said, I think these two exhibits work much better for the defense if they are not re-examined, so that they can continue to claim there is some mystery surrounding them.
All of this looks like the court making sure all the ducks are in a row, rather than like a real doubt concerning any individual duck.


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

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
jfk1191 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.- AP

That didn't seem difficult for them to find experts.


That's what I suspected when I'd postulated "Laboratory B". I doubt it's the first time these people have been involved in reviews of evidence.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
:lol: Pic of the stepfather wearing his 'beautiful cap'.


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 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Short video from Umbria24.



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

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Jools wrote:
:lol: Pic of the stepfather wearing his 'beautiful cap'.


and of course wearing it *inside the courtroom* eek-) :shock:

Don't miss that dapper looking Italian silk ? black scarf also. :)

How does that saying go about... 'you can dress some people up, but you still cannot take them out'?? ;)


Last edited by stint7 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Someone wrote it was a political decision to placate US pressure.

I think it was a political decision to placate the defence . The defence has been steamrolled by the prosecution in front of judge after judge.

All judges have agreed with the prosecution.

This new tribunal has justly given a breather to a totally vanquished defence.

The new experts might endorse the forensic results on the two items or they might reject the result for one or both items.

Now the defence can proclaim with renewed vigor this has been a fair process.

And on to the pending mountain of evidence against the defendants. fen-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
stint7 wrote:
Wonder if all the groupies so busy giving each other high fives about the 'great news' today read the 'rest of the story'.

Barbie Nadeau notes on Daily Beast:

1)The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death.
So all the FOAKer armchair, library card, google de gook and you tubey do 'scientists' impressed few with their endless braying about how wrong Judge Massei was ....except of course themselves

2)....the judge also threw a curve ball. Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.


Also missing is a re-examination of the evidence of a staged break-in. What about the mixtures of DNA? Is that included in the forensic evidence to be re-examined? What about Quintavalle's testimony? The admissibility of the "memorial" and other documents including recorded prison conversations? And the much-vaunted screensaver?

I wouldn't be leaping to nearly as many conclusions as the groupies have been. What do they say once the DNA on the knife and bra clasp are confirmed?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
lauowolf wrote:
Michael wrote:
Personally, I've expectation that should Rudy testify it will have an impact on the appeal at all, other then to create a media event. He's not going to give a more truthful account that includes his involvement in the actual murder, along with the pair...he has his eyes on the European Court in Strasbourg, still thinking he has a chance...he's not going to jeopardise that with any public 'confession'. And until he tells the 'whole' truth, he's never going to come over as fully credible on the stand.

What I think is more important and will have more power is that now that he has been convicted in the third degree his whole case evidence is now available to the appeal court...all that stuff the defence didn't want admitted. And if he agrees to testify, then all his earlier statements will be admissible also. This is bad news for the defence.


What is the deal with the Strasburg thing?
This isn't part of the regular Italian package of trial + two reviews, is it?
And if it isn't, how is he paying for it - I thought he had court appointed lawyers.
Does Italy pay for an appeal beyond its own system?
(And, oh my gawd, does this mean we have to expect this additional appeal for the unlovely duo?)



It isn't no, it's the back door. To understand this, one has to understand Europe and to explain I could write something that would rival War and Peace in length. But understand it like this...it's not wholly accurate but it is the shortest description without writing reams. Current Europe is rather like North America before the Federal Union...we are all still sovereign states but certain powers are forcing us down the road to full federalisation, not only economic, but political (including justice). In that vein, the European Court has ambitions of becoming the equivalent of the US Federal High Court...it isn't there yet, due to resistance from member states, however, certain cases under certain grounds can be appealed there (under treaty) and their ruling carries legal weight. If it sounds confused, it's not because I'm explaining it badly, although others no doubt could explain it better, but it's because the system is in a transition period (economic union to political union) and so everything is confused and complex. This allows individuals who have gone the full route in their own state and which normally would have been an end of it, to appeal to a court that claims to be an even higher court...if they have certain specific grounds. Since I've no idea under what article/s they plan on appealing to the European Court, I can't elaborate. But for the reasons above, appeals to the European Court can take years, often because the member state that actually has sovereign jurisdiction also appeals.

If after that explanation you are none the wiser and feel confused...welcome to the world of being a European citizen...none of us understand it either.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Jools wrote:
:lol: Pic of the stepfather wearing his 'beautiful cap'.



He looks like a pensioner in that shot...see revealed what Mellas will look like in twenty years! Doesn't he look old in that pic? He also looks rather English with that cap. Well, like an English pensioner.

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
Michael wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
Michael wrote:
Personally, I've expectation that should Rudy testify it will have an impact on the appeal at all, other then to create a media event. He's not going to give a more truthful account that includes his involvement in the actual murder, along with the pair...he has his eyes on the European Court in Strasbourg, still thinking he has a chance...he's not going to jeopardise that with any public 'confession'. And until he tells the 'whole' truth, he's never going to come over as fully credible on the stand.

What I think is more important and will have more power is that now that he has been convicted in the third degree his whole case evidence is now available to the appeal court...all that stuff the defence didn't want admitted. And if he agrees to testify, then all his earlier statements will be admissible also. This is bad news for the defence.


What is the deal with the Strasburg thing?
This isn't part of the regular Italian package of trial + two reviews, is it?
And if it isn't, how is he paying for it - I thought he had court appointed lawyers.
Does Italy pay for an appeal beyond its own system?
(And, oh my gawd, does this mean we have to expect this additional appeal for the unlovely duo?)



It isn't no, it's the back door. To understand this, one has to understand Europe and to explain I could write something that would rival War and Peace in length. But understand it like this...it's not wholly accurate but it is the shortest description without writing reams. Current Europe is rather like North America before the Federal Union...we are all still sovereign states but certain powers are forcing us down the road to full federalisation, not only economic, but political (including justice). In that vein, the European Court has ambitions of becoming the equivalent of the US Federal High Court...it isn't there yet, due to resistance from member states, however, certain cases under certain grounds can be appealed there (under treaty) and their ruling carries legal weight. If it sounds confused, it's not because I'm explaining it badly, although others no doubt could explain it better, but it's because the system is in a transition period (economic union to political union) and so everything is confused and complex. This allows individuals who have gone the full route in their own state and which normally would have been an end of it, to appeal to a court that claims to be an even higher court...if they have certain specific grounds. Since I've no idea under what article/s they plan on appealing to the European Court, I can't elaborate. But for the reasons above, appeals to the European Court can take years, often because the member state that actually has sovereign jurisdiction also appeals.

If after that explanation you are none the wiser and feel confused...welcome to the world of being a European citizen...none of us understand it either.


That sort of makes sense.
And would be good for things like highly political cases, here there is some clear idea of why the decision in a case might be seriously questionable.
I can't really see where there would be grounds for Rudy, beyond that he just doesn't want to be where he is: guilty, caught, tried, and condemned.
And I still wonder how this would be funded.
Or whether it is just so much face-saving hot air, after the failure of the last appeal.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Michael wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
Michael wrote:
Personally, I've expectation that should Rudy testify it will have an impact on the appeal at all, other then to create a media event. He's not going to give a more truthful account that includes his involvement in the actual murder, along with the pair...he has his eyes on the European Court in Strasbourg, still thinking he has a chance...he's not going to jeopardise that with any public 'confession'. And until he tells the 'whole' truth, he's never going to come over as fully credible on the stand.

What I think is more important and will have more power is that now that he has been convicted in the third degree his whole case evidence is now available to the appeal court...all that stuff the defence didn't want admitted. And if he agrees to testify, then all his earlier statements will be admissible also. This is bad news for the defence.


What is the deal with the Strasburg thing?
This isn't part of the regular Italian package of trial + two reviews, is it?
And if it isn't, how is he paying for it - I thought he had court appointed lawyers.
Does Italy pay for an appeal beyond its own system?
(And, oh my gawd, does this mean we have to expect this additional appeal for the unlovely duo?)



It isn't no, it's the back door. To understand this, one has to understand Europe and to explain I could write something that would rival War and Peace in length. But understand it like this...it's not wholly accurate but it is the shortest description without writing reams. Current Europe is rather like North America before the Federal Union...we are all still sovereign states but certain powers are forcing us down the road to full federalisation, not only economic, but political (including justice). In that vein, the European Court has ambitions of becoming the equivalent of the US Federal High Court...it isn't there yet, due to resistance from member states, however, certain cases under certain grounds can be appealed there (under treaty) and their ruling carries legal weight. If it sounds confused, it's not because I'm explaining it badly, although others no doubt could explain it better, but it's because the system is in a transition period (economic union to political union) and so everything is confused and complex. This allows individuals who have gone the full route in their own state and which normally would have been an end of it, to appeal to a court that claims to be an even higher court...if they have certain specific grounds. Since I've no idea under what article/s they plan on appealing to the European Court, I can't elaborate. But for the reasons above, appeals to the European Court can take years, often because the member state that actually has sovereign jurisdiction also appeals.

If after that explanation you are none the wiser and feel confused...welcome to the world of being a European citizen...none of us understand it either.



I am baffled by the ECHR reference. I don't understand what grounds they believe they have in order to be heard. TBH I think this was bluster outside the courtroom and I feel sorry for Rudy if he thinks he has a viable route there.

_________________
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 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
smacker wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
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?


No idea what the snow in London's all about. I used to live in Tooting, SW17 land of the Indian restaurant, but now live in Virgina, USA where.......we have snow. All this curry talk left me in a bad place; all I could think of was curry so I've been out for a lamb vindaloo, veg curry and naan bread. $10.95 excluding drinks. American curry shops all do buffets at lunchtime, so, to quote Mr Creosote "I'm absolutely stuffed" and burp "I couldn't eat another thing".



Ahhhhh cmon.... have a wafffffffer thin mint....

_________________
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 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
stint7 wrote:
Jools wrote:
:lol: Pic of the stepfather wearing his 'beautiful cap'.


and of course wearing it *inside the courtroom* eek-) :shock:

Don't miss that dapper looking Italian silk ? black scarf also. :)

How does that saying go about... 'you can dress some people up, but you still cannot take them out'?? ;)




Odd, isn't it? There aren't many people I know who don't consider wearing a hat inside a room to be rude, let alone in the environment of a court. He's a very uncooth person, without a doubt.

_________________
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 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
It seems some people are getting carried away with Judge Hellmann's decision to allow an independent review:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20101218/twl ... f21e0.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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


DNA evidence to be reviewed following appeal
Italian judge orders re-examination of forensic tests that led to conviction for murder of Meredith Kercher

Hellman agreed to review the bra clasp evidence after defence lawyers claimed it had been contaminated during the crime scene investigation. "It would have been very strange for a guilty party to insist so much on these tests," said Francesco Sollecito, the accused's father.
Hellman said that he would appoint two independent experts from the University of Rome to oversee the tests and would set a timetable on 15 January. A specialist in civil law, Hellman is running the Knox appeal almost by accident since fellow judges who might have been appointed were either transferred or had retired.

Chris Mellas, Knox's stepfather, said that Hellman's lack of experience may be an advantage for her. "Because it is not his typical arena, he might be a little less desensitised. The court's summary of the case, which was read out last week, contained many of our points, and that was already something."

Hellman also accepted the defence request to hear from Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man from the area who they say gave mistaken testimony. Curatolo says he saw Knox and Sollecito loitering near the house Knox shared with Kercher on the night of the murder, but the defence lawyers now claim that he had confused the dates.

Knox's prospects were clouded by the court's decision to incorporate into the appeal all documents, evidence and findings from the murder trial of Rudy Guede, who chose a fast-track trial and was definitively sentenced to 16 years on Thursday for his part in the murder following the two appeals he was allowed under Italian law.

By upholding Guede's sentence, the appeal court also gave credence to the arguments made for his guilt at his first appeal, which clearly placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime with Guede. Mignani, [sic] the magistrate who secured the conviction of Knox, warned that the Guede conviction could doom Knox's appeal.

"Guede's sentence states that Knox and Sollecito were involved and it is very rare that one sentence would contradict a definitive sentence."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... dna-appeal


Last edited by Jools on Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
SomeAlibi wrote:
Withnail went to one of the top 5 humanities universities in the world for his law degree you know.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Withnail claims to have a law degree?????? If he did I see no evidence that he ever practiced.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
piktor wrote:
Someone wrote it was a political decision to placate US pressure.

I think it was a political decision to placate the defence . The defence has been steamrolled by the prosecution in front of judge after judge.

All judges have agreed with the prosecution.

This new tribunal has justly given a breather to a totally vanquished defence.

The new experts might endorse the forensic results on the two items or they might reject the result for one or both items.

Now the defence can proclaim with renewed vigor this has been a fair process.

And on to the pending mountain of evidence against the defendants. fen-)



I can't help feeling that there is some degree of a called bluff in it all.
The defense has been questioning these two items, and getting a lot of mileage out of casting them in doubt.
They say: "The bra strap is contaminated, the knife doesn't count. That's doubt!"
But now their complaints have been heard, and there will be yet another examination of the bra clasp and knife.
New experts to look over everything and have their say.
And what will they find: here's Raff's DNA on the clasp and no other DNA from him in the room (maybe there's even Amanda's there too!), and the knife either yields up something additional or it doesn't.
What was found can't be re-tested, but the experts may find more, or may simply pronounce on the procedure used before.
The new experts will testify as to the validity or not of these two items.
At that point the defense can no longer claim there is anything there left to debate, no longer anything to question about them.
Bluff called.
And, as has been pointed out, there still remains the mountain of other damning evidence that is accepted unchallanged.
Somehow, I have a feeling the defense lawyers are much less happy at this outcome than Amanda's dimwitted family.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Michael wrote:
norbertc wrote:
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.



Nope, it will be done by Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of University 'La Sapienza of Rome. That was very quick work indeed.

They are also going to admit the witnesses that say there were no buses. I'm not sure the Telegraph has it right that Curatolo is going to be questioned again though, the Italian media isn't reporting that.

I find it quite interesting how the defence went shopping with a long list of requests for tests, reviews and new witnesses, only got half of what they asked for and yet were so ecstatic at the result. It's an indicator of their desperation I think.


A JREF poster pointed out that Francesco Bruno, a criminologist at La Sapienza university, is convinced of Knox's innocence. That is corroborated by this article:

NEWSWEEK ARTICLE 14 JUL 2008


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
lauowolf wrote:
Michael wrote:
lauowolf wrote:
Michael wrote:
Personally, I've expectation that should Rudy testify it will have an impact on the appeal at all, other then to create a media event. He's not going to give a more truthful account that includes his involvement in the actual murder, along with the pair...he has his eyes on the European Court in Strasbourg, still thinking he has a chance...he's not going to jeopardise that with any public 'confession'. And until he tells the 'whole' truth, he's never going to come over as fully credible on the stand.

What I think is more important and will have more power is that now that he has been convicted in the third degree his whole case evidence is now available to the appeal court...all that stuff the defence didn't want admitted. And if he agrees to testify, then all his earlier statements will be admissible also. This is bad news for the defence.


What is the deal with the Strasburg thing?
This isn't part of the regular Italian package of trial + two reviews, is it?
And if it isn't, how is he paying for it - I thought he had court appointed lawyers.
Does Italy pay for an appeal beyond its own system?
(And, oh my gawd, does this mean we have to expect this additional appeal for the unlovely duo?)



It isn't no, it's the back door. To understand this, one has to understand Europe and to explain I could write something that would rival War and Peace in length. But understand it like this...it's not wholly accurate but it is the shortest description without writing reams. Current Europe is rather like North America before the Federal Union...we are all still sovereign states but certain powers are forcing us down the road to full federalisation, not only economic, but political (including justice). In that vein, the European Court has ambitions of becoming the equivalent of the US Federal High Court...it isn't there yet, due to resistance from member states, however, certain cases under certain grounds can be appealed there (under treaty) and their ruling carries legal weight. If it sounds confused, it's not because I'm explaining it badly, although others no doubt could explain it better, but it's because the system is in a transition period (economic union to political union) and so everything is confused and complex. This allows individuals who have gone the full route in their own state and which normally would have been an end of it, to appeal to a court that claims to be an even higher court...if they have certain specific grounds. Since I've no idea under what article/s they plan on appealing to the European Court, I can't elaborate. But for the reasons above, appeals to the European Court can take years, often because the member state that actually has sovereign jurisdiction also appeals.

If after that explanation you are none the wiser and feel confused...welcome to the world of being a European citizen...none of us understand it either.


That sort of makes sense.
And would be good for things like highly political cases, here there is some clear idea of why the decision in a case might be seriously questionable.
I can't really see where there would be grounds for Rudy, beyond that he just doesn't want to be where he is: guilty, caught, tried, and condemned.
And I still wonder how this would be funded.
Or whether it is just so much face-saving hot air, after the failure of the last appeal.



Well, it kind of doesn't work like that, hence why it's confusing. In a standard legal system one fails in their case and feels it was an injustice on certain grounds and so appeals to a higher court on those grounds. In the European system which is starting to take shape, one goes to the highest court in their own state, shoots their bolt and loses and then wants to have another option...another court, in this case the European Court, which now exists but didn't used to. But usually, one doesn't go there there because they already have grounds...but instead has their lawyers look for articles that may gain them entry, a golden ticket. It's sort of the difference between the cart before the horse and the horse before the cart. In short, what it means is they are 'going to hunt for grounds' that may get them into the European Court. It's a desperate act really.

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

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


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


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

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
SomeAlibi wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Jools wrote:
:lol: Pic of the stepfather wearing his 'beautiful cap'.


and of course wearing it *inside the courtroom* eek-) :shock:

Don't miss that dapper looking Italian silk ? black scarf also. :)

How does that saying go about... 'you can dress some people up, but you still cannot take them out'?? ;)




Odd, isn't it? There aren't many people I know who don't consider wearing a hat inside a room to be rude, let alone in the environment of a court. He's a very uncooth person, without a doubt.

You must've missed his manically chewing gum in that Umbria24 video. :lol:


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

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm
Posts: 15960
Location: England
Highscores: 113
Jools quoting the article wrote:
Chris Mellas, Knox's stepfather, said that Hellman's lack of experience may be an advantage for her. "Because it is not his typical arena, he might be a little less desensitised. The court's summary of the case, which was read out last week, contained many of our points, and that was already something."



In other words "He may be a naive dupe that will buy any crap. That's what we're hoping and the first signs are looking good."

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

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


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


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

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Michael wrote:
Jools quoting the article wrote:
Chris Mellas, Knox's stepfather, said that Hellman's lack of experience may be an advantage for her. "Because it is not his typical arena, he might be a little less desensitised. The court's summary of the case, which was read out last week, contained many of our points, and that was already something."



In other words "He may be a naive dupe that will buy any crap. That's what we're hoping and the first signs are looking good."


I'm waiting for the Rome chapter. The signs there will be looking definitive.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
lauowolf wrote:
I can't help feeling that there is some degree of a called bluff in it all.
The defense has been questioning these two items, and getting a lot of mileage out of casting them in doubt.
They say: "The bra strap is contaminated, the knife doesn't count. That's doubt!"
But now their complaints have been heard, and there will be yet another examination of the bra clasp and knife.
New experts to look over everything and have their say.
And what will they find: here's Raff's DNA on the clasp and no other DNA from him in the room (maybe there's even Amanda's there too!), and the knife either yields up something additional or it doesn't.
What was found can't be re-tested, but the experts may find more, or may simply pronounce on the procedure used before.
The new experts will testify as to the validity or not of these two items.
At that point the defense can no longer claim there is anything there left to debate, no longer anything to question about them.
Bluff called.
And, as has been pointed out, there still remains the mountain of other damning evidence that is accepted unchallanged.
Somehow, I have a feeling the defense lawyers are much less happy at this outcome than Amanda's dimwitted family.


It is a master stroke by judge Hellmann.


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

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
Jools wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Jools wrote:
:lol: Pic of the stepfather wearing his 'beautiful cap'.


and of course wearing it *inside the courtroom* eek-) :shock:

Don't miss that dapper looking Italian silk ? black scarf also. :)

How does that saying go about... 'you can dress some people up, but you still cannot take them out'?? ;)




Odd, isn't it? There aren't many people I know who don't consider wearing a hat inside a room to be rude, let alone in the environment of a court. He's a very uncooth person, without a doubt.

You must've missed his manically chewing gum in that Umbria24 video. :lol:



That was hard to miss, although 90% of the video consisted of close-ups of AK staring at her lawyer.

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


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

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
ANSA:
Quote:
(ASCA) - Perugia, 18 dic - Riapertura del dibattimento come avanzato dalla difese di Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox; le richieste di riapertura, presentate dalla difesa sabato scorso, sono state accolte dalla Corte che poco fa e' uscita dalla camera di consiglio. Nuovi test quindi verranno disposti sul coltello e sul gancetto del reggiseno di Meredith Kercher, sul quale le analisi scientifiche avevano accentrato l'interesse e sul quale erano state trovate tracce di Dna di Sollecito. Anche Mario Alessi condannato per l'omicidio di Tommaso Onofri verra' ascoltato in relazione al racconto di Rudy Guede, che avrebbe asserito che ad uccidere Meredith Kercher sarebbe stata una persona sconosciuta, sulla quale le indagini non si sarebbero mai dirette.


[There will be a] reopening of the debate, as requested by the defences of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox: the requests for reopening, presented by the defence last Saturday, were granted by the Court which emerged from the Counsel Room a short while ago. There will thus be new tests on the knife and on the bra clasp of Meredith Kercher, on which the scientific analyses had centered interest and on which traces of Sollecito's DNA were found. Also Mario Alessi, condemned for the murder of Tommaso Onofri, will be heard in relation to Rudy Guede, who allegedly claimed that it was an unknown person who killed Meredith Kercher, on whom no investigations were ever made.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Fiona wrote:
Quote:
Sure it was probably important: but we really do not know.


No. We'll never know it as proven fact, any more than we will ever know exactly what happened to Meredith Kercher. Nor could either of Sally's juries "know" whether she killed her babies or not, and nor, for that matter, could the statisticians who protested against Roy Meadow. One is in this situation all the time, and there's nothing to do but substitute deduction and reasoning for empirical knowledge. That's what judges and juries have to do; that's what Massei did and Pratillo Hellman will do. You can't always know, yet sometimes you have to make a judgement call because it's a duty.


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

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
New review of this particular evidence doesn't do anything to help Amanda, IMO. Seems to me it's more to answer questions about the case against Raffaele.

Amanda's visible signs of elation are, in fact, relief her act of innocence continues. It's like finding out the play's run has been extended 4 more weeks. Those with any sense know the 'run of the play' contract is finite. Others still ignore it's obviously coming to a close soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Libero
Quote:
I periti della Corte d'Assise d'Appello, dunque, dovranno verificare preliminarmente se è possibile compiere ancora delle analisi, in caso contrario dovranno verificare le operazioni già svolte da altri esperti.


"The experts of the Assize Court of Appeal will thus have to first check whether it is still possible to make analytical tests, and if not, they will have to verify all the operations accomplished by other experts."

So the principle is that new tests will be done if it is possible, not just review of results of older tests.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
I think that the half of the loaf the defense didn't get is very interesting. One thing that it shows is that the judges and jurors started their work on this appeal well before the first hearing. It is clear that they know what they want to revisit and what they don't need. That no new evidence will be taken on time of death, no testing of the pillow case, etc. tells me that they understand the case very well.

That they want to hear from Curatolo means they are going to make their own assessment of his credibility. The defense gets to call two club owners who will say their clubs were closed and they had no buses running. If the prosecution is able to find owners of clubs that were open that night with buses running, than that is a wash. If they don't, that doesn't mean the judge and jurors will disbelieve Curatolo. Here is part of a standard jury instruction on judging the credibility of witnesses:

"Do not automatically reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are
important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make
mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness
the same event yet see or hear it differently."

ETA: I realize that this is quoted from from a California criminal jury instruction, but I am getting the sense that it expresses an idea common to judges everywhere. It is the result of human experience.

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


Last edited by TomM on Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
That was hard to miss, although 90% of the video consisted of close-ups of AK staring at her lawyer.


Jools, thank your for the video.

Is it Sollecito's sister the one greetings the Mellas at 3:03?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Doug Preston Rant
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

....I'm late catching up. What a chilling comparisom.....interesting nonetheless.

After hearing the news of Amanda getting her 'second chance' and Edna being thrilled about the courts having an open mind...I can't help but wonder if they granted this in a "....ok....twist my arm...." kinda way just to slam dunk her can right back where it belongs?

My heart goes out to Meredith's family and friends...such a shame this will continue just a little bit longer.


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

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Quote:
If the prosecution is able to find owners of clubs that were open that night with buses running, than that is a wash.


That's what I thought. It would have been completely stupid of the defence to only check a couple of shuttle buses and not others. But then I read somewhere that most discos did not have a shuttle bus service, there were only a couple that did it and they were closed that night.

I actually believe that even if Curatolo said at some point in his testimony that he saw people with masks and students getting ready to board the shuttle buses, it might not mean that his testimony will ultimately be rejected. Because after all, people may remember something they saw, and yet get the details surrounding it slightly wrong. It would weaken his testimony, but it's not certain the court would necessarily have to reject it. It would probably also depend on the impression he makes.


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

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
New evidence allowed in Italy trial for Briton's murder

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20101218/tt ... 02f96.html

"After three years we've had our first big victory," said Sollecito's lawyer Luca Maori. Knox and Sollecito broke down in tears when the decision was announced.

The prosecution witness, homeless Antonio Curatolo, said he saw the defendants in a car park where coaches were taking students to a local disco. The defence has now produced the owner of the disco who says it was closed that evening.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 516
Jools wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Jools wrote:
:lol: Pic of the stepfather wearing his 'beautiful cap'.


and of course wearing it *inside the courtroom* eek-) :shock:

Don't miss that dapper looking Italian silk ? black scarf also. :)

How does that saying go about... 'you can dress some people up, but you still cannot take them out'?? ;)




Odd, isn't it? There aren't many people I know who don't consider wearing a hat inside a room to be rude, let alone in the environment of a court. He's a very uncooth person, without a doubt.

You must've missed his manically chewing gum in that Umbria24 video. :lol:


Hi Jools,

The man is alarmingly clueless.

OT; There is a tale in courtroom lore that goes like this;

During a sitting court case an individual at the rear of the room was chewing gum with such veracity that his chomping could be overheard throughout the room. The Judge discreetly asked the court clerk to

“tell that individual to stop masticating in my court”.

The clerk being somewhat hard of hearing approached the offender, taps him on the shoulder and says;

” the Judge said to take your hands out of your pockets”. :)

H


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showt ... st14695174

Early Christmas for Amanda Knox

by Barbie Latza Nadeau

Quote:
Earlier in the day he ruled that all the evidence and documents in Guede’s appeal could be considered in Knox’s appeal, and that Guede can be called as a witness. Guede’s lawyers say that he is willing to testify that Knox and Sollecito were both at the scene of the crime the night Kercher was killed.


To correct link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... =newsflash


Last edited by Emerald on Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am
Posts: 177
Jools wrote:
:lol: Pic of the stepfather wearing his 'beautiful cap'.


Oh! I thought that it was a hot water bottle.


jw


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
stilicho wrote:
Michael wrote:
norbertc wrote:
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.



Nope, it will be done by Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of University 'La Sapienza of Rome. That was very quick work indeed.

They are also going to admit the witnesses that say there were no buses. I'm not sure the Telegraph has it right that Curatolo is going to be questioned again though, the Italian media isn't reporting that.

I find it quite interesting how the defence went shopping with a long list of requests for tests, reviews and new witnesses, only got half of what they asked for and yet were so ecstatic at the result. It's an indicator of their desperation I think.


A JREF poster pointed out that Francesco Bruno, a criminologist at La Sapienza university, is convinced of Knox's innocence. That is corroborated by this article:

NEWSWEEK ARTICLE 14 JUL 2008


Well, not quite just Knox. Francesco Bruno believes that ALL THREE are innocent. At least according to what's he is been parroting lately on TV shows.
il criminologo Bruno: “Amanda, Raffaele e Rudy sono innocenti”

BTW look who's 1st commented in this article. The 2nd comment is hilarious:
*Per chi non ha confidenza con l’inglese traduco e riassumo il commento di Michelle Moore:“La colpa è del negro”.*
=*For anyone who has no confidence with the English language, I'l translate in sum the comment by Michelle Moore: "The black man is guilty".*
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Zopi wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
That was hard to miss, although 90% of the video consisted of close-ups of AK staring at her lawyer.


Jools, thank your for the video.

Is it Sollecito's sister the one greetings the Mellas at 3:03?

Yes that's Sollecito's sister, Vanessa.


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

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

BTW look who's 1st commented in this article. The 2nd comment is hilarious:
*Per chi non ha confidenza con l’inglese traduco e riassumo il commento di Michelle Moore:“La colpa è del negro”.*
=*For anyone who has no confidence with the English language, I'l translate in sum the comment by Michelle Moore: "The black man is guilty".*
:lol:


I was neutral on Celestial because Mungo likes her but this hilarious post just might tip the scales. ss)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

BTW look who's 1st commented in this article. The 2nd comment is hilarious:
*Per chi non ha confidenza con l’inglese traduco e riassumo il commento di Michelle Moore:“La colpa è del negro”.*
=*For anyone who has no confidence with the English language, I'l translate in sum the comment by Michelle Moore: "The black man is guilty".*
:lol:


I was neutral on Celestial because Mungo likes her but this hilarious post just might tip the scales. ss)


Mungo loves her. He has actually been making her a little rafia basket out of his hay ration for Christmas (I know). But he hates a racist...

I sincerely doubt this is the actual Michelle Moore to be fair...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:55 pm
Posts: 54
Gosh. I've just thought... if the clasp and the shuttle buses came out with results favourable to the defence, then you could possibly consider Raffaele might have a feasible chance at arguing post-murder involvement only.

Apologies in advance for a marathon post, but I like "scenario" posts, and thought of one, so I'll share.

My most powerful reason for believing in the guilt of all three has always been that you don't sit there on trial for murder without spilling the beans if your involvement was indeed marginal. But let's leave that for a second.

I wrote this whole thing out and then realised the bathmat print is damning.

Without that print I could envision a story from him, like so: "Amanda went out to see friends around 9pm and came back around 1am. I was surfing for a few minutes but then decided to go out to try to score some coke - I couldn't do that with Amanda around because she'd be overexcited and loud and the dealers didn't like her because she attracted attention, and if she'd known I was going, she'd have insisted on going with me. I got back to my place around 11pm and got started with the coke, and Amanda showed up around 1am and wanted some too. Between then and 6am she told me the whole story. We were talking till 6am and exhausted by the end of it, but she got it in her head that she wanted to hear this song by artist X, so I put it on along with some others. I reached for my phone to check the time but realised it was turned off, so I turned it on."

"I then fell asleep and the next thing I knew the phone was ringing. It was my father - I didn't tell him what Amanda had told me, I was too scared. When I said I was at home, he started going on and on about this event he went to [248 sec phone call], and when I wasn't really responding then he was asking if I was ill and I kept telling him I'm fine, but he was so worried he rang back to check once more [38 sec phone call]."

"After I spoke to my father, Amanda soon showed up and told me she'd solved the problem, and all we needed was to go to the house and alert Filomena and the others. I was really apprehensive about the whole thing, I wanted to tell my father, but Amanda said if I'd just say what she told me, she'd be able to stay in Italy, otherwise she'd be deported/jailed. I wasn't happy, I was very angry and told Amanda so in no uncertain terms, but she was so sure of her clean-up strategy that I finally caved in. But I just kept messing up the act all the time at the cottage and also in the police questioning. It was then I decided to say she'd been out, but wanted to keep the coke out of it and didn't think of the inconsistencies..."

However, the bathmat footprint is still there and Massei concludes a "probable identity" between the mat and Raffaele's foot.

So, that puts Raff involved in the clean-up at the very least, and he's put the print there before the clean-up (because as I recall that print doesn't match any in the corridor). So he's fully involved in the clean up. I guess for me that makes that bathmat "the bugger". SA's list here is incredibly useful... I've tried to explain everything else away but can't make that one go away (nor can I really explain the final 12.40 call from Raff's father that day). Seriously, there is a mountain of evidence in this case...

Someone wondered about Raff's changed demeanour. Is there a chance for getting around that footprint, or is that definitely not an option anymore? Could he possibly have been told that it'll be Amanda and Rudy who get done for this but not him?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
TomM wrote:
I think that the half of the loaf the defense didn't get is very interesting. One thing that it shows is that the judges and jurors started their work on this appeal well before the first hearing. It is clear that they know what they want to revisit and what they don't need. That no new evidence will be taken on time of death, no testing of the pillow case, etc. tells me that they understand the case very well.

That they want to hear from Curatolo means they are going to make their own assessment of his credibility. The defense gets to call two club owners who will say their clubs were closed and they had no buses running. If the prosecution is able to find owners of clubs that were open that night with buses running, than that is a wash. If they don't, that doesn't mean the judge and jurors will disbelieve Curatolo. Here is part of a standard jury instruction on judging the credibility of witnesses:

"Do not automatically reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are
important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make
mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness
the same event yet see or hear it differently."

ETA: I realize that this is quoted from from a California criminal jury instruction, but I am getting the sense that it expresses an idea common to judges everywhere. It is the result of human experience.

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


So let's see what is not being re-examined:

  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • The whole business about the screensaver.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.

Have I missed anything? Included things that shouldn't be there?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:48 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
Norbertc, TheBard and Lauowolf are on the ball in terms of intuitions of what the appeal court is doing and thinking.

The English language reports are picking up most of the gist of the meaning of the appeal court's orders.

Give me another couple of hours (I'm a slow typer) and I should have another Digest up.

Very briefly:

The Court felt it needed the assistance of experts in an area of knowledge (DNA) that was complex and technical in order to help it reach a decision; and admitting new witnesses is not a surprise, objectively speaking.

Mignini commented that the anti-Curatolo testimony won't change anything.

And the Court rejected all the rest of the submitted defence requests. E.g., Amanda's "memorials" are in. As is the entire Rudy case.

In the meantime, while I'm typing, have a game of mah-jong and a curry or two.



-- "I'll be back." - General Macarthur sun-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

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


No idea what the snow in London's all about. I used to live in Tooting, SW17 land of the Indian restaurant, but now live in Virgina, USA where.......we have snow. All this curry talk left me in a bad place; all I could think of was curry so I've been out for a lamb vindaloo, veg curry and naan bread. $10.95 excluding drinks. American curry shops all do buffets at lunchtime, so, to quote Mr Creosote "I'm absolutely stuffed" and burp "I couldn't eat another thing".



Ahhhhh cmon.... have a wafffffffer thin mint....


Language Warning.......to quote Mr. Creosote; Fuck Off.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
I STILL couldn't eat another thing......several hours later. Room for beer though, finally.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 582
Location: California
Highscores: 8
stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
I think that the half of the loaf the defense didn't get is very interesting. One thing that it shows is that the judges and jurors started their work on this appeal well before the first hearing. It is clear that they know what they want to revisit and what they don't need. That no new evidence will be taken on time of death, no testing of the pillow case, etc. tells me that they understand the case very well.

That they want to hear from Curatolo means they are going to make their own assessment of his credibility. The defense gets to call two club owners who will say their clubs were closed and they had no buses running. If the prosecution is able to find owners of clubs that were open that night with buses running, than that is a wash. If they don't, that doesn't mean the judge and jurors will disbelieve Curatolo. Here is part of a standard jury instruction on judging the credibility of witnesses:

"Do not automatically reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are
important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make
mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness
the same event yet see or hear it differently."

ETA: I realize that this is quoted from from a California criminal jury instruction, but I am getting the sense that it expresses an idea common to judges everywhere. It is the result of human experience.

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


So let's see what is not being re-examined:

  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • The whole business about the screensaver.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.

Have I missed anything? Included things that shouldn't be there?

I have seen nothing about audiometric testing; I assume if that had not been denied we'd hear all about it.
Oh, and the mixed blood/dna spots.
Analysis of RS' computer


Last edited by TomM on Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
NBC Nightly Newscast “News from Italy what could be a big break for Amanda Knox. An Italian court said it would allow a new review of DNA in her case. A young “American“ woman and her xbf were tried, convicted, and imprisoned for sexually assaulting and murdering her British roommate. An Italian court ordered an outside review of the knife and bra clasp evidence, both of which were crucial to her conviction. “ Edda Mellas who could barely contain herself, but yet somehow looked somber said ‘There’s some hope they want to find the truth’.
Soon after this piece, they had another headline story about some guy who is claiming to have found remnants of Amelia Earhart in some remote desolate Pacific Island.

If interested, Frank has a new posting on today's hearing.


Last edited by DLW on Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
The Bard wrote:
piktor wrote:
Jools wrote:

BTW look who's 1st commented in this article. The 2nd comment is hilarious:
*Per chi non ha confidenza con l’inglese traduco e riassumo il commento di Michelle Moore:“La colpa è del negro”.*
=*For anyone who has no confidence with the English language, I'l translate in sum the comment by Michelle Moore: "The black man is guilty".*
:lol:


I was neutral on Celestial because Mungo likes her but this hilarious post just might tip the scales. ss)


Mungo loves her. He has actually been making her a little rafia basket out of his hay ration for Christmas (I know). But he hates a racist...

I sincerely doubt this is the actual Michelle Moore to be fair...

Really? You sincerely doubt she wrote the following:

*Michelle Moore Scrive:
7 dicembre 2010 alle 11:50
Rudy was a burglar/thief. He was a rapist. He was a murderer. He had a hard upbringing, but he made some very very bad choices. He was never prosecuted for any of the crimes he committed. If he HAD been, Meredith Kercher would still be alive! And Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would have been graduated and gone on to living their own quiet life.
Rudy has now ruined 2 MORE lives.
Please, Italy, hold this court accountable. This is not about America/Italy, it’s just about a wrong that can be made right. Just as should be the case on our end too. Thanks*

Bard- Celestial basket case has been posting comments like this all the time, how can you say that you seriously doubt she wrote that? :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm
Posts: 2241
Location: Spain
Re Carla Vecchiotti, the forensic genetist appointed by the Court, here is some info of her expertise:

http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bm ... Vecchiotti

http://www.labome.org/expert/italy/vecc ... 75136.html

Here a some cases where Carla Vecchiotti was a consultant, sometime for the defence other times for prosecution. Seems that at the moment she is a consultant on the Sarah Scazzi case for the defence of her incarcerated cousin Sabrina Misseri.
http://it.blogbabel.com/tag/carla%20vecchiotti/

I haven't been able to find anything yet on the other expert, Stefano Conti.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
From SA's list of buggers:

"The contradiction in testimony about whether Meredith's door being locked panicked them or it was 'usual' "

The problem for both of them is they both wrote the word 'panic', Knox in the long email and Sollecito in his jail diary, describing their concern for Meredith. As soon as the police arrive not a peep about their "panic". Knox says Meredith "always" locks her door.

Filomena is the one that sets things straight and the effort to kick the door open is put in motion.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=223&p=47176&hilit=buggers#p47176


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:42 pm
Posts: 14
What was the connection of Aviello to the case? that he, whose missing brother just happens to be the "real' killer, winds up in the same tank as RS? One degree of separation?
And if Meredith's blood is confirmed found on the knife, was any comment ever made in court about R's fishy prick in ---er, pricking hand while cooking story? When did he offer that "explanation"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Ahhh Jools, I misunderstood. I read in haste and thought you meant Celestial was writing that comment in Italian! Doh! When I looked at it again I saw what you meant. Yep, that's our Mitch!

Basket case...maybe that's what Mungo's trying to tell her...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Interesting mastication vid. Mad Pax loves the limelight, no? Another one with a view to making a career outta this. Has she graduated? I wonder what in...photography? English? I'll-advised polo neck jumpers and how to wear them...? How to support your murdering bst-friend in a foreign land and STILL make money?

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
Catnip wrote:
Norbertc, TheBard and Lauowolf are on the ball in terms of intuitions of what the appeal court is doing and thinking.

The English language reports are picking up most of the gist of the meaning of the appeal court's orders.

Give me another couple of hours (I'm a slow typer) and I should have another Digest up.

Very briefly:

The Court felt it needed the assistance of experts in an area of knowledge (DNA) that was complex and technical in order to help it reach a decision; and admitting new witnesses is not a surprise, objectively speaking.

Mignini commented that the anti-Curatolo testimony won't change anything.

And the Court rejected all the rest of the submitted defence requests. E.g., Amanda's "memorials" are in. As is the entire Rudy case.

In the meantime, while I'm typing, have a game of mah-jong and a curry or two.



-- "I'll be back." - General Macarthur sun-)


I can wait anytime you need for one of your Digest :-) thanks in advance!

I think I am happy to see that the Court is doing everything as possible to pursue Justice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
According to the pics, Madison was in court. Alone. Not really acknowledged by Amanda's Family or the press.

Frankly, the whole thing reeks of 'wifey is in town, now disappear'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:30 am 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3641
I had a good laugh when reading this.

Steve Shay wrote:
Two independent experts from Rome's Sapienza University have been selected to scrutinize some of the prosecution's evidence at Knox's fourth appeal hearing, Jan. 15.

WEST SEATTLE HERALD


Yet another example of sloppy reporting and confusion on the part of Steve Shay.

Apparently he is under the (mistaken) impression that the court-appointed experts will begin presenting the results of forensic re-testing and re-examination of some pieces of evidence as early as January. (They will probably be working overtime during Christmas! :lol: ). He seems to be unaware of the fact that the entire process may take anywhere from 6-8 weeks to complete.

As usual, Steve Shay didn't properly check up on the facts, before allowing the story to run. co-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 317
Emerald wrote:
According to the pics, Madison was in court. Alone. Not really acknowledged by Amanda's Family or the press.

Frankly, the whole thing reeks of 'wifey is in town, now disappear'.


In the Short video from Umbria24 posted by Jools, she is sitting with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:06 am
Posts: 177

Italian Court OKs evidence review for Knox



Andrea Vogt, in Seattle PI December 18, 2010


http://www.seattlepi.com/local/432051_knox18.html?source=mypi

"...

The biggest victory for Knox and Sollecito was the court's decision to allow an independent forensic review of the two most contested pieces of forensic evidence: The victim's bra clasp, where Sollecito's DNA was reportedly found, and the kitchen knife believed to be the murder weapon, on which police biologists said they found Knox's DNA on the handle and a minuscule amount of Kercher's DNA on the blade. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have sparred repeatedly over the validity of these pieces of evidence and disagreed about whether or not the results could have been contaminated. The independent review is intended to lay those questions to rest.

Citing the need to achieve justice by concluding "beyond a reasonable doubt," Presiding Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman said he wanted the independent expert to retest the items, if possible. If not possible, he wants the expert to reanalyze the existing DNA results.

...

The judge also said he will allow several new witnesses whom defense attorneys say have new information that contradicts the testimony of Antonio Curatolo, the homeless man who testified he saw Knox and Sollecito overlooking the crime scene on the night of the murder.

However, the judge rejected defense requests for a new analysis of activity on Sollecito's computer, a new coroner report on the time of death and the testing of an unidentified stain on Kercher's pillow that defense experts suggested was semen. Hellman also did not immediately admit the testimony of convicted child murderer Mario Alessi or Mafioso Luciano Aviello, saying he would reserve the right to call them. Prosecutors also requested the right to call counter-witnesses, if those two are eventually heard.

..."

More at link above.

Comments allowed.



jw


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:16 pm
Posts: 9
If any of you have uploaded or know where to find any of the following documents (no translation necessary, original Italian preferred), I'd be grateful for a link:

- The prosecution's appeal document asking for increased sentences for Knox and Sollecito
- The 2nd-level (Corte d'Assise d'Appello) motivation in the Guede case
- Guede's appeal documents for both 2nd (Appello) and 3rd (Cassazione) levels

By way of introducing myself, I'll disclose that I'm an unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito, and am aware that most folks here are of the opposite persuasion. One thing I do have in common with people here (I hope) is a deep and sincere respect for Meredith Kercher and tremendous sympathy for her family on account of their tragic loss.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4094
Location: London
Good gawd, since a nap on the sofa the snow has encircled my dwelling.

Barbie, who I'd marry tomorrow, has judge Hellmann's name all wrong, not like her, someone editing for her and getting it wrong? Helmen is what they've made of it.

On Mad Pax, I have and have had (for a long while) an inkling that she looked/lived like a total geek but seeing an image earlier today she looked like she'd undergone a transformation of sorts, maybe the effects of Italian living, mainly, kindness is having an effect on her? Who knows, she might become a double agent. After all, it's okay smiling in someone's face while knifing them in the back at the first opportunity, but God knows Amanda Knox's defence theme, of undermining all things Italian, into the most ridiculous realms of we aint eating your Bolognese or pizza, might be unrubbing off on her (even though she is unaware of it), for she is, by all accounts, living there. God help her if she has been installed in a Girlanda-related apartment, he may just start popping in on her every five minutes too.
Anyhow, she seems to be enjoying the wonderful Italian hospitality.

Can't help but think how the Knoxos, or in this case, the Melloxos, have been looking in here, and have taken commentary & constructive criticism onboard, now Mr Mellas looks like Steptoe & Son's cousin.
That is so funny to see him in his Sunday best hat.

My granddad had a trilby hanging high in the hall and it was something that had the aura of the crown jewels surrounding it, for grandmother would screech, "Don't you touch granddad's hat, he only wears it on special occasions," it was a beautiful hat and because of the special occasion theme, it was a joy as a little boy to walk with him while he wore it.

I must say that Chris A Bunker and his spouse look ugly as hell in the photo above, looks like a piece of art from the Daily Mail where they distort celebrities to make them look prettier or uglier to suit the day's tale, women often being photoshopped to end up with legs similar to a Shetland pony's, totally distorted. Much like snapping a celebrity at the most ugly angle.

Amanda Knox and the look about her? To me, looks like someone busy in a bank, trying to pass false cheques, and thinking that the cashier is gonna be paying out, acts as normally as possible whilst knowingly committing a set of crimes, one of which would be 'falsification of identity' yes yes of course I am who I say I am I have a right to the money, nervous? Of course not but I hope you can hurry up a little cashier girl. The judges are the cashiers I guess.

Anyway, if the knife is to be divided in two I do truly hope they find an abundance of Knox's DNA washed out of sight by blood, I do hope this because it's already been shown that they are all guilty.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4094
Location: London
komponisto wrote:
If any of you have uploaded or know where to find any of the following documents (no translation necessary, original Italian preferred), I'd be grateful for a link:

- The prosecution's appeal document asking for increased sentences for Knox and Sollecito
- The 2nd-level (Corte d'Assise d'Appello) motivation in the Guede case
- Guede's appeal documents for both 2nd (Appello) and 3rd (Cassazione) levels

By way of introducing myself, I'll disclose that I'm an unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito, and am aware that most folks here are of the opposite persuasion. One thing I do have in common with people here (I hope) is a deep and sincere respect for Meredith Kercher and tremendous sympathy for her family on account of their tragic loss.



I expect someone will help you but I wouldn't.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
It's interesting someone who staunchly professes the innocence of Raffaele and Amanda would come to this site to get the FACTS of the case.

wh-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:16 pm
Posts: 9
Emerald wrote:
It's interesting someone who staunchly professes the innocence of Raffaele and Amanda would come to this site to get the FACTS of the case.



....unsuccessfully so far: all I've gotten are a couple of snarks.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
komponisto wrote:
If any of you have uploaded or know where to find any of the following documents (no translation necessary, original Italian preferred), I'd be grateful for a link:

- The prosecution's appeal document asking for increased sentences for Knox and Sollecito
- The 2nd-level (Corte d'Assise d'Appello) motivation in the Guede case
- Guede's appeal documents for both 2nd (Appello) and 3rd (Cassazione) levels

By way of introducing myself, I'll disclose that I'm an unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito, and am aware that most folks here are of the opposite persuasion. One thing I do have in common with people here (I hope) is a deep and sincere respect for Meredith Kercher and tremendous sympathy for her family on account of their tragic loss.

_______________

komponisto,

The second level MOTIVATIONS Report, in Italian, is available here on PMF, Here

///


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:00 am
Posts: 555
komponisto wrote:
If any of you have uploaded or know where to find any of the following documents (no translation necessary, original Italian preferred), I'd be grateful for a link:

- The prosecution's appeal document asking for increased sentences for Knox and Sollecito
- The 2nd-level (Corte d'Assise d'Appello) motivation in the Guede case
- Guede's appeal documents for both 2nd (Appello) and 3rd (Cassazione) levels

By way of introducing myself, I'll disclose that I'm an unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito, and am aware that most folks here are of the opposite persuasion. One thing I do have in common with people here (I hope) is a deep and sincere respect for Meredith Kercher and tremendous sympathy for her family on account of their tragic loss.

________________

A summary of Mignini's appeal, in English, Here

The full document, in Italian, from RoseMontague, Here

///


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:22 am 
Offline

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

The second level MOTIVATIONS Report, in Italian, is available here on PMF, Here

A summary of Mignini's appeal, in English, Here

The full document, in Italian, from RoseMontague, Here

///


Thank you.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4094
Location: London
Palate

The roof of the mouth in vertebrates having a complete or partial separation of the oral and nasal cavities and consisting of the hard palate and the soft palate.

Middle English, from Old French palat, from Latin paltum, perhaps of Etruscan origin

Latin: Palatum
Italian: Palato
Portuguese: Palato
Spanish: Paladar
English: Palate
French: Palat
Hebrew: Hekh,
Dutch: Gehemelte
German: Gaumen
Danish: Gane
Norwegian: Gane
Swedish: Gom

Quoted:
A second verbal form derived from our root has to do with the initiating the young into the Jewish community via education. The Book of Proverbs tells us (hanokh la-na'ar), "educate the youth" in a way appropriate for him and he will continue to behave properly into old age. It may fairly be said of Eliezer Ben Yehuda, the Hebrew (mehanekh), educator, par excellence, that he almost single-handedly (hanakh tekufa hadasha), inaugurated a new era, for the Jewish people

And what does all this have to do with jelly donuts? If we remember that the letter (nun) has a habit of slipping in and out of words, we come to the two-letter root-word (hekh), palate. This word is found in a whole range of idiomatic expressions, from the phrase in the Jewish pledge of allegiance to Jerusalem, (tidbak leshoni le-hiki), "may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth" to the expression for "a really fine orator," (hiko mamtakim), literally "his palate is [like] sweets."

More to our point, and sweeter yet, is an ancient initiatory ceremony in which the (hekh), palate, of a young pupil was rubbed with date honey, so that the child would associate learning with sweetness (there is a similar ceremony using honey.) In Arabic, this palate-rubbing ceremony of initiation is called hanakka. Both the meaning and the sound of this Arabic word make the connection between (hekh), palate, and (hinnukh), education, on the one hand, and the ceremonial aspect of Hannuka , on the other, more readily apparent.
___________________________________________________________________________

Then to me the combination of the K at the beginning of the word Komponist which is composer in German, Dutch and Scandinavian languages, seems a queer name choice, considering adding an O at the end doesn't in any way make it even faintly Italian.

Funny these similarities and differences.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4094
Location: London
komponisto wrote:
fine wrote:
komponisto,

The second level MOTIVATIONS Report, in Italian, is available here on PMF, Here

A summary of Mignini's appeal, in English, Here

The full document, in Italian, from RoseMontague, Here

///


Thank you.



Item supplied is not one of the 3 things you desire(d) though is it!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4094
Location: London
Spoke too soon.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Perugia News Digest 18 December 2010
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:19 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
{Note: After about 30-40 news items, the information starts to repeat, so for this post, I've stopped at 56 items -- if I find any others that add something new (for example, the article(s) that mentioned the memorials by Amanda being in), I'll make a Part 2 post. By the way, Andrea Vogt's article (linked to above) covers the essential information quite well.}



PERUGIA NEWS DIGEST 18 DECEMBER 2010

Note: This is the first time that the news reports (the ones so far, anyway) have not mentioned anything about fashion or hairstyles.



Third appeal hearing

The third hearing in the Knox-Sollecito appeal began with Prosecutor General Giancarlo Costagliola's reply. (n1) Public prosecutors Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini are appealing against the Court of Assizes' granting of general mitigation and exclusion of trivial reasons. (n2) On the other side, last Saturday, the Sollecito defence has asked for "a total re-opening of the legal debate", similar to what happened to Alberto Stasi in the Garlasco murder case. (n3) The Court is expected by late afternoon to totally accept, or totally reject, or partially accept submissions to be made. (n4)

Rudy case material
After the lunch break, and resuming around 3pm, after a brief retirement to chambers to consider the question, (n5) and as requested in a submission by the Prosecutor General Giancarlo Costagliola, the judges of the Court of Appeal of the Court of Assizes, Criminal Division, of Perugia authorised the deposition of the first-instance and appeal judgments regarding Rudy Guede, as well as the Court of Cassation's dispositive recently confirming his 16-year conviction. (n6) Giancarlo Costagliola tendered the judgements. (n7) The dispositive is in anticipation of the Cassation's reasons (n8)

This was welcomed by the Kercher lawyer (n9)

With the Supreme Court's decision, Rudy's penalty has become irrevocable. (n10)

Custody orders
The judges have further granted the prosecution's request to suspend the expiry of precautionary custodial orders for the 90 days between the first-instance judgment and the reasons [handed down] regarding the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. (n11) In other words, the custody orders, due to expire in June, will now expire in September. (n12)

Defence requests
The defence has requested:
  • new opinion on time of death (n13)
  • new opinion on cause of death (n14)
The prosecution submits that a fresh consultation on these matters will not add anything new that has not already been noted (n15)

  • new opinion on the staging of the burglary (n16), in particular the broken window in Filomena's room (n17)
  • audiometric tests (n18)

Sollecito defence requests
  • new test on the knife (n19)
  • new test on the bra-clasp (n20), Raffaele's DNA getting there by contamination, according to the defence (n21), or because there was an error in the readings (n22) – but it can't have been contaminated, because it remained in Meredith's room, a place Sollecito had never been, according to the prosecution (n23)
  • test on the pillowcase (n24)
  • new test on Raffaele's computer (n25)
  • new witnesses to be heard (including Alessi, in Viterbo prison) (n26)

Knox defence requests
  • new test on the knife (n27)
  • new test on the Luminol hallway prints (n28)
  • new witnesses to be heard (Aviello, in Alba prison and currently under investigation for calunnia) (n29)

Objections
The Prosecutor General said that the prosecution "does not oppose" the examination of Alessi and Aviello in court (n30), evidently not considering them dangerous in terms of the probative picture (n31), as they are hardly reliable and therefore useful to the prosecution (n32)

The prosecution reserved the right of rebuttal if the witness testimony is admitted (n33)

The prosecution objected to the calling of witnesses to rebut Curatolo's testimony (n34), involving seeing Amanda and Raffaele in combination with the disco (shuttle)buses (n35). The defence witnesses will apparently testify to there being no shuttle buses in the area at the relevant time (n36)

The Prosecutor General further submitted that the scientific-technical tests as requested in the defence submission should be denied (n37), saying there is no need for further tests (n38).

Co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi recalled in court how "the knife and bra-clasp genetic evidence was cross-examined at the preliminary hearing and during the first-instance trial, by an impressive list of witnesses" and that, during the course of crime scene inspections in the murder house, the Scientific Police had detected 460 traces, 228 of which were collected. (n39) "In those from which DNA was extracted, it was attributable to either of the defendants or to Rudy Guede, or to the victim and one of the defendants." (n40)

The magistrate then spoke of "inconsistency of the criticisms levelled against the operations of the Scientific Police" and of the "unfounded and inadmissible requests by the defence on the matter of the genetic question", hence the hypothesis of possible contamination of the material raised by the defence. (n41) "At the logical level, one cannot alternatively sustain an hypothesis about an error in reading [the equipment] or of a contamination of the evidence." (n42)

"Contamination is a fact, not an opinion, and how it occurred must be demonstrated." (n43) "The defence has not been able to show this, because it has not occurred." (n44)

In relation to the audiometric test, the conditions of that night can not be recreated. (n45) and the old lady's testimony must be considered "reliable" (n46)

Five hours after the prosecution's address, the Court broke the DNA taboo (n47) and granted a partial re-opening of the case (n48).

The Court was persuaded on the grounds of a fundamental principle of law: "Culpability must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt" (article 533 of the Criminal Code), which does not allow of a "total sharing of the Court of Assize's decision at first-instance" (n49), and also the "objective difficulty" of evaluating "particularly technical" material like DNA analysis (n50):

"The identification of DNA on various items, and its attribution to the defendants, results, in truth, in being particularly complex because of the the objective difficulty on the part of persons not having the scientific knowledge to formulate evaluations and opinions of the particularly technical matters without the assistance of an expert consultant, hence the necessity to make arrangements for one." (n51)


Court decision
In a somewhat surprising decision (n52), after more than an hour in chambers (n53), the Court decided:
  • new test on the knife - granted (n54)
  • new test on the bra-clasp - granted (n55)
  • re-hearing Antonio Curatolo - denied (n56)
  • three new witnesses to be heard (anti-Curatolo) - granted (n57), namely, an events-organiser and two club owners on opening hours, as well as another two depositions on shuttle-bus services (n58)
  • request to annul the lower court decision (i.e., void or vacate it) - denied (n60)
  • on the matter of other witnesses - the court reserves its decision (n59). Say the reporters: Alessi is not the most reliable match in the box ("Alessi non brilla certo per affidabilità") (n61), and “They are not the most shining examples of honesty and reliability, given what they are in prison for (n62).
  • broken window - denied (n63)
  • time of death and cause of death - denied (n64)

Tears
Amanda and Raffaele were deeply moved and began crying, bursting into tears (n65) and the lawyers too (n66). At a certain point, Raffaele even smiled at his lawyer Luca Maori (n67)

Experts
The experts will have to ascertain whether further tests can be done, by direct examination of DNA traces on the evidentiary items, (n68), or, in the alternative, if they cannot be done, they will re-evaluate the operations carried out by the experts (n69), including with a view to possible contamination (n70).

Lawyers' comments: Giulia Bongiorno
"We are at the beginning of a procedural turnaround. Something the defence has been requesting for years, and the new testing is welcomed because it will finally bring to light the truth that was not highlighted in the first-instance judgment." (n71)

Luciano Ghirga
"The court wants to remove all doubt. It's an important step. This is the most useful way to make the scientific results more certain. It's not a victory for any side, it's a victory in the search for truth." (n72)

"I said last Saturday [at the 2nd hearing, on the 11th December] that we would not have won and we would not have lost if the request had been rejected. It is however an important step, enough that the Court is seeking to make the circumstantial items more certain, leading one to those responsible or to the innocent. Making the so-called scientific proof more certain was of fundamental importance. This was a common goal that the trial court resolved internally, while this [court] has resolved it with the reasonable doubt [doctrine], which, as those braver than me might say, leaves space for the insufficiency of proof. Article 533 [of the Criminal Code], which is about circumstantial cases, was the driving factor. In this regard, we're satisfied, but we have won nothing." (n73)

"Reasonable doubt is the inalienable constitutional right of the defence." (n74)

He did not comment on Amanda's reaction at the news. (n75)

Luca Maori
"Finally, after three years, the case can start. A great victory." (n76)

In relation to Raffaele's smile to him, "Finally, after three years, we have something truly positive. With today's orders, the Court has established what we have always said: the prosecution case at the first-instance trial was nothing more than a giant [idol] with feet of clay." (n77)

Francesco Maresca
"No, it's a victory for truth. The court wants to get to the bottom of these conclusions, and if there are doubts, it is better to remove them. Let's see what the experts will say. There were all the other things that were rejected [by the Court] and therefore the trial judgement has been confirmed." (n78)

He criticised how the defence was trying to restructure the trial process along the lines that everything would have to be re-done. (n79)

Giuliano Mignini
"We consider the grounds for re-opening the case to be defective. Except for the witnesses, who were the real new evidence, the Code is very restrictive when it comes to the other matters. The Court has however held it in its power to grant the new tests. We will now participate in all the tests with our consultants and will validate the workings. As for the Curatolo testimony, it [the defence submission] is an irrelevant circumstance. It changes nothing, because the previous night Amanda was at work in Patrick's pub and could not have been there [in Piazza Grimana where the basketball courts are]."

He considers that the genetic tests ordered by the court will help to remove doubts from people who are not experts in the matter like the courts judges might be, but a test per se does not resolve any questions. (n80)

Manuela Comodi
"It [re-opening the debate] is not a decision I share, because a verdict could have been reached without it. The order is defective in motivation. I accept it positively, however, because it can do nothing but confirm the work of the Scientifica, and put an end to this torment about errors [that the Scientifica made, according to the defence]" (n81)


The parents of the defendants were happy and left the courtroom smiling. (n82)

Edda Mellas
"This is the first happy day for along time." (n83)

Francesco Sollecito
Visibly satisfied said, "This is a victory for justice and for truth." (n84)

Amanda's acquired father
In next Monday's Gente magazine, Chris Mellas will say: "We're hoping that at Perugia those analyses that were denied at first-instance will be admitted. We don't know what the jury will decide but, definitely, the start of this trial seems very different to that of the first-instance." (n85)

Fourth Degree
Raffaele, in a letter to the Quarto Grado program, wrote: “I was profoundly moved by the words spoke by Amanda in court last Saturday. (n86) I am completely in agreement with her when she maintained our total non-involvement in the murder of poor Meredith. (n87) I earnestly hope that, in this appeal case, justice will be done, and that my life will be restored to me, likewise with Amanda." (n88)


Adjournment
The case is adjourned until 15 January, when the experts, Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti from the Institute of Legal Medicine at the Università La Sapienza di Roma, will be formally tasked. (n89)

Present in court
Amanda and Raffaele (n90); Raffaele's sister and father, Vanessa and Francesco Sollecito (n91); Amanda's mother and step-father, Edda and Chris Mellas (n92).

Amanda's entire family is in Perugia to follow the appeal. (n93)



Notes

n1 – 3,4
n2 – 4,6,8
n3 – 4,6,8
n4 – 48,52
n5 – 48,52
n6 – 1,2,3,4,5,12,13,16,26,28,29,44
n7 – 44
n8 – 28
n9 – 28
n10 – 29
n11 – 1,3,12,13,23,31,44,48,52
n12 – 12,13
n13 – 9,implied in 15,25
n14 – 9,implied in 15,25
n15 – 9
n16 – 9,10,11,13,implied in 15,25
n17 – implied in 15 and 23
n18 – implied in 15 and 23
n19 – 4,6,8,25
n20 – 4,6,8,9,10,11,13,25
n21 – 9,10,11,13,50
n22 – 50
n23 – 9,10,11,13
n24 – 4,6,8
n25 – 4,6,8,9,10,13,25
n26 – 4,6,8,9,10,15
n27 – 4,6,8,17
n28 – 4,6,8
n29 – 4,6,7,8,9,10,17,25
n30 – 9,10,13,15,indirect in 23,25,indirect in 27 and 48 and 51,44
n31 – 23
n32 – 27
n33 – 7,9,10
n34 – 7,9,10,15,23,27,44
n35 – 7,9,10,37
n36 – 7,9,10,37,44
n37 – 9,10,11,13,15,25,44
n38 – 9,10,11,13
n39 – 15
n40 – 15
n41 – 15
n42 – 44
n43 – 15,27,44
n44 – 15,27,44
n45 – 15,23
n46 – 15
n47 – 19,33
n48 – 21,54
n49 – 19,33,50
n50 – 50
n51 – 19,33,50
n52 – 53
n53 – 56
n54 – 14,19,20,22,23,24,34,35,36,40,42,44,46,47,49,50,53
n55 – 14,19,20,22,23,24,34,35,36,40,42,44,46,47,49,50,53
n56 – 48,51
n57 – 14,22,34,35,part in 36 and 42 and 44 and 46,40,46,54
n58 – 50
n59 – 14,19,23,33,40,46,50,54,55
n60 – 50
n61 – 19,33
n62 – 27
n63 – 23
n64 – 23
n65 – 14,19,21,23,33,36,40,42,43,45,53,54,55,56
n66 – 19,33
n67 – 21,23,43,45,53,54,55,56
n68 – 14,22,23,34,35,40,44,46,50,53,54,55,56
n69 – 14,22,23,34,35,40,44,46,50,53,54,55,56
n70 – 46
n71 – 14,40,50,indirect and part in 56
n72 – 18,part in 19 and 33,39
n73 – 39
n74 – 50
n75 – 23
n76 – 19,33,44,55,56
n77 – 44,50,55,56
n78 – 44,56
n79 – 48,51
n80 – 37
n81 – 38,50,56
n82 – 50,56
n83 – 14,40,50
n84 – 41,50
n85 – 17
n86 – 32
n87 – 32
n88 – 32
n89 – 14,40,46,53,54,55,56
n90 – 5,12,15,28,44,51,53
n91 – 15,23,45,48,52,53,54,55
n92 – 15,23,45,48,52,53,54,55
n93 – 17



References

1 - Omicidio Meredith: iniziata udienza, acquisite sentenze Guede (“Hearing begins, Guede judgements acquired”) [Secolo XIX] 18 December 2010
2 - CORTE APPELLO ACQUISISCE SENTENZE CONDANNA GUEDE (“Court of Appeal acquires Guede sentencing judgment”) [AGI] 18 December 2010
3 - Iniziata udienza, acquisite sentenze Guede (“Hearing begun, Guede judgments acquired”) [ADN Kronos] 18 December 2010
4 - Stamattina terza udienza con le repliche del Procuratore generale Giancarlo Costaiola (“This morning: third hearing, with Prosecutor General Giancarlo Costaiola’s reply”) [RAI] 18 December 2010
5 - Meredith: ripreso processo d'appello, la Corte acquisisce le sentenze di Guede (“Appeal case resumes, the Court acquires Guede judgements”) [IAMME Press] 18 December 2010
6 - MEREDITH:UDIENZA ENTRA NEL VIVO CON REPLICHE PROCURATORE GENERALE (“Hearing gets to the heart of the matter: Prosecutor General’s reply”) [Informatica Oggi] 18 December 2010
7 - Omicidio Meredith: accusa, si' a escussione Alessi e Aviello, no testi contro Curatolo (2) (“Prosecution: yes, to contesting Alessi and Aviello; no, to witnesses against Curatolo (2)”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
8 - Terza udienza del processo di appello ad Amanda e Raffaele (“Third hearing in the Amanda and Raffaele appeal case”) [Nazione] 18 December 2010
9 - Omicidio Meredith, Alessi probabilmente in aula dopo le confidenze di Rudy (“Alessi probably in court after Rudy’s admissions”) [Corriere dello Sport] 18 December 2010
10 - Omicidio Meredith, Alessi probabilmente in aula dopo le confidenze di Rudy (“Alessi probably in court after Rudy’s admissions”) [Tutto Sport] 18 December 2010
11 - Omicidio Meredith: accusa, no a nuove perizie scientifiche e tecniche (“Prosecution: no to new scientific and technical test”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
12 - Omicidio Meredith: iniziata udienza, acquisite sentenze Guede (“Hearing begun, Guede judgements acquired”) [Libero] 18 Decmber 2010
13 - MEREDITH, ACQUISITE IN APPELLO SENDENZE DI RUDY (“Rudy judgements acquired in appeal”) [Leggo Online] 18 December 2010
14 - Caso Meredith, sì a nuove perizie su reggiseno e coltello (“Yes to new tests on bra and knife”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
15 - Perugia, Meredith Sì a nuovi teste In corso l'udienza (“Yes to new tests; hearing continues”) [Nazione] 18 December 2010
16 - Mez: Appello acquisisce sentenza guede (“Appeal acquires Guede judgements”) [ANSA] 18 December 2010
17 - Omicidio Meredith: padre acquisito Amanda, speriamo che perizie vengano ammesse (“Amanda’s acquired father: We hope that tests will be admitted”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
18 - Meredith/ Difensore di Amanda: una vittoria per la verità (“Amanda’s defence: a victory for truth”) [Virgilio] 18 December 2010
19 - Meredith/ La svolta della Corte: richiesta nuova perizia sul Dna (“Court turnaround: request for new test on DNA”) [Virgilio] 18 December 2010
20 - Meredith: si' a perizia dna (“Yes to DNA test”) [Virgilio] 18 December 2010
21 - Luca Bagaglini – Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito in lacrime dopo la decisione della Corte d’Appello di Perugia (“Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in tears after the decision of the Perugia Court of Appeal”) [Diretta News] 18 December 2010
22 - Disposta nuova perizia sul gancetto del reggiseno di Meredith Kercher, la ragazza uccisa a Perugia (“New test ordered on the bra-clasp of Meredith Kercher, the girl killed in Perugia”) [Diretta News] 18 December 2010
23 - Pietro Salvato – La Corte dice sì ad Amanda e Raffaele. “Nuove perizie” (“The Court says yes to Amanda and Raffaele: ‘New tests’ ”) [Giornalettismo] 18 December 2010
24 - Meredith: si’ a perizia dna (“Yes to DNA test”) [EuroNews] 18 December 2010
25 - Delitto di Perugia: terza udienza del processo d'appello per Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito (“Third appeal hearing for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito”) [CrimeBlog] 18 December 2010
26 - Mez: Appello acquisisce sentenza guede (“Appeal acquires Guede judgments”) [EuroNews] 18 December 2010
27 - Meredith/ Processo Perugia, Pm accettano due testi della difesa (“Perugia case: prosecution accepts two defence witnesses”) [Virgilio] 18 December 2010
28 - Meredith/ Appello, acquisite le sentenze su Rudy Guede (“Appeal: Rudy Guede judgments acquired”) [Virgilio] 18 December 2010
29 - Mez: Appello acquisisce sentenza guede (“Appeal acquires Guede judgment”) [Virgilio] 18 December 2010
30 - MEREDITH: DOPO CONFERMA CASSAZIONE GUEDE, DOMANI ANCORA LELE E AMANDA (“After Supreme Court Rudy confirmation, tomorrow Raff and Amanda’s turn) [Virgilio] 18 December 2010
31 - Meredith: si' a perizia dna (“Yes to DNA test”) [Virgilio] 18 December 2010
32 - RETEQUATTRO: RAFFAELE SOLLECITO SCRIVE A QUARTO GRADO (“Raffaele writes to Quarto Grado {= the Fourth Degree}”) [Rete Quattro] 17 December 2010
33 - Processo Meredith, i giudici dicono sì alle nuove perizie (“Judges agree to new tests”) [Stampa] 18 December 2010
34 - Delitto Meredith, nuove perizie sul Dna (“New DNA tests”) [Corriere] 18 December 2010
35 - Omicidio Meredith: Corte, nuove perizie su reggiseno e arma delitto (“Court: new tests on bra and murder weapon”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
36 - MEREDITH KERCHER: TERZA UDIENZA PER KNOX E SOLLECITO (“Third hearing for Knox and Sollecito”) [Esperto Seo] 18 December 2010
37 - Omicidio Meredith: pm Mignini, difettavano presupposti per riapertura dibattimento (“Public Prosecutor Mignini: defective grounds for re-opening debate”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
38 - Omicidio Meredith: pm Comodi, non condivido decisione Corte (“Public Prosecutor Comodi: I don’t share Court’s decision”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
39 - Omicidio Meredith: difesa Knox, non e' vittoria di parte ma della ricerca di verita' (“Knox defence: Not a win for the parties, but for the search for truth”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
40 - Caso Meredith, sì a nuove perizie su reggiseno e coltello (“Yes to new tests on bra and knife”) [Libero] 18 December 2010
41 - Omicidio Meredith: padre Sollecito, vittoria di giustizia e verita' (“Sollecito father: Victory for justice and truth”) [ADN Kronos] 18 December 2010
42 - Si riapre il dibattimento in processo a Sollecito e Knox (“Sollecito and Knox case to re-open”) [ANSA] 18 December 2010
43 - Omicidio Meredith: Amanda e Raffaele in lacrime dopo decisione Corte (“Amanda and Raffaele in tears after Court decision”) [ADN Kronos] 18 December 2010
44 - Appello Sollecito-Knox: Si' a perizia Dna (“Sollecito-Knox appeal: yes to DNA test”) [ANSA] 18 December 2010
45 - MEREDITH: AMANDA E RAFFAELE IN LACRIME DOPO DECISIONE CORTE (“Amanda and Raffaele in tears after Court decision”) [AGI] 18 December 2010
46 - MEREDITH: CORTE DISPONE PERIZIA SU COLTELLO E REGGISENO (“Court orders test on knife and bra”) [AGI] 18 December 2010
47 - MEREDITH: CORTE DECIDE PER RIAPERTURA DIBATTIMENTO, NUOVI TEST (“Court decides to re-open debate, new tests”) [ASCA] 18 December 2010
48 - MEREDITH: PAROLA ALL'ACCUSA, NO A RIAPERTURA ISTRUTTORIA (“Prosecution address: no to re-opening case”) [ASCA] 18 December 2010
49 - MEREDITH: CORTE DECIDE PER RIAPERTURA DIBATTIMENTO, NUOVI TEST (“Court decides to re-open debate, new tests”) [ASCA] 18 December 2010
50 - Meredith, perizia sul Dna (“Test on DNA”) [Repubblica] 18 December 2010
51 - Meredith: si' a perizia dna (“Yes to DNA test”) [ANSA] 18 December 2010
52 - MEREDITH: PAROLA ALL'ACCUSA, NO A RIAPERTURA ISTRUTTORIA (“Prosecution address: no to re-opening case”) [ASCA] 18 December 2010
53 - Caso Kercher. Dna, nuova perizia (“DNA: new test”) [RAI] 18 December 2010
54 - Perugia: Meredith La Corte dispone perizia su coltello e gancetto (“The Court orders test on knife and clasp”) [Nazione] 18 December 2010
55 - Meredith, la Corte dispone perizia su coltello e gancetto (“Court orders test on knife and clasp”) [Nazione] 18 December 2010
56 - Omicidio Meredith, nuove perizie e riapertura del dibattimento (“New tests and re-opening of debate”) [Antenna Sud] 18 December 2010


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:16 pm
Posts: 9
zorba,

I don't know what the point of your discussion of the etymology of "palate" was, but if you're really interested to know, "komponisto" is "composer" in Esperanto.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:35 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
komponisto wrote:
If any of you have uploaded or know where to find any of the following documents (no translation necessary, original Italian preferred), I'd be grateful for a link:

- The prosecution's appeal document asking for increased sentences for Knox and Sollecito
- The 2nd-level (Corte d'Assise d'Appello) motivation in the Guede case
- Guede's appeal documents for both 2nd (Appello) and 3rd (Cassazione) levels


Hi Komponisto,

As mentioned, RoseMontague's DocStocs page has lots of documents; there is also material available at TJMK (follow the links). And even at Frank's blog, for some material.

Obviously, the best source is the Court Registry, if you're willing to invest in the effort.

Enjoy the reading!

P.S.
You may need to peruse both the Criminal Code (the CP) and the Criminal Procedure Code (the CPP), to understand some parts of the relevant documents: they are both on ALTALEX, here and here.


komponisto wrote:
By way of introducing myself, I'll disclose that I'm an unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito, and am aware that most folks here are of the opposite persuasion. One thing I do have in common with people here (I hope) is a deep and sincere respect for Meredith Kercher and tremendous sympathy for her family on account of their tragic loss.


Oh, dear!
You've never met a defence lawyer, then, I take it? And you haven't been reading well here (or if you have been reading, your comprehension level has not taken what your eyes have looked at - see, for example, the posts a couple of screens before and after your first one).

Your introduction does not bode well for the results of your document-search.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4094
Location: London
komponisto wrote:
zorba,

I don't know what the point of your discussion of the etymology of "palate" was, but if you're really interested to know, "komponisto" is "composer" in Esperanto.


Just think you have a lot of nerve, and then, why wouldn't you ask for information on sites where those who share your views are in abundance?
Just think you are lazy, that's all, because with a little effort you could have located the things you wanted on your own.

The point of the palatum inclusion was in relation to your post making no sense (to me, because you made a point of adding that you think Knox and Sollecito are innocent, why if you only needed a few things would you even need to mention that?), same as your name, good for you then, that you chose a name that is taken from a language that only a few people understand. A useless language much like your name, that's all I think anyhow.

Why not composer?
Makes more sense.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 516
Thanks for the summary Catnip.

You are a rock; a massive chunk of granite. cl-)

H


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
TomM wrote:
stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
I think that the half of the loaf the defense didn't get is very interesting. One thing that it shows is that the judges and jurors started their work on this appeal well before the first hearing. It is clear that they know what they want to revisit and what they don't need. That no new evidence will be taken on time of death, no testing of the pillow case, etc. tells me that they understand the case very well.

That they want to hear from Curatolo means they are going to make their own assessment of his credibility. The defense gets to call two club owners who will say their clubs were closed and they had no buses running. If the prosecution is able to find owners of clubs that were open that night with buses running, than that is a wash. If they don't, that doesn't mean the judge and jurors will disbelieve Curatolo. Here is part of a standard jury instruction on judging the credibility of witnesses:

"Do not automatically reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are
important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make
mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness
the same event yet see or hear it differently."

ETA: I realize that this is quoted from from a California criminal jury instruction, but I am getting the sense that it expresses an idea common to judges everywhere. It is the result of human experience.

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


So let's see what is not being re-examined:

  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • Examination of Sollecito's computer.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.

Have I missed anything? Included things that shouldn't be there?

I have seen nothing about audiometric testing; I assume if that had not been denied we'd hear all about it.
Oh, and the mixed blood/dna spots.
Analysis of RS' computer


  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Capazelli's testimony of the scream after 23:00.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • Examination of Sollecito's computer.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.
  • Mixed DNA evidence from bathroom and two bedrooms.

Rewrote the "screensaver business" which is what I meant about the re-examination of Sollecito's computer. Didn't include the audiometric test request since that was supposed to be used to clarify Capazelli's testimony.

Any others with points not up for consideration?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:39 am 
Offline

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

Hi Komponisto,

As mentioned, RoseMontague's DocStocs page has lots of documents; there is also material available at TJMK (follow the links). And even at Frank's blog, for some material.

Obviously, the best source is the Court Registry, if you're willing to invest in the effort.

Enjoy the reading!

P.S.
You may need to peruse both the Criminal Code (the CP) and the Criminal Procedure Code (the CPP), to understand some parts of the relevant documents: they are both on ALTALEX, here and here.


Thanks for the links. Is the Court Registry an online resource?

I generally try to stay away from TJMK, since I can only take shrill, sanctimonious insanity in small doses. (Massei and Cristiani may know how to sustain an embarrassingly bad argument for 427 pages, but at least they don't sound like raving loons. (On the other hand, having read their appeal, I have to say that Mignini and Comodi come pretty close to the TJMK level of argumentation.))

But, as I said, I'm aware that most folks here are of a rather different point of view. :-)

Quote:
komponisto wrote:
By way of introducing myself, I'll disclose that I'm an unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito, and am aware that most folks here are of the opposite persuasion. One thing I do have in common with people here (I hope) is a deep and sincere respect for Meredith Kercher and tremendous sympathy for her family on account of their tragic loss.


Oh, dear!
You've never met a defence lawyer, then, I take it?


I don't understand why you would say this.

Quote:
And you haven't been reading well here (or if you have been reading, your comprehension level has not taken what your eyes have looked at - see, for example, the posts a couple of screens before and after your first one).


An ironic charge, considering that -- under the most plausible interpretation of this -- you seem to have misread me as saying the exact opposite of what I actually said. So, for clarity: I believe Knox and Sollecito to be innocent; I am also aware that most participants here believe them to be guilty.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:55 am 
Offline

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

I don't know what the point of your discussion of the etymology of "palate" was, but if you're really interested to know, "komponisto" is "composer" in Esperanto.


Just think you have a lot of nerve, and then, why wouldn't you ask for information on sites where those who share your views are in abundance?


This is most curious. You seem genuinely offended that I would show up here and ask for information. Do you really think we should all just stay inside communities where everyone agrees with us all the time?

Yes, you're right, I could have asked at IIP, or done some intensive Googling. But, I happened to be browsing here at the moment, and was under the impression that you folks -- whatever your faults -- were eager for people to read the documents. (Hence the prominent link to your translation of the Massei report at the top of every page.) So I thought asking here was a low-cost action. (After all, no one was forced to reply; and if someone did, maybe others besides me could benefit from the links.)

Quote:
The point of the palatum inclusion was in relation to your post making no sense (to me, because you made a point of adding that you think Knox and Sollecito are innocent, why if you only needed a few things would you even need to mention that?)


I was erring on the side of honesty and transparency, so I couldn't be accused of sneakiness later, in the event I ended up in a discussion at some point where my view became known. (There was also the possibility that someone would recognize my username from other places, where I have been clear about my opinion.)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:22 pm
Posts: 608
I notice when Barbie mentions the fact the judge did not rule the pilllowcase should be tested, she referred to the stain as a semen stain without problematising it. I know we had a discussion about this fairly recently. Is there a source that can be cited that is definitive about this (i.e. that the nature of the stain has not yet been determined?). Otherwise this seems to be another of those assumptions that imperceptibly shade into facts, even in what we all agree is the most reliable reporting on the case.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

By way of introducing myself, I'll disclose that I'm an unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito, and am aware that most folks here are of the opposite persuasion. One thing I do have in common with people here (I hope) is a deep and sincere respect for Meredith Kercher and tremendous sympathy for her family on account of their tragic loss.



Hello,

Personally, I don't see any problem with your asking for information here - and appreciate your candor.

Like you, I'm an "unabashed, unashamed support of Knox and Sollecito". However, I also think they are guilty of murder. I'm just a supporter in the sense that I would like to see them rehabilitated, if possible. The first step towards rehabilitation is recognizing and expressing the truth. My hope is that once their appeal has been denied and they are faced with the reality of extended jail time, they will be motivated to articulate their role in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

In the case of Knox, I think that extensive psychological testing will be necessary prior to release. Based on what I know, I think she is a dangerous person who may kill again if provoked.

To be honest, I was never 100% convinced by the knife DNA analysis and note that Barbie Nadeau was not either. Therefore - as posted yesterday - I think the court is wise to solicit an expert review of this specific evidence.

Have Knox and Sollecito's odds now improved? Are the defense celebrations premature? I have no clue. Don't know and don't care. The case is now firmly in the hands of the appeals court in Perugia. Frankly, we might as well stop debating this case and start debating whether Roger Federer will ever be able to beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open.

Personally, I say "No". If Nadal is healthy, he's unbeatable at Roland Garros. Still, never say "never".



Norbert


Last edited by norbertc on Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Good morning!
It's snowing incredibly hard in Paris. Huge feathery flakes are falling thickly and everything is white. It has been snowing here practically every day. I have never seen anything like this since I've lived here, twenty-seven years.

Anyway, yesterday everyone was wondering about the unmentioned defence requests, audiometric, pillowcase stain etc. Some assumed that not being mentioned in the press meant they were automatically rejected. I must say that there is one test that I wouldn't think could possibly be rejected, the one on Raffaele's computer. With the defence claims that with different and better software they were able to see some interactions that were invisible with the police methods then the Court would hardly be justified in refusing to hear this. In fact, if they do hear it and the result turns out to be basically empty, such as screen saver off, it could be more harmful than helpful for the defence, like Alessi's testimony.

Anyway, assuming one believes that Frank Sfarzo was present and observed correctly, the answer is in his newest post.

Quote:
The judge reserved the right to decide --after the results of the DNA study-- about the stain on the pillow, the jail witnesses, the audiometric test and other requests. DNA comes first.


I haven't seen the exact tests mentioned anywhere else (except Alessi, but presumably it is Aviello referred to here), so I find this plausible. The judge's decision makes a lot of sense, in fact. If the DNA results come back damning, why bother?

ETA to add: OK just read further and found Catnip's digest. It agrees with the above except for the audiometric test. Odd. By the way CATNIP - the energy and effort you put into those digests is just incredible. THANKS!

windfall wrote
Quote:
I notice when Barbie mentions the fact the judge did not rule the pilllowcase should be tested, she referred to the stain as a semen stain without problematising it. I know we had a discussion about this fairly recently. Is there a source that can be cited that is definitive about this (i.e. that the nature of the stain has not yet been determined?).


Raffaele's appeal contained several sentences justifying why they believe it is a semen stain. Their argument contained an exact description of the stain, something in the nature of "two blobs connected by a thin thread". It certainly is not a proof, and Barbie's conviction may not come from there, because doesn't she say in her article posted yesterday that the prosecution presumes that it came from Meredith's boyfriend? So if Barbie is right, then perhaps both sides believe it, just from an examination of shape or something.

Personally I am with those (windfall?) who cannot see for the life of me why on earth there would be anything denigrating to Meredith's memory in this. Young girls have active lives and that's a good thing; we like it that way.


Last edited by thoughtful on Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:32 am, edited 3 times in total.

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

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
komponisto wrote:
If any of you have uploaded or know where to find any of the following documents (no translation necessary, original Italian preferred), I'd be grateful for a link:

- The prosecution's appeal document asking for increased sentences for Knox and Sollecito
- The 2nd-level (Corte d'Assise d'Appello) motivation in the Guede case
- Guede's appeal documents for both 2nd (Appello) and 3rd (Cassazione) levels

By way of introducing myself, I'll disclose that I'm an unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito, and am aware that most folks here are of the opposite persuasion. One thing I do have in common with people here (I hope) is a deep and sincere respect for Meredith Kercher and tremendous sympathy for her family on account of their tragic loss.


Hello Komponista

If you are persuaded that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty then I think you were right to say so, because many come here pretending that is not their position, only to decloak later. This understandably annoys people here, especially since those same people are often very rude about the membership here when posting elsewhere (see the most recent example of Kaosium, which Catnip referred to). While you have not yet done that (and maybe never will) your comments on TJMK do not bode well. If you do not like a board's style then stay away from it: or post there and express your view. TJMK has provided a great deal of factual information, as has this board. Whatever you think of the tone, that is a fact. Your own criticisms are hardly a model of understatement and quiet reason, now are they?

The facts and documents that are here are freely available to all, and you are correct that this board wishes people to read what we have. This is not the case for some of those who also have documentation, which they do not release or do not release in full.

You asked for some information: we do not have all you asked for,so far as I am aware. But all that this board has is freely available and it has a good search function. Use it. Although that search function is good it is still the case that tracking down what you want can be time consuming: if you are not prepared to do the work then you can hardly complain that others wonder why they are supposed to do it for you.

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

There are many who reach conclusions on the basis of incomplete knowledge: indeed most of us who came late to this case are in that position. But speaking for myself, I would certainly not make as strong a statement as you did in saying you are an "unabashed, unashamed supporter of Knox and Sollecito". Because that is really not the point. Perhaps you expressed yourself badly and what you meant to say was that, based on what you have read so far, you are inclined to believe them innocent of this horrible murder. Perhaps it is possible that further reading will lead you to modify your position. But that is not what it seems like. What it seems like is that you will read whatever you come across now with a strong dose of confirmation bias. That is the implication which I think leads people to find your first few posts rather suspect: because all we do not need is another person who is not willing to agree on any of the facts unless they suit a predetermined conclusion. I am aware that this charge has also been levelled at PMF and TJMK: but I do not find it so, generally. Where there are problems they are seriously addressed here and that has not been my experience of most of those who believe that AK and RS are wrongfully convicted


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 604
Ive been trying to catch up on everything after being gone for three days, and I must say, SA you sure know how to bring out the worst in the JREFers! I mean that as a compliment, because you must be hitting home for them to get as upset as they do. Disgusting the comments there, I thought it couldnt get as bad as the badmouthing of John Kercher, but now we have calling homeless people mentally ill with no proof, and even Bruce pops up to degrade flowers left for Meredith,\Halides agreeing with q statement that we are "rudy lovers", etc. I feel like I need a shower after reading that muck...

Speaking of mentally ill, I see WIthnail finally got suspended. This is his second suspension now, the dumb mods over there still havent figured out he's a troll? What more does he need to do, put "Im a f****** troll you morons!" in his sig?????


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:14 am
Posts: 604
Oh by the way, how disturbed is it how they constantly steal the work of people here and then insult it? They use the translations worked on by those here, then bitch that it isn;t sequenced properly, they use SA's photos and videos, but accuse him (I think a total of 500 times) of editing them, they use photos here at PMF, and accuse PMF of cropping them. I wish we could put all that stuff on lock down and have them get their own crap, bunch of ungrateful bastards.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:36 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
norbertc wrote:
Frankly, we might as well stop debating this case and start debating whether Roger Federer will ever be able to beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open.

Personally, I say "No". If Nadal is healthy, he's unbeatable at Roland Garros. Still, never say "never".

Norbert


Well, that would great.
It doesn't matter though if he's able to beat Nadull at Roland Garros, he's still the best player that played the game. ;)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Andrea Vogt wrote:
Quote:
However, the judge rejected defense requests for a new analysis of activity on Sollecito's computer, a new coroner report on the time of death and the testing of an unidentified stain on Kercher's pillow that defense experts suggested was semen.


? Confusion


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
Solange I do not think you need to get so upset: it is perfectly clear to any impartial observer who is doing the work and who is abusing that same work. I appreciate those who feel they must keep challenging the misinformation spread and they do have a point, on the basis of the effect of the "big lie". By now I think that everyone must surely have been over every argument and point of disagreement many times, if they are interested in this case at all. So I no longer think that is worthwhile (though I respect those who take a different view). The case is in the hands of the court now. That is where it will be decided and it seems that the court has made its own decisions as to what to consider: the debate at JREF (or anywhere else on the internet) is not having much effect so far as I can see. And that is as it should be.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 266
stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
I think that the half of the loaf the defense didn't get is very interesting. One thing that it shows is that the judges and jurors started their work on this appeal well before the first hearing. It is clear that they know what they want to revisit and what they don't need. That no new evidence will be taken on time of death, no testing of the pillow case, etc. tells me that they understand the case very well.

That they want to hear from Curatolo means they are going to make their own assessment of his credibility. The defense gets to call two club owners who will say their clubs were closed and they had no buses running. If the prosecution is able to find owners of clubs that were open that night with buses running, than that is a wash. If they don't, that doesn't mean the judge and jurors will disbelieve Curatolo. Here is part of a standard jury instruction on judging the credibility of witnesses:

"Do not automatically reject testimony just because of
inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are
important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make
mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness
the same event yet see or hear it differently."

ETA: I realize that this is quoted from from a California criminal jury instruction, but I am getting the sense that it expresses an idea common to judges everywhere. It is the result of human experience.

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


So let's see what is not being re-examined:

  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • Examination of Sollecito's computer.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.

Have I missed anything? Included things that shouldn't be there?

I have seen nothing about audiometric testing; I assume if that had not been denied we'd hear all about it.
Oh, and the mixed blood/dna spots.
Analysis of RS' computer


  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Capazelli's testimony of the scream after 23:00.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • Examination of Sollecito's computer.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.
  • Mixed DNA evidence from bathroom and two bedrooms.

Rewrote the "screensaver business" which is what I meant about the re-examination of Sollecito's computer. Didn't include the audiometric test request since that was supposed to be used to clarify Capazelli's testimony.

Any others with points not up for consideration?


Hi Stilicho and TomM
I agree with you the excluded points are very relevant. The court acted reasonably. I see what happened as partial good news for RS and net bad news for AK if we factor in RG's final sentence. It is normal that some elements of the "istruttoria" be reviewed in appeal. It does not happen always but often enough to make this reasonable.

The knife and bra clasp were cross examined by a lot of other experts in the 1st degree trial and this could be sufficient. However, two more experts should not change the situation a great deal. If I had been the court I would have done more or less the same. In the ruling it is stated that if the new experts were unable to analyse the actual dna material they will give an opinion on procedures and possible contamination. Similar opinions given by several other experts including those acting for the defendants in the 1st degree trial were not enough to bring the court to exclude the evidence from consideration (or give little weight to it although it was certainly more important to convict RS than AK). Stefanoni will never be considered a biased person as she has a very good rep and is not privately paid to act on this so the confutation will have to be on the technical aspects. Assuming a full "confutation" of Stefanoni's doing is not possible let us assume the court of appeal decides to give less weight to such evidence.

If the bra evidence were considered less relevant or not usable due to contamination [unlikely given RS was never in the room by his own account] it would be positive for the position of Raffaele Sollecito. On the other hand, the inclusion of RG's sentence hurts RS' position. RG's identification of RS was not totally clear, however RS' position is still critical due to his strong association with Amanda. AK herself did not really place RS in the flat in her Lumumba version but RG placed him with Amanda, RS lied repeatedly on whereabouts, PC, various key timings, he changed version etc. etc. Having said so RS' position would improve without bra clasp.

I think Amanda and the knife is another story. Amanda has very slim chances in any case, she has too much against her. Her choice of a full trial (and even worse to speak at the trial giving a version not even RS confirms) was a gamble. The exclusion of the knife [it may not be a real exclusion but the Court may put little weight on this evidence] would not mean an improved situation, especially after the admission of RG's final sentence which made AK's slim chances collapse even further. Guede's testimony on AK's presence is crystal clear and his version was not used in 1st degree conviction. In RG sentence a lot of things are explained very well by AK's presence (presence and entrance in the flat of RG, staged break in, blood and various other traces and prints, victim was killed by more than 1 person, AK stating there was a black man and many others). These now are "verita' processuale" and must be explained away. How can you do that only with the knife and most of the "istruttoria" given for good? If the Supreme Cassazione court had ruled that a person must be convicted with final sentence as he murdered a girl and this conviction is based on a series of events which see my "certain" joint responsibility I would be very worried, would not care much about the knife. RG was not convicted because he entered through the window and killed MK. He has been convicted because he entered from the door opened by AK who was there.

This is why you are on the point.
Exclusions for "istruttoria" are very relevant for both and especially for AK, much more relevant than inclusions. RG's final sentence is very important.


Last edited by Popper on Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:37 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:42 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Israel
komponisto wrote:
zorba wrote:
komponisto wrote:
zorba,

I don't know what the point of your discussion of the etymology of "palate" was, but if you're really interested to know, "komponisto" is "composer" in Esperanto.


Just think you have a lot of nerve, and then, why wouldn't you ask for information on sites where those who share your views are in abundance?


This is most curious. You seem genuinely offended that I would show up here and ask for information. Do you really think we should all just stay inside communities where everyone agrees with us all the time?

Yes, you're right, I could have asked at IIP, or done some intensive Googling. But, I happened to be browsing here at the moment, and was under the impression that you folks -- whatever your faults -- were eager for people to read the documents. (Hence the prominent link to your translation of the Massei report at the top of every page.) So I thought asking here was a low-cost action. (After all, no one was forced to reply; and if someone did, maybe others besides me could benefit from the links.)

Quote:
The point of the palatum inclusion was in relation to your post making no sense (to me, because you made a point of adding that you think Knox and Sollecito are innocent, why if you only needed a few things would you even need to mention that?)


I was erring on the side of honesty and transparency, so I couldn't be accused of sneakiness later, in the event I ended up in a discussion at some point where my view became known. (There was also the possibility that someone would recognize my username from other places, where I have been clear about my opinion.)



You are of course entitled to your opinions.

But the road to wisdom is to first empty your mind of preconception; open yourself to new information.

Your expounding your views while seeking further facts of the case indicate that the information is secndary to your opinions; and that you will shape the new facts to fit your theories.

Anti learning I would say.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
donnie wrote:
norbertc wrote:
Frankly, we might as well stop debating this case and start debating whether Roger Federer will ever be able to beat Rafael Nadal at the French Open.

Personally, I say "No". If Nadal is healthy, he's unbeatable at Roland Garros. Still, never say "never".

Norbert


Well, that would great.
It doesn't matter though if he's able to beat Nadull at Roland Garros, he's still the best player that played the game. ;)


Donnie,

I'd also like to see Federer beat Nadal in Paris, but I'll refrain from showing your "Nadull" comment to my daughter. Unbelievably, when we were on Mallorca in 2008, she made an effort to find Nadal in his home town of Manacor. She hopes to marry him one day.

It was major progress when I convinced her to go cheer for Federer after Söderling kicked Nadal out of Roland Garros last year. Here's a photo of her getting ready to (grudgingly) cheer for Federer.



Last edited by norbertc on Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: SomeAlibi
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:25 am 
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.


Hello,

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

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

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

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

N.


Last edited by norbertc on Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
komponisto wrote:
So, for clarity: I believe Knox and Sollecito to be innocent; I am also aware that most participants here believe them to be guilty.

The big divide between people that find the two defendants responsible for murder and people that believe the defendants are innocent is the little detail about facts.

Pro-innocence people believe.

This forum is not about beliefs. We don't have a cult here. Facts and evidence do not require beliefs or believers.

Either an argument is proven with facts, evidence, logic and common sense or it is not.

Check your beliefs at the door and join a discussion of facts that lead to truth.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Hammerite wrote:
Thanks for the summary Catnip.

You are a rock; a massive chunk of granite. cl-)

H



Fantastic job - many thanks. I'm a bit confused about Curatolo. I read that to say the application to rehear him had been denied but then Mignini's comment seems to indicate he is going to be heard?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Solange305 wrote:
Oh by the way, how disturbed is it how they constantly steal the work of people here and then insult it? They use the translations worked on by those here, then bitch that it isn;t sequenced properly, they use SA's photos and videos, but accuse him (I think a total of 500 times) of editing them, they use photos here at PMF, and accuse PMF of cropping them. I wish we could put all that stuff on lock down and have them get their own crap, bunch of ungrateful bastards.


Just the opposite. The more they distort, the weaker their arguments really are. The weaker their arguments, the more reason to run away from distorted crap.

People are curious about the truth and know a life has been callously suppressed and will search for clarity where it is available. Some internet forums are dedicated to an honest search for clarity and some are agenda driven. People can tell.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:53 am 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

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

I'd also like to see Federer beat Nadal in Paris, but I'll refrain from showing your "Nadull" comment to my daughter. Unbelievably, when we were on Mallorca in 2008, she made an effort to find Nadal in his home town of Manacor. She hopes to marry him one day.

It was major progress when I convinced her to go cheer for Federer after Söderling kicked Nadal out of Roland Garros last year. Here's a photo of her getting ready to (grudgingly) cheer for Federer.


OT
Wow, she's a beautiful young lady, cheering for my all time favourite player(even if it's grudgingly). This sunday just got better. Thanks.

Plus, she really needs to forget about Nadal, she's way to precious for him!

For me, personally, Nadal's game style is boring as hell. Sure he's fast, quick on his feet, strong both mentally and physically, but that's it. On the other hand, we've got Fed, who's natural ability to hit the most difficult shots, is overwhelming and that'w why I love this guy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
SomeAlibi wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Thanks for the summary Catnip.

You are a rock; a massive chunk of granite. cl-)

H



Fantastic job - many thanks. I'm a bit confused about Curatolo. I read that to say the application to rehear him had been denied but then Mignini's comment seems to indicate he is going to be heard?


Would he be called by the prosecution to rebutt/clarify after the disco dudes?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:05 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
SomeAlibi wrote:
Hammerite wrote:
Thanks for the summary Catnip.

You are a rock; a massive chunk of granite. cl-)

H



Fantastic job - many thanks. I'm a bit confused about Curatolo. I read that to say the application to rehear him had been denied but then Mignini's comment seems to indicate he is going to be heard?


The witnesses that will contradict him about the buses and closed discos will be heard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:08 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
bucketoftea wrote:
Would he be called by the prosecution to rebutt/clarify after the disco dudes?


I don't know.

I expect the choice could be part of the prosecution's reserved right of rebuttal (if necessary) - it will probably depend on what the new witnesses actually say, I suppose.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
The Bard wrote:
Yep, that's our Mitch!

Basket case...maybe that's what Mungo's trying to tell her...


You've got Mungo all wrong.

Mungo likes space cadets. Cadets intense campaigns end up hurting only themselves. Mungo knows Mitch is really harmless and means well. It's all about the positive cosmos vibes. Mungo knows.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
I think he's hoping to convert her to Lionelism Pik. The hay basket is the equivalent of those calendars our local church post through the letterbox at this time of year.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:23 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
Hammerite,

Thanks.


Thoughtful.

Thanks.

:) I think I might attach a warning message to those Digests: "Warning: Newspaper reports are not intended to be journals of record, and may contain mistakes and misapphrensions as well as material that may appear to be truthful. Besides, in an ongoing situation, what may be true/false before lunch, may turn out to be false/true after lunch (e.g., a news report that something was/was not excluded.

We are left with the people who are reporting from court, the Andreas and Barbies. And even the "Frank"s, to some extent. All else is vanity, as the Teacher sayeth.


Fiona and Lisa and Zorba,

I detect, perhaps incorrectly, that the big K. is somewhat impatient in learning to ride the bicycle, so therefore on a mission, so therefore will brook no delay, so therefore will take and use whatever is at hand, and justifiably at that, and pass it on to whoever is requesting it, for I doubt he will think more than two moves ahead in terms of legal/PR strategy to help Amanda and Raffaele (and possibly Rudy).

Combined with a projected apparent lack of the persuasive skills of an advocate, I predict a self-fulfilling prophecy is in the progress of inevitably occurring. In the end, impatience is just laziness, and that laziness will express itself in various ways. Pity and condolences will be required when interacting with him, since understanding and learning takes time (and effort), which he hasn't got or can't afford (yet).

If I am incorrect, then there will be someone to talk with about article 533 (and others).

Either way, someone learns something, so it's a win-win situation. :)

Unlike Federer and Nadal. ;)

(I'm for Jelena Dokic, except she just got knocked out of the comp tonight. She tries too hard sometimes, I think. The relaxed smoothness of a champion is not there yet, but there are signs, so it's a little bit psychology).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:31 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 Bard wrote:
The hay basket is the equivalent of those calendars our local church post through the letterbox at this time of year.


A mysterious PM just arrived:

"Shhh, I'm morking wuietly. M@"

I'm not sure what to make it of it. I need to ponder the point. drin-)
Down the pub, of course!

P.S. Just saw the snow on TV. Brrrr! Cold!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Catnip wrote:
The witnesses that will contradict him about the buses and closed discos will be heard.


Where did Rudy go to party and dance after the crime?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Henceforth we can all ignore anything Mary H says, since she suffers mental illness and therefore is unfit to hold an opinion on anything, according to her own POV. She is not fit to testify in a court of law, is probably mistaken in any view she holds, and can be assigned to the scrapheap of society. The bashing of those with mental illness continues at JREF. Now LJ has waded in. I find it astonishing to see the level of ignorance on display on the JREF board. I don't know why I find it so surprising, I just thought we had moved on from the days of Bedlam.

To be clear, whilst there are some homeless people that suffer with mental health problems, there are just as many doctors, lawyers, cleaners, civil servants, estate agents, doctors etc etc who do so too. Mental health is common to us all, and like physical health it sometimes weakens, irrespective of where we live or what we do. No-one should suggest that those with a mental health problem are somehow inferior to those without. I am glad to see Fulcannelli putting Mary straight on this issue.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Italian Court OKs evidence review for Knox



Andrea Vogt, in Seattle PI December 18, 2010


http://www.seattlepi.com/local/432051_knox18.html?source=mypi

"...

The biggest victory for Knox and Sollecito was the court's decision to allow an independent forensic review of the two most contested pieces of forensic evidence: The victim's bra clasp,..."

jw


What if the clasp is confirmed positive for Sollecito's DNA. Case closed. End of story.

Sollecito should be really really happy because he knows he was not there. Or really really worried.

ETA: Dr. Stefanoni at the DNA lab saw what she saw and put it down in black and white.

Her findings were endorsed by her boss. Former Carabinieri head Garofano also endorsed Stefanoni's DNA results.


Last edited by piktor on Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm
Posts: 1030
Comment on Seattlepi article:

"I think Petunia Peacock, Professor Plum, and Colonel Mustard killed Ms. Scarlet in bedroom 4 with the knife.

Get over it, Italy is not a third world country. Their justice system nabbed the murderers. Ours let OJ go. Duh. You want justice only for the rich, famous, and/or pretty? THAT is solely an American ideal.

Where's the outrage about prosecutorial conspiracy against the geeky Italian guy? Or the creepy black punk? The Italians only choose to railroad pretty American women? Really? Yeah, right. Even Jeffrey Dahmer had fans (and even now has a facebook fan club). Doesn't make him innocent."

http://www.seattlepi.com/soundoff/comme ... eID=432051
(Italian court OKs evidence review for Knox By ANDREA VOGT)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
There is still no clarity for me on whether the argument is that the dna on the bra clasp was not Sollecito's: was his, but was introduced at the scene during the period it was there after the first sweep: was his, but was introduced in the lab after the clasp was collected; was his, but was only one of a number of different dna traces which were also on it and so suggests that it was introduced before the murder.

I presume the defence has settled on one of these (or some other) claim. If they have not then the scattergun approach is not going to work because they will have to show a route for each of them and some of them seem to me to be mutually exclusive

In other words "it wasn't me: I wasn't there: a big boy made me do it anyway"


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Emerald wrote:
Quote:
Where did Rudy go to party and dance after the crime?


He went to Domus, a disco in the town center that was open that night but doesn't need shuttle buses to get people there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
Catnip wrote:
Either way, someone learns something, so it's a win-win situation. :)

Unlike Federer and Nadal. ;)

(I'm for Jelena Dokic, except she just got knocked out of the comp tonight. She tries too hard sometimes, I think. The relaxed smoothness of a champion is not there yet, but there are signs, so it's a little bit psychology).


Dokic went for too much too often, the same goes for Kournikova, except the fact that Kournikova was way smarter on the court. Still, she was too inconsistent. Btw, Dokic's return at the Australian Open the other year was a great thing to watch, I was rooting for her so much and enjoyed every match she played.

...and the weather this year is insane. It's snowing here from 29th november. Oh and I do not know if anyone of you heard about it, but there were a huge gas explosions in my neighbourhood at 30th Nov.
http://www.bizpoland.pl/news/index.php? ... 500_people

http://www.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=http ... s%3Disch:1

All people werel evacuated. Thankfully I wasn't home when this happened.
Here are some photos:


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
donnie, those pictures are scary. Glad you were unscathed...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 6:52 am
Posts: 232
Highscores: 76
donnie wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Either way, someone learns something, so it's a win-win situation. :)

Unlike Federer and Nadal. ;)

(I'm for Jelena Dokic, except she just got knocked out of the comp tonight. She tries too hard sometimes, I think. The relaxed smoothness of a champion is not there yet, but there are signs, so it's a little bit psychology).


Dokic went for too much too often, the same goes for Kournikova, except the fact that Kournikova was way smarter on the court. Still, she was too inconsistent. Btw, Dokic's return at the Australian Open the other year was a great thing to watch, I was rooting for her so much and enjoyed every match she played.

...and the weather this year is insane. It's snowing here from 29th november. Oh and I do not know if anyone of you heard about it, but there were a huge gas explosions in my neighbourhood at 30th Nov.
http://www.bizpoland.pl/news/index.php? ... 500_people

http://www.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=http ... s%3Disch:1

All people werel evacuated. Thankfully I wasn't home when this happened.
Here are some photos:



Hi Donnie...

I second 'The Bard'...
Glad you are Okay!! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 1081
Fiona wrote:
There is still no clarity for me on whether the argument is that the dna on the bra clasp was not Sollecito's: was his, but was introduced at the scene during the period it was there after the first sweep: was his, but was introduced in the lab after the clasp was collected; was his, but was only one of a number of different dna traces which were also on it and so suggests that it was introduced before the murder.

I presume the defence has settled on one of these (or some other) claim. If they have not then the scattergun approach is not going to work because they will have to show a route for each of them and some of them seem to me to be mutually exclusive

In other words "it wasn't me: I wasn't there: a big boy made me do it anyway"


If the clasp comes back with Sollecito's DNA the defence has to prove it was planted or was the result of contamination.

You can cry contamination but you have to prove it.

The prosecution nor anyone has to prove what did not happen, did not happen.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Update from Brucie:

"Get a grip on reality. You are not a threat to anyone. You feel empowered by your participation in online conversation regarding this case. You influence only the few posters that remain on PMF. That number is dwindling. You have repeatedly embarrassed yourself without even knowing you are doing so. Your article about big knives and little knives along with your bathmat explanation are good examples. You repeatedly attack two innocent people that you have never met. You are a sad excuse for a human being. People like yourself do not anger me. I find your existence quite sad."

A good glass of wine with lunch and that got me laughing so much the wife told me to shut up. I needed it having made a dumb mistake repeating my photo mistake on the disco buses previously made here. But boy that moved the balance into credit today. :D

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:32 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
undecided wrote:
donnie wrote:
Catnip wrote:
Either way, someone learns something, so it's a win-win situation. :)

Unlike Federer and Nadal. ;)

(I'm for Jelena Dokic, except she just got knocked out of the comp tonight. She tries too hard sometimes, I think. The relaxed smoothness of a champion is not there yet, but there are signs, so it's a little bit psychology).


Dokic went for too much too often, the same goes for Kournikova, except the fact that Kournikova was way smarter on the court. Still, she was too inconsistent. Btw, Dokic's return at the Australian Open the other year was a great thing to watch, I was rooting for her so much and enjoyed every match she played.

...and the weather this year is insane. It's snowing here from 29th november. Oh and I do not know if anyone of you heard about it, but there were a huge gas explosions in my neighbourhood at 30th Nov.
http://www.bizpoland.pl/news/index.php? ... 500_people

http://www.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=http ... s%3Disch:1

All people werel evacuated. Thankfully I wasn't home when this happened.
Here are some photos:



Hi Donnie...

I second 'The Bard'...
Glad you are Okay!! :)

Thank you guys! It was scary. And it all looked like some kind of an action movie. It was dark everywhere, people were screaming and crying. Not to mention that many of them were standing in deep snow with their kids on their arms for hours. It was freezing. Most of the people were allowed to go back to their houses the same night, but me and the rest of the people from my building, had to spend the night somwhere else. One person got killed, 8 were injured, in 3 flats there was a fire and one apartament blew up. That's the quick summary.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:53 am
Posts: 1706
Wow, donnie. Glad you are okay.




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:38 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
Emerald wrote:
Wow, donnie. Glad you and your neighbors are okay.



thank you


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

"Get a grip on reality. You are not a threat to anyone. You feel empowered by your participation in online conversation regarding this case. You influence only the few posters that remain on PMF. That number is dwindling. You have repeatedly embarrassed yourself without even knowing you are doing so. Your article about big knives and little knives along with your bathmat explanation are good examples. You repeatedly attack two innocent people that you have never met. You are a sad excuse for a human being. People like yourself do not anger me. I find your existence quite sad."



People write stuff like this when they're feeling desperate or inferior. Or, if you are a threat.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

"Get a grip on reality. You are not a threat to anyone. You feel empowered by your participation in online conversation regarding this case. You influence only the few posters that remain on PMF. That number is dwindling. You have repeatedly embarrassed yourself without even knowing you are doing so. Your article about big knives and little knives along with your bathmat explanation are good examples. You repeatedly attack two innocent people that you have never met. You are a sad excuse for a human being. People like yourself do not anger me. I find your existence quite sad."



People write stuff like this when they're feeling desperate or inferior. Or, if you are a threat.


Or when they have mistaken a mirror for a portrait of someone else


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
Popper wrote:
stilicho wrote:
TomM wrote:
I have seen nothing about audiometric testing; I assume if that had not been denied we'd hear all about it.
Oh, and the mixed blood/dna spots.
Analysis of RS' computer


  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Capazelli's testimony of the scream after 23:00.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • Examination of Sollecito's computer.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.
  • Mixed DNA evidence from bathroom and two bedrooms.

Rewrote the "screensaver business" which is what I meant about the re-examination of Sollecito's computer. Didn't include the audiometric test request since that was supposed to be used to clarify Capazelli's testimony.

Any others with points not up for consideration?


Hi Stilicho and TomM
I agree with you the excluded points are very relevant. The court acted reasonably. I see what happened as partial good news for RS and net bad news for AK if we factor in RG's final sentence. It is normal that some elements of the "istruttoria" be reviewed in appeal. It does not happen always but often enough to make this reasonable.

The knife and bra clasp were cross examined by a lot of other experts in the 1st degree trial and this could be sufficient. However, two more experts should not change the situation a great deal. If I had been the court I would have done more or less the same. In the ruling it is stated that if the new experts were unable to analyse the actual dna material they will give an opinion on procedures and possible contamination. Similar opinions given by several other experts including those acting for the defendants in the 1st degree trial were not enough to bring the court to exclude the evidence from consideration (or give little weight to it although it was certainly more important to convict RS than AK). Stefanoni will never be considered a biased person as she has a very good rep and is not privately paid to act on this so the confutation will have to be on the technical aspects. Assuming a full "confutation" of Stefanoni's doing is not possible let us assume the court of appeal decides to give less weight to such evidence.

If the bra evidence were considered less relevant or not usable due to contamination [unlikely given RS was never in the room by his own account] it would be positive for the position of Raffaele Sollecito. On the other hand, the inclusion of RG's sentence hurts RS' position. RG's identification of RS was not totally clear, however RS' position is still critical due to his strong association with Amanda. AK herself did not really place RS in the flat in her Lumumba version but RG placed him with Amanda, RS lied repeatedly on whereabouts, PC, various key timings, he changed version etc. etc. Having said so RS' position would improve without bra clasp.

I think Amanda and the knife is another story. Amanda has very slim chances in any case, she has too much against her. Her choice of a full trial (and even worse to speak at the trial giving a version not even RS confirms) was a gamble. The exclusion of the knife [it may not be a real exclusion but the Court may put little weight on this evidence] would not mean an improved situation, especially after the admission of RG's final sentence which made AK's slim chances collapse even further. Guede's testimony on AK's presence is crystal clear and his version was not used in 1st degree conviction. In RG sentence a lot of things are explained very well by AK's presence (presence and entrance in the flat of RG, staged break in, blood and various other traces and prints, victim was killed by more than 1 person, AK stating there was a black man and many others). These now are "verita' processuale" and must be explained away. How can you do that only with the knife and most of the "istruttoria" given for good? If the Supreme Cassazione court had ruled that a person must be convicted with final sentence as he murdered a girl and this conviction is based on a series of events which see my "certain" joint responsibility I would be very worried, would not care much about the knife. RG was not convicted because he entered through the window and killed MK. He has been convicted because he entered from the door opened by AK who was there.

This is why you are on the point.
Exclusions for "istruttoria" are very relevant for both and especially for AK, much more relevant than inclusions. RG's final sentence is very important.


"However, two more experts should not change the situation a great deal." --Popper.

I think this is the key. It's just like the cumulative weight of two dozen judges refusing "home arrest", extending custody, handing down a verdict, and so on.

I don't see how these experts can rule on the imaginary dust-borne hypothesis but I don't think that Sollecito's experts suggested that anyhow. It's one of those fantasy internet theories. The bra clasp has his DNA on it. From what we've heard, they can retest it if they need to.

As for the knife, I'll just hold my tongue and await the experts.

There's obviously still quite a bit of confusion about exactly what the new witnesses from the discos are supposed to accomplish. We know there were no disco buses that night. I can see a problem for the prosecution if Curatolo had witnessed them boarding a shuttle bus but he didn't. It's a red herring and the court will see it for what it is.

As for the rest of the list, the court is obviously not obliged to agree with the findings of the lower court. However, I think that the refusal to look again at the staged break-in is an enormous blow to the defence. Without that challenge, absolutely none of the alternate narratives work. It means that someone deliberately tampered with the scene before the police or the other housemates arrived. Coupled with the full case file of Guede's conviction, there is no escaping confirmation of the first court's decision, with or without the knife, the bra clasp, or Curatolo's testimony.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Fiona wrote:
There is still no clarity for me on whether the argument is that the dna on the bra clasp was not Sollecito's: was his, but was introduced at the scene during the period it was there after the first sweep: was his, but was introduced in the lab after the clasp was collected; was his, but was only one of a number of different dna traces which were also on it and so suggests that it was introduced before the murder.

I presume the defence has settled on one of these (or some other) claim. If they have not then the scattergun approach is not going to work because they will have to show a route for each of them and some of them seem to me to be mutually exclusive

In other words "it wasn't me: I wasn't there: a big boy made me do it anyway"



I'm really sure they don't either. As was stated "contamination is a fact not an opinion" and you've got to show a plausible theory of how it happened, where, when and why. Failing that, you have ooops laughing boy's DNA is there. The biggest risk to the prosecution case is that the expert witnesses come out against LCN testing and that will likely see both knife and clasp dismissed because although the bra clasp sample is adequate, the part of it which is Raffaele's is LCN.

Of course if the knife handle separation has something or if Rudy decides to spill (shame his lawyers are on about ECHR) then we could be left with an awful lot of people handling empty air.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:58 am
Posts: 4089
Highscores: 11
ALL of the above, Norbert. Btw, What a beauty your daughter is. Gorgeous.

Bard, I do so hope Mr. Bard is doing OK. I believe it's just the most painful thing to go through. How awful to be so incapacitated. Someone long ago mentioned that stress aggravates it. Anyway, hoping he's on the mend, and that YOU get to relax a bit, as well.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 1225
Norbert - what a pretty girl! Quite right to send her off to support Federer. He is the best. And one of the things I most appreciate about him is his modesty, and his grace when he loses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
piktor wrote:
jw wrote:
Italian Court OKs evidence review for Knox

"...

The biggest victory for Knox and Sollecito was the court's decision to allow an independent forensic review of the two most contested pieces of forensic evidence: The victim's bra clasp,..."

jw


What if the clasp is confirmed positive for Sollecito's DNA. Case closed. End of story.

Sollecito should be really really happy because he knows he was not there. Or really really worried.


It is Sollecito's DNA. The defence knows it.

As Catnip noted:

Catnip's Summary wrote:
[*] new test on the bra-clasp (n20), Raffaele's DNA getting there by contamination, according to the defence (n21), or because there was an error in the readings (n22) – but it can't have been contaminated, because it remained in Meredith's room, a place Sollecito had never been, according to the prosecution (n23)


Expect that "error in the readings" to be ruled out.

Back to prison you go now, Knife-Boy. nin-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:38 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Seattle, Washington
SomeAlibi wrote:
Update from Brucie:

"Get a grip on reality. You are not a threat to anyone. You feel empowered by your participation in online conversation regarding this case. You influence only the few posters that remain on PMF. That number is dwindling. You have repeatedly embarrassed yourself without even knowing you are doing so. Your article about big knives and little knives along with your bathmat explanation are good examples. You repeatedly attack two innocent people that you have never met. You are a sad excuse for a human being. People like yourself do not anger me. I find your existence quite sad."

A good glass of wine with lunch and that got me laughing so much the wife told me to shut up. I needed it having made a dumb mistake repeating my photo mistake on the disco buses previously made here. But boy that moved the balance into credit today. :D


What a child that Bruce is. Don't forget that this the guy who claimed that he was going to "educate the Kerchers" on the murder of their daughter and sister. Bruce, if you're reading this, I've never had any doubt that the Kerchers are fully aware of every detail concerning Meredith's murder. Moreso than you or Steve Moore or any othe "expert" that you seem to dig up out from under the rocks. You are the original "Johnny-come-lately" and bandwagon jumper. Well, ride it while you can. You are a threat to no one and I think that you are extremely jealous of SomeAlibi. Yes, jealous. Aren't you a little old for all this BS? Cut the crap, Bruce. Or don't. Either way, you are an embarrassment to even Amanda Knox's defence. Just my 2 cents and I think that Bruce Fisher owes the Kercher family an apology. Especially for introducing Steve Moore to the world.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
mortytoad wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Update from Brucie:

"Get a grip on reality. You are not a threat to anyone. You feel empowered by your participation in online conversation regarding this case. You influence only the few posters that remain on PMF. That number is dwindling. You have repeatedly embarrassed yourself without even knowing you are doing so. Your article about big knives and little knives along with your bathmat explanation are good examples. You repeatedly attack two innocent people that you have never met. You are a sad excuse for a human being. People like yourself do not anger me. I find your existence quite sad."

A good glass of wine with lunch and that got me laughing so much the wife told me to shut up. I needed it having made a dumb mistake repeating my photo mistake on the disco buses previously made here. But boy that moved the balance into credit today. :D


What a child that Bruce is. Don't forget that this the guy who claimed that he was going to "educate the Kerchers" on the murder of their daughter and sister. Bruce, if you're reading this, I've never had any doubt that the Kerchers are fully aware of every detail concerning Meredith's murder. Moreso than you or Steve Moore or any othe "expert" that you seem to dig up out from under the rocks. You are the original "Johnny-come-lately" and bandwagon jumper. Well, ride it while you can. You are a threat to no one and I think that you are extremely jealous of SomeAlibi. Yes, jealous. Aren't you a little old for all this BS? Cut the crap, Bruce. Or don't. Either way, you are an embarrassment to even Amanda Knox's defence. Just my 2 cents and I think that Bruce Fisher owes the Kercher family an apology. Especially for introducing Steve Moore to the world.



I think Bruce decided that he'd done something really significant in introducing Steve Moore into the case. Once Moore got shown up for the blowhard he is with his "beaten", "just short of waterboarding" and all the misstatements of facts, that reflects really badly on Bruce. When you have Amanda's own lawyers and Raffaele's family both saying they'd like Moore to stop, that's as close as you can get to being told by the object of your fascination that you've fucked up really badly without it actually coming from Amanda's own mouth. That must be pretty hard to cope with ego-wise. Since I've been critical of Moore for these very reasons, he sees it as a direct attack on him. Dufus by proxy if you like.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 516
mortytoad wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
Update from Brucie:

"Get a grip on reality. You are not a threat to anyone. You feel empowered by your participation in online conversation regarding this case. You influence only the few posters that remain on PMF. That number is dwindling. You have repeatedly embarrassed yourself without even knowing you are doing so. Your article about big knives and little knives along with your bathmat explanation are good examples. You repeatedly attack two innocent people that you have never met. You are a sad excuse for a human being. People like yourself do not anger me. I find your existence quite sad."

A good glass of wine with lunch and that got me laughing so much the wife told me to shut up. I needed it having made a dumb mistake repeating my photo mistake on the disco buses previously made here. But boy that moved the balance into credit today. :D


What a child that Bruce is. Don't forget that this the guy who claimed that he was going to "educate the Kerchers" on the murder of their daughter and sister. Bruce, if you're reading this, I've never had any doubt that the Kerchers are fully aware of every detail concerning Meredith's murder. Moreso than you or Steve Moore or any othe "expert" that you seem to dig up out from under the rocks. You are the original "Johnny-come-lately" and bandwagon jumper. Well, ride it while you can. You are a threat to no one and I think that you are extremely jealous of SomeAlibi. Yes, jealous. Aren't you a little old for all this BS? Cut the crap, Bruce. Or don't. Either way, you are an embarrassment to even Amanda Knox's defence. Just my 2 cents and I think that Bruce Fisher owes the Kercher family an apology. Especially for introducing Steve Moore to the world.



Hi morty,

It looks like SA is doing something right if Bruce Almighty is bothered* enough to have a private bowel twist of sufficient magnitude he feels he has to send a threatening PM to SA. Feeling slighted myself that I didn’t get a reprimand from BF after my now distant comments about the similarities between Bruce's hips and the universal axel from the Rubik Cube**. Bummer!

And as an aside and since Bruce opened that door I took a brief jaunt over to his own sit and noticed with interest that the current membership is now up to a staggering 274 brave men and true (oops sorry... and gals) who are dedicated to the cause. Engaging the most rudimentary numerical membership profiling the following would not be considered an unreasonable membership attributed to the family directly.

Amanda...20 fans
Edda...20
Chris... 20
Deanna...20
Kurt***...20

That leaves circa 174 outside members out of a target audience of c. 300,000,000 Americans. Obviously the hundreds of thousands of $’s spent on the PR campaign was a very wise move and exceedingly good value for money.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce... you are in no position to be casting aspersions on the membership of other web sites whilst your own site is at best an abject failure.

H

*In the general scheme of life when things don’t bother me I generally don’t bother bothering about them (if you get my drift).
** Bruce apparently has the amazing ability to close and lock a door behind his back without turning around.
***Strong feeling here that Kurt’s current family (wife and daughters) should be exempt from inclusion in any discussion on the boards.


Last edited by Hammerite on Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Oh LJ. He's just pulled SA up for making errors, finishing up by asking him what time he thinks Amanda Knox died on November 1st! Pause while he furiously types that this was meant as irony and not a Freudian slip!

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Couple thoughts for komponisto after morning readings here:

1) Hope you found all the documentation you came here to get

2) Very respectfully, and strictly as my personal opinion, may I recommend:

2A) When harvesting all the information people provide, IMHO opinion it is *very* bad form to:

2A1) Insult another similar board, TJMK, that most here, and everywhere else except for radical FOAKers hold in very high regard.
(PS the founder of that Board contributes much valuable insights here as well)
2A2) Insult members of this board as a group

2B) Insult Catnip who went out of his way to provide you with several one click sources

2C) Let slip that none of the information could alter your beliefs anyway

3) Many of us here scan other Boards as well, and I might inform you that anytime we want to read insults, we can find plenty from other individuals much, much more skilled in both delivery and content than your couple of disagreeable and totally inappropriate efforts today.
Most of those individuals also avail themselves of the storehouse of factual unbiased research materiel here, but are intelligent enough to not hurl insults back inside the hospitality house while still actually inside it.

Finally, your insult to Catnip particularly irks me because of the endless devotion to finding and sharing some of the best information available anywhere.
These translations make available facts that most of us would never have access to without those efforts.
The documentation Catnip meticulously provides would make Doctoral Dissertations at many universities pale in comparison.

Again hope you were able to take away from here all you requested
Please also take my humble thoughts with you as well


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Oh dear, someone's queried it and he still hasn't spotted his error. Do I see LJ showing his age suddenly...? He sounds like my old Dad...

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
The Bard wrote:
Oh dear, someone's queried it and he still hasn't spotted his error. Do I see LJ showing his age suddenly...? He sounds like my old Dad...


I've just helped him :)

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
The Bard wrote:
Oh LJ. He's just pulled SA up for making errors, finishing up by asking him what time he thinks Amanda Knox died on November 1st! Pause while he furiously types that this was meant as irony and not a Freudian slip!


FWIW
I was also impressed that a response to SA in fact accomplished yesterday what many thought to be eternally impossible.

A post from L J was actually moved to the AAH (Abandon All Hope) penalty box.
WOW; just WOW nw)

Those "unbiased and impeccably impartial" Moderators, including the one who posted several times favoring Amanda's innocence and has now been 'promoted to Administrator) blatantly always allow L J to squeeze at least one snark snide sentence in most of his posts; tu-))

so IMHO, SA really gets another 'way to go high five' for that one too. cl-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
SomeAlibi wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Oh dear, someone's queried it and he still hasn't spotted his error. Do I see LJ showing his age suddenly...? He sounds like my old Dad...


I've just helped him :)


Pwned!!!!

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 516
The Bard wrote:
Oh dear, someone's queried it and he still hasn't spotted his error. Do I see LJ showing his age suddenly...? He sounds like my old Dad...


Hi Bard person,

I happen to be live and got a screen shot of that. Going to print it out, frame it and place in the reception area of my office. Will also make it available to SA if he agrees to wash my car till the end of the year.

That’s one of the dangers of finding fault with others; you have to be pretty perfect yourself especially when you come across as an arrogant pompous prig.

How are your clan, my sincere best wishes to you all?

H


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
stint7 wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Oh LJ. He's just pulled SA up for making errors, finishing up by asking him what time he thinks Amanda Knox died on November 1st! Pause while he furiously types that this was meant as irony and not a Freudian slip!


FWIW
I was also impressed that a response to SA in fact accomplished yesterday what many thought to be eternally impossible.

A post from L J was actually moved to the AAH (Abandon All Hope) penalty box.
WOW; just WOW nw)

Those "unbiased and impeccably impartial" Moderators, including the one who posted several times favoring Amanda's innocence and has now been 'promoted to Administrator) blatantly always allow L J to squeeze at least one snark snide sentence in most of his posts; tu-))

so IMHO, SA really gets another 'way to go high five' for that one too. cl-)



I've had multiple posts moved in my little sojourn and two warnings so far. I am at a loss to differentiate my posts from those that remain from the groupies side.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
SomeAlibi wrote:
I've had multiple posts moved in my little sojourn and two warnings so far. I am at a loss to differentiate my posts from those that remain from the groupies side.


Absolutely

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

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

Rarely can Looney or Blowhard complete a paragraph without containing a slur that would get any of the 'unfavored flavor' of poster moved, warned, suspended, and even banned; yet the 'favored few' carry on unmolested and unmoderated.

The thread, and many of the 'regulars' who pollute it has long outlived any socially redeeming value, and is an utter disgrace to Mr Randi's lofty aims, as are some of the managers who allow their personal petty persuasion to distort their every deed and disrupt their reason for being.


Last edited by stint7 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Thanks Hammer.

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

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

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

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Curt and Edda appeared on the weekend morning shows Sunday to discuss their cautious elation on Saturday's courtroom decisions.

Edda Mellas, on the phone from Perugia, stated on "Good Morning America" that the person who testified about seeing Amanda and Raffaele that night had "changed his story many times and said he owned a watch which isn't true. In addition, he said he saw buses running that night and it's come to light that there were no buses that night."

Of course, Edda was referring to Antonio Curatolo - she couldn't even say his name. She just called him a "homeless man".

Here is StewartHome2000's report directly from the courtroom:

Quote:

Perugia: Saturday, March 28, 2009

Today we heard from Antonio Curatolo, Fabrizio Giofreddi , Antonio Aiello, and Hekuran Kokomani.

1. Antonio Curatolo, is a fixture in Perugia. He is a vagrant that spends most of his time hanging around Corso Garibaldi (the street where RS lived) and Piazza Grimana (the piazza at the end of Corso Garibadi and within eyeshot of the start of house on Via della Pergola). The crowd murmured as he was helped in by court assistants, uncleansed, dressed in a dirty jacket, a old winter knit hat. His skin was dark against his long un-groomed white hair, beard and mustache. But once he opened his mouth, you knew that this guy was no slouch. He spoke clearly, concisely and directly, and was very certain of what he saw. His testimony never swayed and was consistent even under cross examination. In short, his appearance was one thing, his articulate convincing testimony was another.

He stated that he has been a regular (hobo for lack of a better term) around that part of Perugia for about 8-9 years. He testified that he was in Piazza Grimani around 9:30-10:00pm when he saw across the piazza two people, a man and a woman, which he described as a couple by the way they were sitting next to one and other etc. He was asked to describe them and he turned and looked at Amanda, just a few feet away, and said calmly, “it was her”, and then looked at RS, and said “and him.” He stated that having been in that area he had seen them before separately, but this was the first time he saw them together. But he was certain it was them. He said also that, although he did not watch them all the time, he did see them again “poco prima di mezzanotte” or “just before midnight” at the same place. He originally said that they were there from 9:30 through midnight, but clarified that they were there at 9:30-10:00pm and may have left around 11-11:30 and then returned just before midnight for sure. After midnight, he left the piazza to go to the park and sleep.

The next day, he arrived at his faithful piazza around 12:00pm and eventually around 1:30 or so saw the carabinieri pass, and the police, etc etc. and stated that he watched them at the scene including the CSI people dressed in the full-white suits.

Under cross examination, Buongiorno thought she had an easy target, but in fact he held up extremely well. She asked, “how could you possibly know it was 9:30”..he said because the sign next to the piazza has a digital clock. He also said I have a watch! (the court laughed) and I look at it often to check he time. He stated that “when I sat on the bench to read I looked at my watch and it was just before 9:30pm….and I saw them shortly afterwards.” He said he knows what he saw and he saw those two! No more questions.



So, is Edda accusing Mr. Curatolo of perjury as a witness?

I dug up this video of Mr. Curatolo being interviewed on a park bench. Catnip kindly translated his words long ago when the video was first posted:

Catnip:
Quote:
Hi Tara,

Mr C is saying

Quote:
– I, when I got here, it was around half past nine, and by the time I had a seat, lit a cigarette, had a look around, it was five minutes, and they were already there, well –

I reckon* there was an accident [una disgrazia=”bad luck, trouble, misfortune”], in an animated conversation with each other

I reckon, the only one who can clear everything up is probably Rudy



* "Secondo me" = "I reckon", "I think", "in my opinion", "according to me", etc, depending on the level of formality.
I reckon Mr C is as sharp as a tack, and wouldn't go astray in a courtroom at the legal table.
(To digress slightly, if this were a Charlie Chaplin movie, it would not be that surprising
that a homeless man would be so up-to-date with events: he can read his blankets before bedtime!
Further digression - sleeping rough in Umbria is tough: snow and cold; and this winter has been longer than usual...).


The transcript below the video of what he said is slightly different:

Quote:
when I arrived it was 9.30, time to [have a] look around and they were already there. I think there was some trouble, in an animated discussion between themselves and I think the only one who can clarify the truth is Rudy.


Here is the video:
LA7 ANTONIO CURATOLO


Thanks to Some Alibi, we have current news about Mr. Curatolo; an eyewitness report that he is as direct and believable as he was when called as a witness at the first trial.

Curatolo knows what he saw, buses or no buses. It's a fact that eyewitnesses hone in on certain details; Curatolo saw Knox and Sollecito the night before all the police activity at the cottage the next day.


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: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Bard wrote:
Henceforth we can all ignore anything Mary H says, since she suffers mental illness and therefore is unfit to hold an opinion on anything, according to her own POV. She is not fit to testify in a court of law, is probably mistaken in any view she holds, and can be assigned to the scrapheap of society. The bashing of those with mental illness continues at JREF. Now LJ has waded in. I find it astonishing to see the level of ignorance on display on the JREF board. I don't know why I find it so surprising, I just thought we had moved on from the days of Bedlam.

To be clear, whilst there are some homeless people that suffer with mental health problems, there are just as many doctors, lawyers, cleaners, civil servants, estate agents, doctors etc etc who do so too. Mental health is common to us all, and like physical health it sometimes weakens, irrespective of where we live or what we do. No-one should suggest that those with a mental health problem are somehow inferior to those without. I am glad to see Fulcannelli putting Mary straight on this issue.


Mary H has no "excuse" for her mental illness.:)
She is not homeless and certainly has excellent medical insurance, unlike 40 million of her fellow citizens. I hear that HRT can work wonders in cases like Mary's.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
Bruce has asked that I make this public here:

"You might also like to inform your little group that I am not a former cameraman from Seattle. It is time to stop libeling the former cameraman named Bruce Fisher in Seattle.You might also like to inform your little group that I am not a former cameraman from Seattle. It is time to stop libeling the former cameraman named Bruce Fisher in Seattle."

I am not entirely sure why Bruce Fisher of Injustice In Perugia feels that Mr Fisher the cameraman of Seattle is being libelled (his reputation impinged in the eyes of right thinking people) by being referred to as Bruce Fisher of IIP. However, we must take Bruce's devastating critique of himself seriously. He knows himself best. :D

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Tara wrote:
Curt and Edda appeared on the weekend morning shows Sunday to discuss their cautious elation on Saturday's courtroom decisions.

Edda Mellas, on the phone from Perugia, stated on "Good Morning America" that the person who testified about seeing Amanda and Raffaele that night had "changed his story many times and said he owned a watch which isn't true. In addition, he said he saw buses running that night and it's come to light that there were no buses that night."

Of course, Edda was referring to Antonio Curatolo - she couldn't even say his name. She just called him a "homeless man".

Here is StewartHome2000's report directly from the courtroom:

Quote:

Perugia: Saturday, March 28, 2009

Today we heard from Antonio Curatolo, Fabrizio Giofreddi , Antonio Aiello, and Hekuran Kokomani.

1. Antonio Curatolo, is a fixture in Perugia. He is a vagrant that spends most of his time hanging around Corso Garibaldi (the street where RS lived) and Piazza Grimana (the piazza at the end of Corso Garibadi and within eyeshot of the start of house on Via della Pergola). The crowd murmured as he was helped in by court assistants, uncleansed, dressed in a dirty jacket, a old winter knit hat. His skin was dark against his long un-groomed white hair, beard and mustache. But once he opened his mouth, you knew that this guy was no slouch. He spoke clearly, concisely and directly, and was very certain of what he saw. His testimony never swayed and was consistent even under cross examination. In short, his appearance was one thing, his articulate convincing testimony was another.

He stated that he has been a regular (hobo for lack of a better term) around that part of Perugia for about 8-9 years. He testified that he was in Piazza Grimani around 9:30-10:00pm when he saw across the piazza two people, a man and a woman, which he described as a couple by the way they were sitting next to one and other etc. He was asked to describe them and he turned and looked at Amanda, just a few feet away, and said calmly, “it was her”, and then looked at RS, and said “and him.” He stated that having been in that area he had seen them before separately, but this was the first time he saw them together. But he was certain it was them. He said also that, although he did not watch them all the time, he did see them again “poco prima di mezzanotte” or “just before midnight” at the same place. He originally said that they were there from 9:30 through midnight, but clarified that they were there at 9:30-10:00pm and may have left around 11-11:30 and then returned just before midnight for sure. After midnight, he left the piazza to go to the park and sleep.

The next day, he arrived at his faithful piazza around 12:00pm and eventually around 1:30 or so saw the carabinieri pass, and the police, etc etc. and stated that he watched them at the scene including the CSI people dressed in the full-white suits.

Under cross examination, Buongiorno thought she had an easy target, but in fact he held up extremely well. She asked, “how could you possibly know it was 9:30”..he said because the sign next to the piazza has a digital clock. He also said I have a watch! (the court laughed) and I look at it often to check he time. He stated that “when I sat on the bench to read I looked at my watch and it was just before 9:30pm….and I saw them shortly afterwards.” He said he knows what he saw and he saw those two! No more questions.



So, is Edda accusing Mr. Curatolo of perjury as a witness?

I dug up this video of Mr. Curatolo being interviewed on a park bench. Catnip kindly translated his words long ago when the video was first posted:

Catnip:
Quote:
Hi Tara,

Mr C is saying

Quote:
– I, when I got here, it was around half past nine, and by the time I had a seat, lit a cigarette, had a look around, it was five minutes, and they were already there, well –

I reckon* there was an accident [una disgrazia=”bad luck, trouble, misfortune”], in an animated conversation with each other

I reckon, the only one who can clear everything up is probably Rudy



* "Secondo me" = "I reckon", "I think", "in my opinion", "according to me", etc, depending on the level of formality.
I reckon Mr C is as sharp as a tack, and wouldn't go astray in a courtroom at the legal table.
(To digress slightly, if this were a Charlie Chaplin movie, it would not be that surprising
that a homeless man would be so up-to-date with events: he can read his blankets before bedtime!
Further digression - sleeping rough in Umbria is tough: snow and cold; and this winter has been longer than usual...).


The transcript below the video of what he said is slightly different:

Quote:
when I arrived it was 9.30, time to [have a] look around and they were already there. I think there was some trouble, in an animated discussion between themselves and I think the only one who can clarify the truth is Rudy.


Here is the video:
LA7 ANTONIO CURATOLO


Thanks to Some Alibi, we have current news about Mr. Curatolo; an eyewitness report that he is as direct and believable as he was when called as a witness at the first trial.

Curatolo knows what he saw, buses or no buses. It's a fact that eyewitnesses hone in on certain details; Curatolo saw Knox and Sollecito the night before all the police activity at the cottage the next day.


I watched this news item this morning too; Ted Simon was on telling the viewers that the Appeal Judge had also ruled AK's written testimony inadmissable. Any one else see that statement ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
smacker wrote:
Quote:
I watched this news item this morning too; Ted Simon was on telling the viewers that the Appeal Judge had also ruled AK's written testimony inadmissable. Any one else see that statement ?


Yes. It's as if these people know that the video of these appearances on the weekend programs doesn't seem to get posted on the sites, so they can say anything without really backing it up. Simon's soundbite was so quick that if you blinked, you missed him.

_________________
“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: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce has asked that I make this public here:

"You might also like to inform your little group that I am not a former cameraman from Seattle. It is time to stop libeling the former cameraman named Bruce Fisher in Seattle.You might also like to inform your little group that I am not a former cameraman from Seattle. It is time to stop libeling the former cameraman named Bruce Fisher in Seattle."

I am not entirely sure why Bruce Fisher of Injustice In Perugia feels that Mr Fisher the cameraman of Seattle is being libelled (his reputation impinged in the eyes of right thinking people) by being referred to as Bruce Fisher of IIP. However, we must take Bruce's devastating critique of himself seriously. He knows himself best. :D



Well, as you said, Bruce knows himself best. I think the real tragedy for Bruce, whoever he may be, is that nobody really cares who he is. I am waiting with impatience for more details about his book. Will we see him on television during the promotional tour?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:51 pm 
Offline
Links Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think the real tragedy for Bruce, whoever he may be, is that nobody really cares who he is. I am waiting with impatience for more details about his book. Will we see him on television during the promotional tour?



Maybe he has written it in esperanto?


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: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Under cross examination, Buongiorno thought she had an easy target, but in fact he held up extremely well. She asked, “how could you possibly know it was 9:30”..he said because the sign next to the piazza has a digital clock. He also said I have a watch! (the court laughed) and I look at it often to check he time. He stated that “when I sat on the bench to read I looked at my watch and it was just before 9:30pm….and I saw them shortly afterwards.” He said he knows what he saw and he saw those two! No more questions.



Here's the view of Curatolo's bench (on the left), shot from the pavement outside the furthest edge of the University building.

Image


The first photo is taken next to the digital signboard / clock, clearly visible from Curatolo's bench. For clarity this angle is not from Curatolo's bench. I have also cropped the photo. Just out of image are mafiosi waving a sign saying "my bro did it" and St Peter in attendance saying "it's all true".

Image

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I think the real tragedy for Bruce, whoever he may be, is that nobody really cares who he is. I am waiting with impatience for more details about his book. Will we see him on television during the promotional tour?



For someone about to release such an important piece of fiction, Bruce Fisher seems to prefer to hang out on message boards insulting people. What a bore. If I recall correctly, Candace Dempsey disappeared for several months while finishing up hers and even hired some "stand in" to make sure the proper comments were deleted from her blog before closing it completely.

I wonder if Bruce will just take the easy path and release it as a cheap digital download that you can buy from his eBAY store; BIN (Buy it Now) for $1.99 and free shipping. :)

_________________
“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: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
H9, I love the Lynx avatar!!! You are the Lynx queen.

In fairness to Bruce, if he isn't, he isn't. I must say that the cameraman picture someone posted bore no similarity to the Bruce in the door closing vid. He has always been courteous to me, but I cannot support his fielding of Steve Moore as an expert in anything, as he takes pride in his lack of knowledge re Massei. Even if you disagree with it you should know what the opposition's arguments are. This refusal to engage with the report is lazy and arrogant, not to mention unprofessional and disrespectful to the victim. Steve is a disaster, and Bruce must bear responsibility for not coaching him thoroughly enough before media appearances. He has positively harmed Amanda's cause, and that is not right.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:06 pm 
Offline
Links Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
I can't find my link to Bruce closing the door.. does anyone have that link please?

..... and is that Vanessa in the video getting the kisses from Chris and Madison?

Brucie's photo is in misc gallery. He used to use that before switching to the black injustice sign. Funny... Stevie Moore used to use a SouthPark cartoon (copyrighted) till we had a troll appear here and inform EarlGrey his avatar was a getty image and should not be used. Stevie quickly switched from his 'copyright infringement' avatar to his own photo.


Last edited by H9 on Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
The Bard wrote:
Steve is a disaster, and Bruce must bear responsibility for not coaching him thoroughly enough before media appearances. He has positively harmed Amanda's cause, and that is not right.


How has Bruce Fisher harmed Amanda Knox's cause?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Bard wrote:
H9, I love the Lynx avatar!!! You are the Lynx queen.

In fairness to Bruce, if he isn't, he isn't. I must say that the cameraman picture someone posted bore no similarity to the Bruce in the door closing vid. He has always been courteous to me, but I cannot support his fielding of Steve Moore as an expert in anything, as he takes pride in his lack of knowledge re Massei. Even if you disagree with it you should know what the opposition's arguments are. This refusal to engage with the report is lazy and arrogant, not to mention unprofessional and disrespectful to the victim. Steve is a disaster, and Bruce must bear responsibility for not coaching him thoroughly enough before media appearances. He has positively harmed Amanda's cause, and that is not right.



I agree with Bard about the lack of similarity between the guy in the video and the photo of Bruce Fisher, ex-camara man, on linkedin. The second Bruce Fisher looks liked a beefed-up biker, while the first looks kind of Low-T. It is not surprising to me that Bruce of IIP would seek to hide his true identity; I doubt he has any credentials in any fields remotely related to this case but, since he has passed himself off as something more than a crusader for AK, he has to keep the illusion of related competency alive. I think he just has time on his hands. Again, I look forward to the publication of his book; surely he will tell his readers from what pulpit of expertise he writes.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
@ Machine :By fielding an inadequately briefed media spokesman, who is xenophobic and prone to gross hyperbole. This harms Amanda's cause - the legitimate request for a re-examination of evidence in the belief there has been a miscarriage of justice - because it makes the proponents of that cause look as thick as goats. The fact that the defendant's own parents are colluding in the same shameful propogation of lies, to the same end, is neither here nor there. Amanda is legally entitled to have her case heard, and to two appeals. That is justice. To have people lying to win points helps her not one jot. The fact that her own lawyers have indicated that Steve should STFU is an indication that he is not helping. I want the case heard, and justice to be done. No more. Lots of people are exploiting this tragedy, even if they think they are acting from the highest motives. I count Steve Moore as one such individual. He owes it to Meredith, and to Amanda, to get his facts straight. What he is doing insults both of them.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
The Machine wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Steve is a disaster, and Bruce must bear responsibility for not coaching him thoroughly enough before media appearances. He has positively harmed Amanda's cause, and that is not right.


How has Bruce Fisher harmed Amanda Knox's cause?



Well he introduced Steve Moore to the case and Amanda's own lawyers have said they find his grandstanding unhelpful. Pretty direct causation innit?

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:19 pm 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3641
Knox's parents hopeful after ruling

MSNBC video

http://www.mefeedia.com/news/34187653

Knox's friend hopeful "people will see the truth"

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/knoxs-friend-hopeful-people-will-see-truth/17y7r9f7e


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm
Posts: 1582
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
It is not surprising to me that Bruce of IIP would seek to hide his true identity; I doubt he has any credentials in any fields remotely related to this case but, since he has passed himself off as something more than a crusader for AK, he has to keep the illusion of related competency alive. I think he just has time on his hands. Again, I look forward to the publication of his book; surely he will tell his readers from what pulpit of expertise he writes.


Very much agree.

Additionally, if his Johnny-come-lately, copy cat, exploitive book has nearly as many errors as his Johnny-come-lately copy cat website, and to boot is authored with the same blatantly biased and distorted dimwitted drivel as his "summaries" of the Appeals; even with the $1.99 and falling fast probable price, few buyers will appear, just as few bother to hit his dismal distortion laden website.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Bard wrote:
By fielding an inadequately briefed media spokesman, who is xenophobic and prone to gross hyperbole. This harms Amanda's cause - the legitimate request for a re-examination of evidence in the belief there has been a miscarriage of justice - because it makes the proponents of that cause look as thick as goats. The fact that the defendant's own parents are colluding in the same shameful propogatiob of lies, to the same end, is neither here nor there. Amanda is legally entitled to have her case heard, and to two appeals. That is justice. To have people lying to win points helps her not one jot. The fact that her own lawyers have indicated that Steve should STFU is an indication that he is not helping. I want the case heard, and justice to be done. No more. Lots of people are exploiting this tragedy, even if they think they are acting from the highest motives. I count Steve Moore as one such individual. He owes it to Meredith, and to Amanda, to get his facts straight. What he is doing insults both of them.


I think the main way he hurts the cause is by coming off as extremely bitter, competitive and resentful. He seems to be obsessed with PMF and with making the world think that membership and readership are shrinking, which in fact is not the case. And even if it were true, so what? Who cares except for Bruce, who wants desperately to win some kind of race in his own mind? I think his quest is driven by some deep desire to succeed at something. Anything. Don't get me wrong; this can be a very strong driver. It just seems somehow unconnected to the real issue, except in a contingent and peripheral way. Hence his mutual affinity with the Moores. All are driven by a deep and free-floating feeling of resentment that has finally found an external object. The problem with Doug Preston's recent analysis of the people who care about this case is that it is only partial, reflecting his bias while hiding its personal motivation. The fact is, as everyone knows there are passionate fanatics on both sides of this modern-day Affaire Dreyfus. And Preston himself is driven by an overwhelming desire for revenge against the prosecutor who humiliated him. This is a very strong driver, and the comments of both Preston and Bruce Fisher tell us a lot about who they are.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Interesting comment in The Telegraph from Maresca and Mignini. Dey ain't bovvered is the broad summary. They don't think the review will affect anything.

P.s can it be wholly a co-incidence that the advertising banner at the top of the JREF thread is usually for erectile dysfunction cures?

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
SomeAlibi wrote:
The Machine wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Steve is a disaster, and Bruce must bear responsibility for not coaching him thoroughly enough before media appearances. He has positively harmed Amanda's cause, and that is not right.


How has Bruce Fisher harmed Amanda Knox's cause?



Well he introduced Steve Moore to the case and Amanda's own lawyers have said they find his grandstanding unhelpful. Pretty direct causation innit?



This too tallies with my comments about his personal motivation with regard to the case. Someone who really cared deeply about the cause he was defending would cease and desist in light of the above. But to Bruce this makes no difference at all. Two thoughts: either he is getting behind the scenes "atta boys" from someone like Marriott or Chris Mellas or he is so far gone in his hatred of all things Italian that the words of an Italian lawyer defending his love object make no inroads. In this case, like I said, his crusade is unrelated to the matter at hand. It has taken on a life of its own.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
The Bard wrote:
@ Machine :By fielding an inadequately briefed media spokesman, who is xenophobic and prone to gross hyperbole. This harms Amanda's cause - the legitimate request for a re-examination of evidence in the belief there has been a miscarriage of justice - because it makes the proponents of that cause look as thick as goats. The fact that the defendant's own parents are colluding in the same shameful propogation of lies, to the same end, is neither here nor there. Amanda is legally entitled to have her case heard, and to two appeals. That is justice. To have people lying to win points helps her not one jot. The fact that her own lawyers have indicated that Steve should STFU is an indication that he is not helping. I want the case heard, and justice to be done. No more. Lots of people are exploiting this tragedy, even if they think they are acting from the highest motives. I count Steve Moore as one such individual. He owes it to Meredith, and to Amanda, to get his facts straight. What he is doing insults both of them.


Judge Hellmann granted a review of the DNA and forensic evidence. The FOA have no bearing on the legal proceedings in Perugia.

Amanda Knox has two appeals because she murdered Meredith in Italy. I doubt she would have been granted an appeal in America or Britain.

Justice was served in the last trial.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
The Bard wrote:
Interesting comment in The Telegraph from Maresca and Mignini. Dey ain't bovvered is the broad summary. They don't think the review will affect anything.

P.s can it be wholly a co-incidence that the advertising banner at the top of the JREF thread is usually for erectile dysfunction cures?


If true, then the answer is no. No surprise at all, given modern audience filtering and ad targeting techniques. Someone needs to tell Mary H, urgently, that hormone replacement therapy can work wonders. She needs to put down the viagra, see a specialist and get her testosterone level under control.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:35 pm 
Offline
Links Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:37 am
Posts: 1716
Highscores: 161
So technically... is Amanda convicted or not? What is the legal term for her status at present?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:46 pm
Posts: 516
SomeAlibi wrote:
Bruce has asked that I make this public here:

"You might also like to inform your little group that I am not a former cameraman from Seattle. It is time to stop libeling the former cameraman named Bruce Fisher in Seattle.You might also like to inform your little group that I am not a former cameraman from Seattle. It is time to stop libeling the former cameraman named Bruce Fisher in Seattle."

I am not entirely sure why Bruce Fisher of Injustice In Perugia feels that Mr Fisher the cameraman of Seattle is being libelled (his reputation impinged in the eyes of right thinking people) by being referred to as Bruce Fisher of IIP. However, we must take Bruce's devastating critique of himself seriously. He knows himself best. :D


Wow SA,

That’s the first I’ve heard that. So Bruce Fisher the camera man from Seattle, is not the same Bruce Fisher, the nobody from nowhere who no one listens to.

I suspect that it must be an extremely difficult association for the Seattle camera man Bruce Fisher to be associated with this nobody from nowhere who no one listens to the Bruce Fisher.

Should we extend our collective good wishes to Bruce Fisher, the former camera man from Seattle and apologise for considering him in the same low opinion that we hold the real nobody from nowhere who no one listens to Bruce Fischer?

There, glad that’s cleared up.

H


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm
Posts: 1932
Highscores: 7
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So technically... is Amanda convicted or not? What is the legal term for her status at present?



You'd need to be an Italian lawyer but guilty is the word used by Massei. The way I would explain it is that their convictions are not confirmed until the expiry of the second appeal as I understand it.

"KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele guilty of the crimes ascribed to them under chapter A) of the charges, into said crime being absorbed the felony contested under chapter C), as well as [guilty] under chapter B), D) limited to the mobile phones and E) and, as far as regards KNOX Amanda Marie, additionally the crime she has been charged with under chapter F), all these crimes must be joined by the element of continuance and, excluding the aggravations provided for by articles 577 and 61(5) of the Criminal Code, to both [accused] conceding the generic mitigating circumstances equivalent to the remaining aggravation, [426] condemns them, to a sentence of 26 years of imprisonment for KNOX and to a sentence of 25 years of imprisonment for SOLLECITO (base penalty for the reiteration, 24 years of imprisonment) and each of them to pay court costs and prison custody."

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So technically... is Amanda convicted or not? What is the legal term for her status at present?

As far as I’m concerned she’s convicted awaiting appeal. The FOAKERS didn’t waste anytime saying that half the decisions are overturned. It doesn’t have to be true, just to them and it sounds better. After Tom Delay (past GOP Whip) was convicted over here for money laundering, the first words out of his mouth were, ’it’s under appeal.‘


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm
Posts: 7006
h9A7wa9i1K wrote:
So technically... is Amanda convicted or not? What is the legal term for her status at present?


Italian legal scholars are certainly in a better position than me, but I believe we can say that she and Raffaele Sollecito were convicted in the first instance and currently have an automatic appeal pending. Alternatively, and despite what some say about Italy having no innocent until proven guilty provision, I think it would not be inaccurate though it would be misleading to say that she and RS are considered innocent until all appeals have been exhausted.

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
guermantes wrote:



Thank you Guermantes! So indeed, the weekend Today Show clips become available eventually. I hope ABC and CBS follow suit...or, I'm just looking in the wrong places!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Scope of Appeal
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Capazelli's testimony of the scream after 23:00.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • Examination of Sollecito's computer.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.
  • Mixed DNA evidence from bathroom and two bedrooms.

Rewrote the "screensaver business" which is what I meant about the re-examination of Sollecito's computer. Didn't include the audiometric test request since that was supposed to be used to clarify Capazelli's testimony.

Any others with points not up for consideration?


Basically, only the complex, technical issue of the knife and bra DNA will be submitted for expert review. Also, there's a detail in Mr. Curatalo's testimony that will be questioned.

The fundamental issue of any coercion by the police - possibly affecting Knox's and Sollecito's judgment prior to their arrest - was not addressed. So, previously admitted statements stand.

Concerning the knife itself, it's possible that Knox & Sollecito cleaned it well enough to remove almost all the DNA. However, there remains Sollecito's imaginative statement that Meredith pricked herself with it while cooking; and there remains Knox's behavior detailed in the Massei report (p. 292):

    At this point Amanda’s behaviour on November 4 should also be recalled, when she was accompanied, together with Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti, to the house on Via della Pergola and was asked, like the other two girls, to look at the knives that were in the kitchen. The personnel from the Questura, [who were] present on that occasion, reported Amanda’s severe and intense emotional crisis, unlike [the reaction of] the other two girls. This circumstance appears significant both in its own right and also when one considers that Amanda had never previously shown signs of any particular distress and emotional involvement

Possible evidence that would put Knox and Sollecito at Sollecito's home will not be heard.

Probably most damning, there remain Knox's and Sollecito's behavioral mistakes, including but not limited to:

  • Knox's phone call to Seattle before Meredith's door was opened (~3 am Seattle time);
  • Sollecito's knowledge that "nothing had been stolen" - explained to the Postal Police (how would he know?);
  • Knox's expression of "panic" on the morning after the murders (written communications to others), but total lack of panic in the presence of others;
  • Knox and Sollecito hung back as Meredith's door was finally kicked open around 1:15 pm the day after the murder (p. 94):

    The conduct they both exhibited, consisting of staying away from Meredith’s door, in a position which would not allow them to see inside the room, seems explicable only if we admit that Amanda and Raffaele already knew what was beyond the door and therefore had no reason to look inside the room; on this point, some parts of the [prison] conversation between Amanda and her mother and wiretapped are rather telling ...

IMHO, just that final point alone is damning. But, it's the appeals court that has full access to court documents. They may see a different reality than is articulated in the Massei Report. I plan to respect their decision regardless which way it goes (not that my reaction is of the slightest importance).

Knox and Sollecito are reported to be thrilled about yesterday's hearing. Personally, I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet.

Norbert


Last edited by norbertc on Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
The prosecutors are confident that Knox and Sollecito will remain in prison:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:27 am
Posts: 127
Location: Canada
After reading TJMK and PMF, I understand that: a) RG has come to the end of his legal road b) His lawyer's say that he is willing to put AK and RS at the scene of the crime.

Other than struggles with his own conscience, is there any legal reason that it would not be in his best interest to tell the truth now? i.e. he has nothing more to lose now, correct?

And I saw that someone on this site had asked for RG's address. I sometimes wonder, how wonderful it would be if something/someone could help influence this person to speak the truth. If this happened, I would think that at least the denial/lies/white-washing part of the Kercher family's heartache would come to an end. At least the open wound that is kept open by false publicity and those with no backbone to accept responsibility, - at least the wound could start to close and heal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:37 pm 
Offline
Links & Gallery Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am
Posts: 3641
Good Morning America
Aired on Sunday, Dec 19, 2010 (12/19/2010) at 06:00 AM

Transcript of the interview (A few more "you know's" from Amanda's parents);

We begin with a potentially game-changing decision from an Italian court. Lama Hasan has the story from London.

>> Reporter: For the first time since being arrested three years ago, it's news that amanda knox and her family wanted to hear.

>> We're happy they're willing to look at the case again and really take a deep look at it.

>> Reporter: The decision essentially re-opens the case as part of the appeals process.
Two experts will now start reviewing crucial dna evidence used to convict her last year.
Knox's legal team had argued that dna evidence was inconclusive, and the judge's verdict gives them a chance to try proving that once again.
Knox has won another important battle.

Following the murder, she had signed a statement saying she was at the scene, without access to a lawyer.
>> [Ted Simon]: Those statements that have been previously ruled inadmissible should not have been admitted in the trial and will not be part of the appeal.
This is another favorable ruling.

>> Reporter: Amanda is currently serving 26 years in prison after being convicted of killing her roommate, meredith kercher, her family hopes this small victory could lead to the guilty verdict being overturned, but the prosecution insists that the murder weapon, a kitchen knife, had some of knox's dna on the handle and a small amount of kercher's on the blade.
The defense argues that it could have been contaminated when , testing was done in the lab.
Knox has always maintained her innocence.
Now she and her defense team have until at least the spring to prove it.
Lama hasan, abc news, london.

>> And joining us now on the phone from perugia, italy, is amanda's mother edda mellas and from seattle is amanda knox's father, curt knox.
Good morning to both of you.
Thanks for joining us.

>> Good morning.
>> Good morning.

>> Edda, I know this is the news that you've both been waiting to hear.
We hear it was a very emotional response from amanda when the , she wept.
And what we'd like to hear is what your view was of the scene in the courtroom, and what was the first thing amanda said to you?

>> Well, you know, afterward we weren't able to get too close to her, but we were able to look at her.
I told her I loved her and told her to hang on, and she nodded and smiled back at me.
And, you know, that's really all we were able to do before they whisked her out of the courtroom, but, yes, it was a very emotional day.

>> And obviously, curt, this is , how important is this for your ultimate goal of having the verdict dismissed?

>> Well, it's really the first step and actually gives us, you know, that much more hope that this particular court will , really take a rereview of the examination and, you know, find that this is really a wrongful conviction and allow amanda to come home.

>> Edda, tell us more about the witness that the judge wants to hear more from.

>> Well, there was, you know -- it's interesting.
There was a witness that the prosecutor called that he called, you know, his star witness, who said he saw amanda and raffaele lurking around the house.
And this guy actually changed his story many times.
But one of the things that he, you know, actually, there were two things.
He said he had a watch and knew what time it was and he didn't even own a watch.
And he said he knew he saw them around a certain time because there were -- the buses were running.
And what we've come to find out is there's going to, be people that will come and testify that absolutely those buses were not running the night that meredith was killed.
And so, you know, it just really takes away his credibility as a witness.

>> And, curt, what's going to happen in the next hearing set FOR JANUARY 15th?

>> Well,, as I understand it, they're going to swear in the individuals that are going to do the independent evaluation of the dna evidence of both the bra and the knife.
And they're then going to schedule the rest of the hearings.
And we'll have a better understanding of how the flow of the, appeals trial process will take place.

>> Lastly I'd like to ask you, beginning with you, curt, after this weekend's ruling, how confident are you that your daughter will finally be brought home to you in the states?

>> Well, we're still cautiously optimistic.
I mean this is really just the first step, and, you know, there's still a long ways to go.
But, you know, it gives us hope that this court will really take a look at the evidence, and we believe that that evidence will allow amanda to come home.

>> Edda?

>> Yeah, you know, it is.
It is a first step, but it's definitely, you know -- since I've been here, people have been telling me how important this is, and so the fact that this ruling went our way is very important, but amanda is still in jail, and we still have a long fight to get her out of there.

>> How has her emotional state changed in just the past 24 hours after this ruling?

>> Well, you know, she was definitely, definitely, you know -- we were both sobbing in relief.
I think she feels a little bit more hopeful now.

>> All right, well, we do , this is good news for the both of you.
We know you've been waiting for this.
We appreciate you joining us this morning, edda and curt.

>> Thanks for having us.
>> Thank you.

Good Morning America

_____________________________________

You know, they are getting better. Not too many "you knows", you know. ;) :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
Philip Larkin - This Be The Verse

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
Hammerite wrote:

During a sitting court case an individual at the rear of the room was chewing gum with such veracity that his chomping could be overheard throughout the room. The Judge discreetly asked the court clerk to “tell that individual to stop masticating in my court”.

The clerk being somewhat hard of hearing approached the offender, taps him on the shoulder and says;

” the Judge said to take your hands out of your pockets”. :)



LOL!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
The Bard wrote:
Thanks Hammer.

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

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

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


Oh dear Bard, I'm so sorry! Sounds like everything has gone to hell in a handbasket over there! Are we going to have to send an airlift of supplies over there?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
Thank you to Catnip for his…

stint7 wrote:
…endless devotion to finding and sharing some of the best information available anywhere. These translations make available facts that most of us would never have access to without those efforts. The documentation Catnip meticulously provides would make Doctoral Dissertations at many universities pale in comparison.


mul-) Catnip Rules! mul-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
bedelia wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Thanks Hammer.

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

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

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


Oh dear Bard, I'm so sorry! Sounds like everything has gone to hell in a handbasket over there! Are we going to have to send an airlift of supplies over there?



Forget the rest of it: "we have run out of beer" - THINGS ARE DIRE!
We should be sending out teams of perhaps very large Saint Bernards, bearing kegs.
The radio just had someone soulfully and with much feeling singing White Christmas.
Since the kid still has to fly in from the east coast, I rather wish he'd just shut up about it.
Hmmm... are there a crew of housebound kids in the area?
Perhaps they could be sent off en masse to do something, if not useful, at least likely to burn off all that house-bound energy.
Perhaps clear five or ten miles of road....

And Mungo should just eat this one, and start over.
Or just sit on it, and transform it into bedding, and claim that was the intent all along.
(Or are bunnies not as duplicitous as cats?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scope of Appeal
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:55 pm
Posts: 54
norbertc wrote:
Probably most damning, there remain Knox's and Sollecito's behavioral mistakes, including but not limited to:

  • Knox's phone call to Seattle before Meredith's door was opened (~3 am Seattle time);
  • Sollecito's knowledge that "nothing had been stolen" - explained to the Postal Police (how would he know?);
  • Knox's expression of "panic" on the morning after the murders (written communications to others), but total lack of panic in the presence of others;
  • Knox and Sollecito hung back as Meredith's door was finally kicked open around 1:15 pm the day after the murder ...

    The conduct they both exhibited, consisting of staying away from Meredith’s door, in a position which would not allow them to see inside the room, seems explicable only if we admit that Amanda and Raffaele already knew what was beyond the door and therefore had no reason to look inside the room; on this point, some parts of the [prison] conversation between Amanda and her mother and wiretapped are rather telling ...

IMHO, just that final point alone is damning. But, it's the appeals court that has full access to court documents. They may see a different reality than is articulated in the Massei Report. I plan to respect their decision regardless which way it goes (not that my reaction is of the slightest importance).


Oh... I know that when no one responds to a post it's probably because it wasn't very interesting. :oops: But... I've been trying to work out if there is anything apart from the bathmat footprint that actually puts Sollecito on the scene for the actual crime. I promise I'm not a Sollecito apologist but I'm wondering if there's potential in his appeal (separately from Amanda's who I do believe was involved, has memories of the murder and is well and truly in it for the long haul).

Norbert, could Raffaele not argue that of course he knew what was behind the door, because Amanda had told him? (Not because he had seen/caused it.)

And could he not present "nothing has been stolen" as part of Amanda's badly thought out story which he later realised made no sense, at which point he stopped talking?

It's intriguing how much more direct information we have on Amanda than on Raffaele, just because she's been writing, talking, testifying, and generally incriminating herself... she is so much harder to make excuses for. But I'm trying to find elements that don't work with the story of Raffaele just covering up for Amanda. The only inescapable one so far is the footprint...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:12 am
Posts: 164
Location: New York
@ Donnie - I'm glad you're ok. Those photos look pretty scary.

@ Norbert - Your daughter is beautiful! I do feel fearful of posting photos of children on this site when some very intense internet bullies disagree with our purpose for existing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
btw:
"Following the murder, she had signed a statement saying she was at the scene, without access to a lawyer.
>> [Ted Simon]: Those statements that have been previously ruled inadmissible should not have been admitted in the trial and will not be part of the appeal.
This is another favorable ruling."

I assume if both statements had been excluded, someone would have mentioned it.
As I recall, the one from that night had already been excluded, but her voluntary follow-up - composed and written out independently in her own hand and all - was allowed in to the first trial.
And no one but Mr. Simon has said it has been excluded from this one, although the reporting has been fairly detailed on what the court said.
The information given by the actual reporters on site, that is.
Did I miss something, and did no one else think this exclusion would be worth mentioning?
Or is this just more moronic and pointless lying?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scope of Appeal
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:36 am
Posts: 266
norbertc wrote:
stilicho wrote:

  • Quintavalle's testimony proving Knox lied about her whereabouts on the morning of 02 NOV 2007.
  • Capazelli's testimony of the scream after 23:00.
  • Sollecito's lie about receiving a phone call from his father at 23:00.
  • Examination of Sollecito's computer.
  • The staged break-in including all its elements rejecting any possibility that anyone entered that direction.
  • Luminol evidence of prints cleaned before the police arrived.
  • The location of Meredith's mobile phones prior to 22:15 on 01 NOV 2007.
  • Knox's "memorial" of 06 NOV 2007.
  • Time of death (as already indicated).
  • Any of the other voluntary statements by either Sollecito or Knox admitted against them including knowledge of the knife and Patrick's innocence.
  • Sollecito's bare footprint on the bathmat.
  • Mixed DNA evidence from bathroom and two bedrooms.

Rewrote the "screensaver business" which is what I meant about the re-examination of Sollecito's computer. Didn't include the audiometric test request since that was supposed to be used to clarify Capazelli's testimony.

Any others with points not up for consideration?


Basically, only the complex, technical issue of the knife and bra DNA will be submitted for expert review. Also, there's a detail in Mr. Curatalo's testimony that will be questioned.

The fundamental issue of any coercion by the police - possibly affecting Knox's and Sollecito's judgment prior to their arrest - was not addressed. So, previously admitted statements stand.

Concerning the knife itself, it's possible that Knox & Sollecito cleaned it well enough to remove almost all the DNA. However, there remains Sollecito's imaginative statement that Meredith pricked herself with it while cooking; and there remains Knox's behavior detailed in the Massei report (p. 292):

    At this point Amanda’s behaviour on November 4 should also be recalled, when she was accompanied, together with Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti, to the house on Via della Pergola and was asked, like the other two girls, to look at the knives that were in the kitchen. The personnel from the Questura, [who were] present on that occasion, reported Amanda’s severe and intense emotional crisis, unlike [the reaction of] the other two girls. This circumstance appears significant both in its own right and also when one considers that Amanda had never previously shown signs of any particular distress and emotional involvement

Possible evidence that would put Knox and Sollecito at Sollecito's home will not be heard.

Probably most damning, there remain Knox's and Sollecito's behavioral mistakes, including but not limited to:

  • Knox's phone call to Seattle before Meredith's door was opened (~3 am Seattle time);
  • Sollecito's knowledge that "nothing had been stolen" - explained to the Postal Police (how would he know?);
  • Knox's expression of "panic" on the morning after the murders (written communications to others), but total lack of panic in the presence of others;
  • Knox and Sollecito hung back as Meredith's door was finally kicked open around 1:15 pm the day after the murder ...

    The conduct they both exhibited, consisting of staying away from Meredith’s door, in a position which would not allow them to see inside the room, seems explicable only if we admit that Amanda and Raffaele already knew what was beyond the door and therefore had no reason to look inside the room; on this point, some parts of the [prison] conversation between Amanda and her mother and wiretapped are rather telling ...

IMHO, just that final point alone is damning. But, it's the appeals court that has full access to court documents. They may see a different reality than is articulated in the Massei Report. I plan to respect their decision regardless which way it goes (not that my reaction is of the slightest importance).

Knox and Sollecito are reported to be thrilled about yesterday's hearing. Personally, I wouldn't break out the champagne just yet.

Norbert


On that morning there are other interesting things we know. It is what Raffaele wrote in his diary to sister and father ie when they got to the flat (which means the first time RS went there that morning but Amanda's second time) "Filomena's door was wide open showing the mess". Amanda statements has always been - this is totally necessary for AK's version which she tries to put down immediately possibly not to make mistakes later - that Filomena's door was closed and this is why the first time she did not call the police. If it was closed the first time she went there it must have been closed even the second time when both arrived to the flat. In her version only after a survey of the flat they opened that door.
Their versions are different. One of the 2 lies or both lie as this is a detail one would remember well. When you see the mess of a break-in by a thief you surely do not forget that moment and impression. This statement cannot be used against Amanda unless Raffaele takes the stand. If they are both guilty (highly likely) Raffaele forgot the version agreed by mistake or as he wanted to incriminate Amanda. Second possibility (highly unlikely) is that RS is innocent and AK is guilty (unlikely).


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scope of Appeal
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
Woodrina wrote:
norbertc wrote:
Probably most damning, there remain Knox's and Sollecito's behavioral mistakes, including but not limited to:

  • Knox's phone call to Seattle before Meredith's door was opened (~3 am Seattle time);
  • Sollecito's knowledge that "nothing had been stolen" - explained to the Postal Police (how would he know?);
  • Knox's expression of "panic" on the morning after the murders (written communications to others), but total lack of panic in the presence of others;
  • Knox and Sollecito hung back as Meredith's door was finally kicked open around 1:15 pm the day after the murder ...

    The conduct they both exhibited, consisting of staying away from Meredith’s door, in a position which would not allow them to see inside the room, seems explicable only if we admit that Amanda and Raffaele already knew what was beyond the door and therefore had no reason to look inside the room; on this point, some parts of the [prison] conversation between Amanda and her mother and wiretapped are rather telling ...

IMHO, just that final point alone is damning. But, it's the appeals court that has full access to court documents. They may see a different reality than is articulated in the Massei Report. I plan to respect their decision regardless which way it goes (not that my reaction is of the slightest importance).


Oh... I know that when no one responds to a post it's probably because it wasn't very interesting. :oops: But... I've been trying to work out if there is anything apart from the bathmat footprint that actually puts Sollecito on the scene for the actual crime. I promise I'm not a Sollecito apologist but I'm wondering if there's potential in his appeal (separately from Amanda's who I do believe was involved, has memories of the murder and is well and truly in it for the long haul).

Norbert, could Raffaele not argue that of course he knew what was behind the door, because Amanda had told him? (Not because he had seen/caused it.)

And could he not present "nothing has been stolen" as part of Amanda's badly thought out story which he later realised made no sense, at which point he stopped talking?

It's intriguing how much more direct information we have on Amanda than on Raffaele, just because she's been writing, talking, testifying, and generally incriminating herself... she is so much harder to make excuses for. But I'm trying to find elements that don't work with the story of Raffaele just covering up for Amanda. The only inescapable one so far is the footprint...



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

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


Last edited by lauowolf on Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
This was quite difficult to listen to - an interview with Madison Paxton. Is it her voice or her parrot points...it was cut short, thankfully.

BBC MADISON PAXTON

_________________
“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: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
bedelia wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Thanks Hammer.

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

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

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


Oh dear Bard, I'm so sorry! Sounds like everything has gone to hell in a handbasket over there! Are we going to have to send an airlift of supplies over there?


Thanks bed. It's ok, the champagne has rallied spirits. Mr Bard is lying in front of the fire stroking Mungo, Young Bard is watching Top Gear repeats, and I have turned to poetry as solace. Resisting urge to post it here. Also, posting here all day has helped distract me. (Sorry folks). It's helped to be amongst those not feeling suicidal. Even LJ made me laugh (he could be funny if he had a heart). I am missing Michael, and cape; and Catnip indeed rocks, but is effectively nocturnal. I want to swap Pablo Neruda poems with him and play with words. All in all it could be worse. The sun's coming over the hill, in the words of a song. We shall prevail.

And whatever happens, I have my chick with me, safe, and am not faced with placing a wreath upon his grave this Christmas, or signing his name in Christmas cards. The Kerchers have more to face than all of us. They have lost a child, who died in pain and fear. It seems churlish to complain about anything in the light of that. A life 'torn off unused'. Aubade.

It's not a parlour game. I can have some respect for those who sincerely believe what they are fighting for. But not for those who see it as a game.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 19 DEC-family lawyers of Raffaele Sollecito are considering legal action against Annamaria Artegiani, lay judge in the first instance to the young pugliese, for his book in which reference is made to the story of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
According to the advocate Luca Maori, one of the defenders of the reminder, ' ' the book violates the secret chambers ''. '' For this-he added-next week we will assess the judicial initiatives be taken ''. (Google trans) ANSA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm
Posts: 2481
Location: UK
bedelia wrote:
@ Donnie - I'm glad you're ok. Those photos look pretty scary.

@ Norbert - Your daughter is beautiful! I do feel fearful of posting photos of children on this site when some very intense internet bullies disagree with our purpose for existing.


Don't worry Bedelia - this is grown up stuff. Opposing teams might fight amongst each other and sledge mercilessly, but there's no-one who would hurt another's children. When we raised concerns about the Knox children it was absolutely sincere concern and alarm. Children are out of bounds. The FOAkers are not above sledging the nameless homeless and the mentally ill, but they would not target a child. I have removed all pictures from the gallery (I think) depicting AK with other people's children as a precaution. But on the whole I think that it is safe to assume that we are amongst merely feisty opposing adults, not people who would stalk or harass a child.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
Tara wrote:
smacker wrote:
Quote:
I watched this news item this morning too; Ted Simon was on telling the viewers that the Appeal Judge had also ruled AK's written testimony inadmissable. Any one else see that statement ?


Yes. It's as if these people know that the video of these appearances on the weekend programs doesn't seem to get posted on the sites, so they can say anything without really backing it up. Simon's soundbite was so quick that if you blinked, you missed him.


That report this morning was a complete pile of dog pooh. It was delivered as a great victory for AK yet no mention of the confirmation by Rome that there were 3 people involved, that Rudy may be called to testify and that his conviction evidence was now part of AK's trial. BTW (SA) what did the Romans ever do for us ?

Also, no mention of what was disallowed so all of a sudden this agreement to review the knife and bra evidence is being portrayed as a game changer for AK. Astonishingly shite reporting.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:09 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
The Bard wrote:
bedelia wrote:
@ Donnie - I'm glad you're ok. Those photos look pretty scary.

@ Norbert - Your daughter is beautiful! I do feel fearful of posting photos of children on this site when some very intense internet bullies disagree with our purpose for existing.


Don't worry Bedelia - this is grown up stuff. Opposing teams might fight amongst each other and sledge mercilessly, but there's no-one who would hurt another's children. When we raised concerns about the Knox children it was absolutely sincere concern and alarm. Children are out of bounds. The FOAkers are not above sledging the nameless homeless and the mentally ill, but they would not target a child. I have removed all pictures from the gallery (I think) depicting AK with other people's children as a precaution. But on the whole I think that it is safe to assume that we are amongst merely feisty opposing adults, not people who would stalk or harass a child.


Thanks bedelia, it's much appreciated.

Bard, again, it's a pleasure to know such a well spoken person like you.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:33 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The King's Head, SW17
The Bard wrote:
Interesting comment in The Telegraph from Maresca and Mignini. Dey ain't bovvered is the broad summary. They don't think the review will affect anything.

P.s can it be wholly a co-incidence that the advertising banner at the top of the JREF thread is usually for erectile dysfunction cures?


Bard,
suggests a carefully targeted readership, the age and girth of which may be familiar to us here. I was watching golf on TV here with my 7 year old son (at 4.30pm no less) and they had an advert on for erectile dysfunction. The inevitable question arrived, which I answered with a mixture of rubbish, long words and cartoon characters, but what on earth is that all about.

ps, hope beer supplies can be replenished by Christmas.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:16 pm 
Offline
Banned
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:43 am
Posts: 627
Tara wrote:
This was quite difficult to listen to - an interview with Madison Paxton. Is it her voice or her parrot points...it was cut short, thankfully.

BBC MADISON PAXTON


Madison said that it makes sense that Amanda changed her story during the interrogation. Excuse me, but in what way it makes sense? I don't get it, the judges didn't get it either.

Out of all possible explanations, she picked the one that is the most stupid one. It makes sense? Come on, Madison. We all know it does not make any sense.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
From The First Post:
Quote:
Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman's decision is a huge boost for Knox's appeal and delighted her supporters - and her family, who were in Perugia for the hearing. As the decision was read, Knox was visibly emotional while her mother, Edda Mellas, and stepfather both wept.


Most of the reports quoting Edda Mellas are stating that Knox was in shock and then very emotional.

I can't help but to think that with all this reveling around her, Amanda Knox realizes the courts will fully confirm the truth...no more excuses. Before, she always had the scapegoat of "contamination" etc. and now her family and supporters, some of which may have had some doubt in her story but believed anyway, will publicly hear her deep dark secret she's been lying about since November 2, 2007.


From the same article:
Quote:
The decision to review this DNA evidence is great news for supporters of Knox and Sollecito. But – and it is a big 'but' – the fact remains that the decision to reject their co-accused, Rudy Guede's, appeal on Friday is very bad news indeed.

Guede now faces 16 years behind bars after exhausting all his opportunities to appeal. He had claimed that Knox and Sollecito carried out the murder while he was in the bathroom in the same flat, listening to his iPod.

The problem for Knox and Sollecito is that in rejecting the Guede defence's version of the night of the murder, the appeal judge has accepted the prosecution's version: and that implicates Knox and Sollecito. The prosecution argued successfully that the three had carried out the murder together. This version is now accepted as the final verdict on Guede – and it would therefore be awkward if the verdict in Knox and Sollecito's appeal contradicted it.

According to one magistrate involved in the Knox case "it is very rare that one sentence would contradict [another] definitive sentence."




THE FIRST POST

This fact about Rudy Guede has been lost in the Seattle television news reports. Shame on you KING5, KOMO4 and KIRO7... don't you have ONE honest reporter in your midst?



la-)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scope of Appeal
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

Norbert, could Raffaele not argue that of course he knew what was behind the door, because Amanda had told him? (Not because he had seen/caused it.)

And could he not present "nothing has been stolen" as part of Amanda's badly thought out story which he later realised made no sense, at which point he stopped talking?

It's intriguing how much more direct information we have on Amanda than on Raffaele, just because she's been writing, talking, testifying, and generally incriminating herself... she is so much harder to make excuses for. But I'm trying to find elements that don't work with the story of Raffaele just covering up for Amanda. The only inescapable one so far is the footprint...


Well, there are others on this board who know the case far better than I. My quick response would be that this is indeed a wild card in the deck. But, I figure it would have to actually be true that he was not involved in the murder (only the cover-up?) or Knox's team would go ballistic. So far they seem to be sticking together, but if things turn sour ...

.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scope of Appeal
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2257
lauowolf wrote:
Raffaele still has the lying about getting the phone call from his father at the relevant time that night.
The lack of an alibi, given that his computer does not back up his story of being home working on it.
The lie about how long he was sleeping in the morning (though that speaks to clean-up and general issues of truthfulness rather than directly to the murder.)
And the subsequent changing stories about that alibi, before he clammed up.
The sighting of him out with Amanda when he claimed to be home.
Possibly the cigarette butt in the common room - unless he claimed to have been smoking on an earlier visit (I assume he was asked about it at some point, but don't know.)
The footprint on the bathmat.
And with the admission of materials from Rudy's trials, a witness putting him in the house at the time (I believe)
And also probably the forensic information about how many people were involved, details about how many needed to do what was done.
It may be that Amanda and Rudy could not have physically acted alone.
And given the rest of the corroborating materials, if a third party was present, it is pretty clear who that would have been.

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


Sollecito also left a bare bloody footprint in the hallway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 4094
Location: London
Concerns: Compensation claim

Dear Mr & Mrs Brutus Fisher,

It twere but a short while passed by, that I happened upon a Tailgate Sale of Penguin WC paper going cheap. What with the economic crisis it seemed like a good idea at the time to purchase 3-score 200 of these unsold worstsellers, be it that they were going for the handsome price of 2 dollars for a box containing 500 paperbacks, all by an Italo Americo person called Cannedarsio Damspray who is possibly a double agent, often seen, it is said, with a fake moustache and mini camera attached to her bonnet hiding down alleyways, in dark doorways or otherwise in the long grass, merrily taking potshots with her machine gun at her so-called fellow countryfolk, whilst holding up a banner and blowing her own horn about how she loved them all. With and through said book called 'From Russia with Coconutty Sponge and Other Forensic Recipes', she had hoped to rule the world.
At first, my wife thought it was a good moneysaver but the said sheets turned out to be more than rough causing my beloved to suffer from never before-had piles, or hemorrhoids.
This went on for some time when at a similar Pickup Truck Sale I came across your paperback, and after reading the back cover it soon became clear you were never going to be a writer or a justice righter, these books however, were just one dollar the thousand and were silky smooth. This seemed like a good solution but we soon found out a lot of important shit got left behind. It was with this that we went to the DIY store and bought a case of sandpaper and we've never looked back, lumps and bumps removed, because rough or smooth nothing was right.


Yours respectfully,

Messrs Mr & Mrs Dr Murray Eel
34579 West Boulevard Ocean Palms, California.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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



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

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


Last edited by lauowolf on Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
smacker wrote:
Tara wrote:
smacker wrote:
Quote:
I watched this news item this morning too; Ted Simon was on telling the viewers that the Appeal Judge had also ruled AK's written testimony inadmissible. Any one else see that statement ?


Yes. It's as if these people know that the video of these appearances on the weekend programs doesn't seem to get posted on the sites, so they can say anything without really backing it up. Simon's soundbite was so quick that if you blinked, you missed him.


That report this morning was a complete pile of dog pooh. It was delivered as a great victory for AK yet no mention of the confirmation by Rome that there were 3 people involved, that Rudy may be called to testify and that his conviction evidence was now part of AK's trial. BTW (SA) what did the Romans ever do for us ?

Also, no mention of what was disallowed so all of a sudden this agreement to review the knife and bra evidence is being portrayed as a game changer for AK. Astonishingly shite reporting.



I agree Smacker. Here's a more in-depth report from Ted Simon - funny, he doesn't mention anything about any statements being inadmissible:

TTTTTTTTTTTED says:

Quote:
PHILADELPHIA (CBS/AP) – Amanda Knox won an important victory in her appeals trial of her murder conviction in Italy on Saturday, when a court ruled that it will allow an independent review of crucial DNA evidence after defense claims that samples were inconclusive and possibly contaminated.

Philadelphia lawyer Theodore Simon is part of her legal team, “The appellate court agreed with our request to reopen her case and have the forensic evidence, which as tested — was unreliable — re-evaluated by independent experts.”

Simon was hired by Knox’s parents about a year ago. He says this latest development is the first step toward clearing her name:
“After those determinations are made, we’re going to make further determinations on whether or not other aspects of the case need to be reopened. And whether or not other witnesses who we have asked to be interviewed and testify as well will be heard.”

Simon says he’s been in close contact with her family and that they were just ecstatic to hear the news. He says this was a great first step in the appeals process, but the finish line is still a long way off.

“A very significant day for Amanda Knox and her efforts to have this wrongful conviction overturned.” Simon said.


More here: CBS PHILLY

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


Last edited by Tara on Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:50 am
Posts: 523
Tara wrote:
smacker wrote:
Tara wrote:
smacker wrote:
Quote:
I watched this news item this morning too; Ted Simon was on telling the viewers that the Appeal Judge had also ruled AK's written testimony inadmissable. Any one else see that statement ?


Yes. It's as if these people know that the video of these appearances on the weekend programs doesn't seem to get posted on the sites, so they can say anything without really backing it up. Simon's soundbite was so quick that if you blinked, you missed him.


That report this morning was a complete pile of dog pooh. It was delivered as a great victory for AK yet no mention of the confirmation by Rome that there were 3 people involved, that Rudy may be called to testify and that his conviction evidence was now part of AK's trial. BTW (SA) what did the Romans ever do for us ?

Also, no mention of what was disallowed so all of a sudden this agreement to review the knife and bra evidence is being portrayed as a game changer for AK. Astonishingly shite reporting.



I agree Smacker. Here's a more in-depth report from Ted Simon - funny, he doesn't mention anything about any statements being inadmissabe:

TTTTTTTTTTTED says:

Quote:
PHILADELPHIA (CBS/AP) – Amanda Knox won an important victory in her appeals trial of her murder conviction in Italy on Saturday, when a court ruled that it will allow an independent review of crucial DNA evidence after defense claims that samples were inconclusive and possibly contaminated.

Philadelphia lawyer Theodore Simon is part of her legal team, “The appellate court agreed with our request to reopen her case and have the forensic evidence, which as tested — was unreliable — re-evaluated by independent experts.”

Simon was hired by Knox’s parents about a year ago. He says this latest development is the first step toward clearing her name:
“After those determinations are made, we’re going to make further determinations on whether or not other aspects of the case need to be reopened. And whether or not other witnesses who we have asked to be interviewed and testify as well will be heard.”

Simon says he’s been in close contact with her family and that they were just ecstatic to hear the news. He says this was a great first step in the appeals process, but the finish line is still a long way off.

“A very significant day for Amanda Knox and her efforts to have this wrongful conviction overturned.” Simon said.


More here: CBS PHILLY



"Simon was hired by Knox’s parents about a year ago. He says this latest development is the first step toward clearing her name:"
Oh, so that's his job: to clear her name.
He is in it for PR, not for lawyerly stuff.

you know, something about putting the cart before the horse pops to mind here.
And, by the way, it pretty much describes the entire FOA paradox as well.
All the PR stuff focuses on clearing her name, but that is an activity that should follow, logically, after contesting the matter in court and winning.
That's the first, important step.
You win there (hypothetically), then having surmounted the legal hurdles, you clear her name.
Not vice versa.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 623
In this country when the Supreme Court rules on a case, particularly when it is recent, the other courts (including themselves) generally follow the same ruling, It’s known as ‘Stare Decisis’, a Latin term meaning ‘let the ruling stand‘. In this country it‘s considered a very big deal. Hypothetically, if the Supreme Court in Rudy‘s case said that he was involved with others in the murder of Meredith, than I highly doubt that the appeals court would overrule that. Their reasoning could be that the lovebirds weren’t the others. But I don’t see how they could reason that Rudy acted alone. That has to be off the table. For the appeals court to allow that into the case is BIG.
If I was the defense here, I would really be grooming the child killer, and the Mob guy and hope the court allows for their input. Don’t forget about the DNA, but you just took another torpedo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 am
Posts: 307
Location: France
Highscores: 2
The Machine wrote:
The prosecutors are confident that Knox and Sollecito will remain in prison:

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

These comments might be worth posting:

    Meredith's mother Arline, when informed of the decision, seemed surprised and said: I really don't want to say anything. It's their appeal so I think it's best not to comment.

    The Kercher family's lawyer Francesco Maresca said: I don't think it is a victory for the defence – it's a victory for the truth. The court has decided that it wants to get to the truth of this case and if they have doubts then it's good that they are checked but we shall have to see what the experts say.

    Manuela Comodi, another prosecutor, said: As far as I am concerned this independent review will just confirm the excellent work carried out by the police scientific unit. The judge did not actually explain why he was allowing this review and although I do not agree with it I am sure it will underline the job originally done.

    The review was granted because the jury needed help to interpret the findings as they are difficult to understand. I don't see how it is a victory for the defence, as the methods were not criticised in the ruling. The review will confirm the sentence and the verdict will stand. (Mignini)


I think it's fair to say that we're going to hear endless spin about this appeal over the next few months. Perhaps best to follow Arline's advice?

.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Scope of Appeal
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:55 pm
Posts: 54
Thanks Lauowolf.

I'm trying to work it out from a defence lawyer's point of view... Bard, I fully take note of your "not a parlour game" response, and apologise if I'm possibly one of the people coming across that way. It's just that from following this case I've come to have the impression that the defence lawyers are going to try and think up possible defences whatever the situation, and in the absence of plausible ones, implausible ones will do.

I wouldn't be surprised if the defences split.

lauowolf wrote:
The sighting of him out with Amanda when he claimed to be home.


True, this one is another that doesn't fit in with the "post-cleanup only" scenario and very hard to explain away - and I do tend to believe Curatolo. (But this is another one being contested by the defence, so they might have a similar story in mind.)

lauowolf wrote:
And with the admission of materials from Rudy's trials, a witness putting him in the house at the time (I believe)


Really? I'm not all that familiar with the material from Rudy's trial - will have a look at the documents posted earlier. This isn't Kokomani or Gioffredi, is it? (I think both were considered in Amanda and Raffaele's trial too, and regarded as unreliable.)

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


Agreed... just wanted a second opinion. thanks again.


Last edited by Woodrina on Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
Posts: 1377
lauowolf wrote:
DLW wrote:
(ANSA)-PERUGIA, 19 DEC-family lawyers of Raffaele Sollecito are considering legal action against Annamaria Artegiani, lay judge in the first instance to the young pugliese, for his book in which reference is made to the story of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
According to the advocate Luca Maori, one of the defenders of the reminder, ' ' the book violates the secret chambers ''. '' For this-he added-next week we will assess the judicial initiatives be taken ''. (Google trans) ANSA



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

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



Oh I'd love to read what Annamaria Artegiani had to say. Is that really naughty?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm
Posts: 1010
Location: Seattle
Corriere dell'Umbria:

Google Translate (original Italian below):
These articles disappear after a day so posting in full

Quote:
The decision after an hour and a half of deliberation.

PERUGIA 19.12.2010
The first round, to put it in boxing terms, if they win the argument. The Assize Court of Appeal (President Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, alongside Massimo Zanetti) decided the partial reopening of the hearing and chose the two experts who are to perform assessments and genetic evaluations.

The two consultants office, who were invited by 15 January for the swearing in the classroom, are Professor Stefano Conti and Professor Carla Flack both of the University La Sapienza of Rome. The report findings shall be limited to 165b (the hook of the poor Meredith Kercher's bra), and finding 36 (the 31 cm long kitchen knife, seized at the house of Raffaele Sollecito).

On the latter, with a unique test, the biologist Patrizia Stefanoni Scientific Police in Rome have found the DNA of Meredith, who had never been to the house of Raffaele. On the hook, always Stefanoni, has found the DNA of Raffaele.

If you can not make a further study (and the knife is not possible because the Stefanoni has "scraped" all the available biological substance, so as to have said they decided: "Either go, or nothing") the two experts will evaluate the goodness or otherwise of the methodology used by the biologist and if the reading of the results was correct, reliable, in line with the parameters set by the international scientific community. As for the hook should verify whether there was the dreaded "contamination" and check if the reading of the results was done correctly.

"At" - explained the order in which the courts have rejected all requests for revocation that had been advanced by the defenses of the defendants - no need for other expertise. The court has reserved a hearing may be decided by the outcome of the investigation.

Which will be enriched dall'escussione of seven witnesses who Raffaele Sollecito's defense has indicated in operation, to put it this way, anti Curatolo. The latter is the homeless man who said in court that he saw the night of the murder between 21:30 and 23, Amanda and Raffaele in Grimana square (the two ex-boyfriends say that at that time was at his house in progress Garibaldi). It adds to remember the particular - is one of the texts "to burst delay" (tell that months later, that is, what they know) - because that evening there were many young people waiting for the bus in the square Grimana.

The seven witnesses are owners of clubs, director of SIAE, the operators of local bus shuttle to the periphery, as claiming that night clubs were closed. Here are their names: Rita Pucciarini, Giorgio Brughini, Mauro Mandarins, Arturo Ciasullo, Massimo Bevilacqua, Gaetano and Rosa Ini.

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

Will not enter into the process, at least at present, nor life imprisonment Mario Alessi (who says he had, denied by him, the "confession" of Rudy Hermann Guede which exonerated the two former sweethearts), or the prisoner for crimes of mafia Aviello Luciano (who claims to know that the murderers of his brother Anthony and Mez would be an Albanian named Florio).
Evidently the court considers their credibility is very low.

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

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


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

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

Elio Clero Bertoldi


Corriere

_________________
“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: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
DLW wrote:
In this country when the Supreme Court rules on a case, particularly when it is recent, the other courts (including themselves) generally follow the same ruling, It’s known as ‘Stare Decisis’, a Latin term meaning ‘let the ruling stand‘. In this country it‘s considered a very big deal. Hypothetically, if the Supreme Court in Rudy‘s case said that he was involved with others in the murder of Meredith, than I highly doubt that the appeals court would overrule that. Their reasoning could be that the lovebirds weren’t the others. But I don’t see how they could reason that Rudy acted alone. That has to be off the table. For the appeals court to allow that into the case is BIG.
If I was the defense here, I would really be grooming the child killer, and the Mob guy and hope the court allows for their input. Don’t forget about the DNA, but you just took another torpedo.


The whole legal system is different, DLW. I think the treatment of appeals is one of the biggest of those differences.For that reason I am not sure your conclusion is correct. In fact I do not think your characterisation is correct either. I may be misunderstanding you but you appear to be talking about precedent: that has little or nothing to do with the indivuidual case, if my grasp of this is correct. Appeals in this country do not generally deal with findings of fact, for that is reserved to the decision taking body. They deal with matters of procedure and process: and occasionally with cases where the finding of fact is perverse. I don't think the systems are comparable and I think the US system is more like that in the UK than the one in Italy


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:24 am
Posts: 2492
Location: Western Canada
Highscores: 8
stint7 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
I've had multiple posts moved in my little sojourn and two warnings so far. I am at a loss to differentiate my posts from those that remain from the groupies side.


Absolutely

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: XX. MAIN DISCUSSION, OCT 28 -
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:54 am
Posts: 1080
Highscores: 7
stilicho wrote:
stint7 wrote:
SomeAlibi wrote:
I've had multiple posts moved in my little sojourn and two warnings so far. I am at a loss to differentiate my posts from those that remain from the groupies side.


Absolutely

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 [ 6437 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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: English Translation     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Countdown To Final Appeal 


24,470,403 Views Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group