Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:17 am
It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:17 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30, 13 - JULY 31, 14

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 13 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 30  Next
Author Message

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
A week later, and 50,000 homes in Toronto are still without power, Jester. Hope they get helped soon.


Wow! I feel so bad to hear that. New Years is upon us...let us hope for better times for all humanity in 2014. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline MisterPink


Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:27 pm

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:01 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Jester wrote:
It's approximately 3 meters from the parking pad area to the window.

3 metres = 10 feet - estimates here from photos of 13 feet standing throwing through the window are accurate.

How many burglaries throw a 10lb rock from 13 feet away over a gap. Would have to climb down, up again. Whitewashed wall. No scrape marks made in getting up. Alerting, allowing egress. Secluded balcony / rear door where previous historical burglaries of the house have taken place, not that sheer wall climb from a gully ...

This photo shows how there is no way at all that multiple indentations from the ~ 9lb rock, the heaviest being on the inner right hand, could have happened if the rock had been thrown from behind the fence. It could have only have been thrown from behind the fence. That is the Knox defence line.

...

Photo from 'injustice' website shows damage from the rock is like the teeth of a jaw. They have it that the marks are from the rock, we have it that the marks are from the rock. Rock was swung from the inside from right to left against the open window/shutter resulting in it rebounding off slightly and rolling under the chair to the right looking out. Hurled 13 feet from outside, the rock would have landed many feet inside the room. An angle creating that trajectory cannot be made from the behind the fence. The break-in was clumsily, drunkenly staged.

...

I'll have a look at the overlay again. Maps are not 100% top view ... one more time ... looking at the roof, floorplan and distances.

Regarding the allusion to the fact that Guede climbed onto a balcony and broke into an office through the French Doors, this is quite different. As you point out, the rock is thrown from quite a distance into a well-exposed bedroom window. Guede's previous break-in was over the balcony and in through the French Doors, which was clearly a better option at the cottage as well.

Any thoughts on why an accident reconstructionist can't explain how the rock bounced from the parking lot, 13 meters to the building, through two shutters and a window, and landed under the desk on the left, looking in.

Tomorrow ... and I'll use the floor plan that was used in the last over lay unless there is a new floorplan. I may have the fascia wrong ... how much room is there between the edge of the roof and the wall ... original building, new addition? The original plan is a little bit skewed because of the building addition, the terrain and fascia estimation.

I think your new overlay is pretty close, although it's hard to be sure without a head-on view of Filomena's window from the parking lot. For example, the photo below gives a different perspective. Do you have the Google map without the overlay so we can match up features of the roof to the interior?
Attachment:
Filomena's Window From Fence.png


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Andrea Vogt has posted a new update and published new documents on her website:

Amanda Knox Appeal II / Meredith Kercher Murder
Update: Dec.30, 2013

[...] Others, such as this flurry of communications between U.S. embassy officials and the Perugia prosecutor’s office, as well between the Congolese embassy and the prosecutor’s office, are a part of the official court case file (and were not provided to me by the prosecutor, members of the prosecutor’s office or any embassy officials). I felt it was important to publish these docs because they are part of the record of the earliest days of this case, and reveal what measures the various diplomatic entities were taking to protect their respective citizens. They are published here, unredacted, as they appear in the official court file.[...]


THE FREELANCE DESK

Knox Lumumba Embassy Docs from early November, 2007:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Knox_Lumumba_embassydocs_clean.pdf
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Perugia house where Meredith Kercher was killed put up for sale
Italian estate agent says he hopes to exclude 'macabre curiosity seekers' from viewings at the house, which has so far received no offers
By Josephine McKenna
7:23PM GMT 28 Dec 2013

A ‘For Sale’ sign was placed outside the now infamous house on Via della Pergola on the outskirts of the Medieval hill town of Perugia just before Christmas and is being advertised on a local estate agents’ website.
...
Estate agent Vincenzo Russo, who is handing the sale, said he recognised there may be “some difficulty” in selling the property and hoped the sale did not attract interest from “macabre curiosity seekers”.


THE TELEGRAPH
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hey Mister Pink

You said you are a true crime hobbyist.

I do not like that idea!

I really hope you are not going to start writing the same kind of stuff that you have been doing on the PMF.org here too.

''To me'' the idea of following this murder case for own pleasure (as a crime hobbyist) is perverse because a murder is far too serious to be turned into anyone's hobby.

I read what you wrote about the murder weapon and even though several people have explained it to you a dozen times you still repeat the same stuff, like your idea about ''what would happen in America'' (your pathetically ill-informed idea: knife as evidence would be thrown out), the case is not in America.

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

Offline Ava


Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:08 pm

Posts: 943

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Ava,
I think the best thing for the area and for creating a better way with which to remember Meredith without that voyeuristic thing, like the ABC TV woman, who talked her way into the house, and to stop anything like that ever happening again, is to have the place demolished and redeveloped.

The room in which Meredith was murdered will always carry more than a shadow; the very idea of a person sitting in that room and being able think nice thoughts is pretty much out of the question, and who is NOT going to know someone dies there?
I imagine the reality of the horror that took place in there is simply too much even for a stranger, one who doesn't care. If friends were to come around, into that same room, I wonder how they would feel if told a murder took place right there, yes, right there where you are sitting.
It's just terrible to think of that.
It is in fact a wonderful location and it should not be ruined by what these three individuals did.
I reckon Meredith would be angry to think that those three caused, bedsises her own death, all of that bad to a place she probably loved and loved being at until she startd to get to know what Knox was like.

The place can still be very nice but then with the buildings changed and redeveloped.
The memory of Meredith could be retained but in a good way, since the buildings could be placed so nobody would hardly be able to work out where the murder spot was.
People could celebrate what the location signifies.
It signifies what it was with Meredith there loving it, the others, Laura and Filomena loving living there. It's a beautiful spot in nature on the edge of town.
If something positive is created to make a thing work there, either residential or I think, better, something that serves people in one way or another, then it will be a place that people will continue to love as it should be.
Three murderers should not be allowed to get away with causing so much destruction.

Thinking of how Meredith would possibly think if she could only see it, then I can really imagine her loving the place continuing to be the beautiful place she knew and loved, something new defeating the bad that those three murderers have come to represent.

The area being turned into something beneficial to people would be something to save that spot.
My guess, as to a positive designation, would be something to do with the wellness of women, a centre for student advice and assistance, etc., with the profuse and fragrant scent of flowers greeting anyone who walks up to the gated entrance.

As it is, it is terrible, awful for the owner to have to come to the conclusion, I do not want anything more to do with the place. Yes, her place, the place she probably had for ages, the beautiful spot that I as one of many I think, would have loved to have got to live at too.

Meredith with her window looking out across into the distance, a wonderful view with winding paths and cobbled stone walls some tumbling, the patchy fields, every hue in the beautiful sunsets. The place should not lose its value in financial terms or in terms of beauty.

The elderly lady ought to be able to return later, invited to visit and be welcomed, and be able to talk about it all with others who care, and give it all a place, because that would be closure with love instead of the hate that the three have managed to create.

The owner must be really upset about it all, it has not made her life any easier, and what has she received for compensation, she lost so much, her health probably affected, a lot of headaches for her.
Those 3 made many people suffer.


Hi zorba, that sounds like a good idea to me too.
Chelsea Hoffman has a way with headlines, doesn't she...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:39 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ava wrote:
zorba wrote:
Ava,
I think the best thing for the area and for creating a better way with which to remember Meredith without that voyeuristic thing, like the ABC TV woman, who talked her way into the house, and to stop anything like that ever happening again, is to have the place demolished and redeveloped.

The room in which Meredith was murdered will always carry more than a shadow; the very idea of a person sitting in that room and being able think nice thoughts is pretty much out of the question, and who is NOT going to know someone dies there?

I imagine the reality of the horror that took place in there is simply too much even for a stranger, one who doesn't care.

If friends were to come around, into that same room, I wonder how they would feel if told a murder took place right there, yes, right there where you are sitting.
It's just terrible to think of that.

It is in fact a wonderful location and it should not be ruined by what these three individuals did.
I reckon Meredith would be angry to think that those three caused, bedsises her own death, all of that bad to a place she probably loved and loved being at until she startd to get to know what Knox was like.

The place can still be very nice but then with the buildings changed and redeveloped.
The memory of Meredith could be retained but in a good way, since the buildings could be placed so nobody would hardly be able to work out where the murder spot was.
People could celebrate what the location signifies.

It signifies what it was with Meredith there loving it, the others, Laura and Filomena loving living there. It's a beautiful spot in nature on the edge of town.
If something positive is created to make a thing work there, either residential or I think, better, something that serves people in one way or another, then it will be a place that people will continue to love as it should be.
Three murderers should not be allowed to get away with causing so much destruction.

Thinking of how Meredith would possibly think if she could only see it, then I can really imagine her loving the place continuing to be the beautiful place she knew and loved, something new defeating the bad that those three murderers have come to represent.

The area being turned into something beneficial to people would be something to save that spot.
My guess, as to a positive designation, would be something to do with the wellness of women, a centre for student advice and assistance, etc., with the profuse and fragrant scent of flowers greeting anyone who walks up to the gated entrance.

As it is, it is terrible, awful for the owner to have to come to the conclusion, I do not want anything more to do with the place. Yes, her place, the place she probably had for ages, the beautiful spot that I as one of many I think, would have loved to have got to live at too.

Meredith with her window looking out across into the distance, a wonderful view with winding paths and cobbled stone walls some tumbling, the patchy fields, every hue in the beautiful sunsets. The place should not lose its value in financial terms or in terms of beauty.

The elderly lady ought to be able to return later, invited to visit and be welcomed, and be able to talk about it all with others who care, and give it all a place, because that would be closure with love instead of the hate that the three have managed to create.

The owner must be really upset about it all, it has not made her life any easier, and what has she received for compensation, she lost so much, her health probably affected, a lot of headaches for her.
Those 3 made many people suffer.


Hi zorba, that sounds like a good idea to me too.
Chelsea Hoffman has a way with headlines, doesn't she...



Hi Ava, thanks, glad you think so, if I had the pennies I'd do it, sadly, I'm not Lord Rothschild, or maybe that isn't so sad, as I know nothing about Roth, except for what my old gran always used to say, in fact, I just quoted her, she'd say it when I asked for money.

Chelsea, yes, she does.
I'm not a one for saying look, god bless all of you on all sites justice for Meredith, because I never liked being dammed in that way, as I do not agree with everything everyone does, I won't start naming who gets on my wick, but it almost blows me out, still, Chelsea isn't bad, she gets a few facts wrong but, on the other hand, slightly contrary to my position stated above, I sort of quote my old mate Jesus. "And John answered and said, 'Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.' And Jesus said to him, 'Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us'." (Luke 9:49,50, NKJ

Now some may say, you cannot apply this to Ye Olde Trolles and I'd have to agree, for when one dastardly plan seems impossible, and gaining access to the castle fails, they get back to their Ye Olde Drawinge Boarde and come up with another fantastic........ ally stupid idea.


Plan 1 in Ye Olde Days:
Hello, I'm knew here, I know hardly nothing, my name is Sally, Bob or A Delightful Cup of English Tea and I'm from London, what what, however though I know nothing and I agree entirely that they must be guilty... wha is .....? and I think...... immediately writing a bunch of crap bringing up all of the intricacies that only someone who has been following it for years could know.

Plan 2, the latest ploy
(noun 1. a cunning plan or action designed to turn a situation to one's own advantage.),
as far as I can see, is saying I do know ''something'' but not a ''lot'', and what I ''know'' is from a few years back.
Then said new (envoy from hell) Envoy Trolle immediately launches into a spiel showing that said new Envoy Trolle also must have been following it all for ages.

Conclusion boppers;
apply the Jesus thang to all those except for Ye Olde Trolles who announce they are virgins to the case then try to get everyone to say ridiculously mean things about Knox, obviously the main line of all of these envoys have/use, is the bit that goes: Yeah sure they must all be guilty, and this is used to gain initial entrance to the disco dance, then start fights all over the place after 2 lemonades and a shandy, just as all good delinquents do.
Yes I agree she is guilty but... I think you are all too soft on her, man what I'd do if I saw her (<<<<---lines demanding a certain response such as: Yeah so would I, what I'd do is.....

Hoping with this crap to get people to say, yeah yeah, she deserves to be spat upon.

The aim would be to have entire boards saying: Spit on her if you see her.
The successful envoy could then go home to his/her hole and report on their Ye Olde Trolle Bloge(s) that the guilters are really a bunch of haters: just look at what they are saying.

The amount of times they are willing to repeat: "Yeah I agree, I think both are guilty," does not matter to them, because the idea of achieving something outweighs the weight they supposedly would add (statistically) as yet another person saying they think Knox & Sollecito are guilty, since they decided, these types, that it does not matter if they pretend to think they are guilty if they get through to the enemy lines, destroy the weapons and send morse code back saying: I has did my job, can I now get an invite to the next barbeque, dammit (very exclusive they are).


Charlie Manson loosened his shirt collar and said: Is it hot in here or am I crazy

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Latest comment from Knox in response to a reader's suggestion to moderate her blog and rein in her vicious supporters ("Karen" doesn't sound like "Karen Pruett", thank God):

Attachment:
Reader's Comment on Knox's Blog.JPG


Attachment:
Amanda Knox Blog Comment 30 Dec 2013.JPG


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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Guermantes
I wish you would not post links to Knox's shite

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

MisterPink wrote:
Jester wrote:
This is the template of the property. This shows the upstairs construction (red) which was placed on an existing foundation.
Hi. Did you make this overlay? It's much sharper than others I've seen however I think there is an error because the covered entrance should be flush with the planters that are between the driveway and the cottage. You have the covered entrance extending past the planters. This stretch/shift gives the appearance that the rock could easily be thrown from the driveway through Filomena's window, when in fact the angle is very difficult. Thanks.


Hi, Mister Pink, and welcome to the forum. We did discuss this subject, based on the photos from Perugia. It's difficult, but not impossible to throw the rock from the parapet, but the angles are all wrong. A point made by Kercher family lawyer Maresca in his closing arguments December 16th, the rock should have proceeded down the room, and not ended up under the desk on the other side.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Happy New Year to all the brilliant people on PMF.net. Justice is coming very soon.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks, The Machine, and a Happy New Year to everyone at .NET, .ORG, TJMK, and the TMOMK Wiki!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MisterPink


Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:27 pm

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
MisterPink wrote:
Jester wrote:
This is the template of the property. This shows the upstairs construction (red) which was placed on an existing foundation.
Hi. Did you make this overlay? It's much sharper than others I've seen however I think there is an error because the covered entrance should be flush with the planters that are between the driveway and the cottage. You have the covered entrance extending past the planters. This stretch/shift gives the appearance that the rock could easily be thrown from the driveway through Filomena's window, when in fact the angle is very difficult. Thanks.


Hi, Mister Pink, and welcome to the forum. We did discuss this subject, based on the photos from Perugia. It's difficult, but not impossible to throw the rock from the parapet, but the angles are all wrong. A point made by Kercher family lawyer Maresca in his closing arguments December 16th, the rock should have proceeded down the room, and not ended up under the desk on the other side.


I will look at the photos again but I don't have that nice satellite map.

Pasquali's video showed that the rock has a tendency to blast right through the window and into the middle of the room. One would have to assume that the real inner shutter is MUCH harder to open. Then one would have to assume that rock hit the inner shutter in JUST the right position and at JUST the right angle that it could be deflected toward the Isley bag without hitting the window frame (red star in the window below). The measurements we have aren't accurate enough to know if this is even possible but at a minimum it would be a VERY VERY tight fit.

Image

Happy New Year everybody at .NET !!!

picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Fixed image width
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

MisterPink wrote:
Jester wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
Jester wrote:
It's approximately 3 meters from the parking pad area to the window.

3 metres = 10 feet - estimates here from photos of 13 feet standing throwing through the window are accurate.

How many burglaries throw a 10lb rock from 13 feet away over a gap. Would have to climb down, up again. Whitewashed wall. No scrape marks made in getting up. Alerting, allowing egress. Secluded balcony / rear door where previous historical burglaries of the house have taken place, not that sheer wall climb from a gully ...

This photo shows how there is no way at all that multiple indentations from the ~ 9lb rock, the heaviest being on the inner right hand, could have happened if the rock had been thrown from behind the fence. It could have only have been thrown from behind the fence. That is the Knox defence line.

...

Photo from 'injustice' website shows damage from the rock is like the teeth of a jaw. They have it that the marks are from the rock, we have it that the marks are from the rock. Rock was swung from the inside from right to left against the open window/shutter resulting in it rebounding off slightly and rolling under the chair to the right looking out. Hurled 13 feet from outside, the rock would have landed many feet inside the room. An angle creating that trajectory cannot be made from the behind the fence. The break-in was clumsily, drunkenly staged.

...

I'll have a look at the overlay again. Maps are not 100% top view ... one more time ... looking at the roof, floorplan and distances.

Regarding the allusion to the fact that Guede climbed onto a balcony and broke into an office through the French Doors, this is quite different. As you point out, the rock is thrown from quite a distance into a well-exposed bedroom window. Guede's previous break-in was over the balcony and in through the French Doors, which was clearly a better option at the cottage as well.

Any thoughts on why an accident reconstructionist can't explain how the rock bounced from the parking lot, 13 meters to the building, through two shutters and a window, and landed under the desk on the left, looking in.

Tomorrow ... and I'll use the floor plan that was used in the last over lay unless there is a new floorplan. I may have the fascia wrong ... how much room is there between the edge of the roof and the wall ... original building, new addition? The original plan is a little bit skewed because of the building addition, the terrain and fascia estimation.

I think your new overlay is pretty close, although it's hard to be sure without a head-on view of Filomena's window from the parking lot. For example, the photo below gives a different perspective. Do you have the Google map without the overlay so we can match up features of the roof to the interior?
Attachment:
Filomena's Window From Fence.png


This is the aerial

Image

Original Floorplan

Image

Simplified Floor Plan (built with Revit)

Image
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I have the floor plan in Revit with dimensions somewhere as well, if that helps.

Is there a photo looking along the front of the house, a view that is perpendicular to the view posted earlier? I'm curious about the roof line along the front, especially the view from corner, where the large bathroom shares a wall with Laura's bedroom, looking along the front of the cottage, towards the parapet.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I have the floor plan in Revit with dimensions somewhere as well, if that helps.


Thanks Jester...I think I finally got it. Smile
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:37 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Just came across this ... it looks like the first one I did, before I straightened out the walls.

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

This is the above plan on the aerial ... does it look right?

Image

It has been suggested that Knox is such a nice girl. For example, even though she arrived first, she took the smaller room. That is half the truth. The other half is that she choose the room with the better view - the valley. It had nothing to do with Knox being a nice girl, yet it is one of the odd remarks perpetrated by the Knox trolls.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Finally! And thank you all, this is the fun we have, checking everything twice :)

I'd been saying this for some time now about the angles, and wondering, damn, do I have to learn a new skill set, just to do the damn drawing myself? Thanks again, and I'll be back tomorrow with a few corrections, LOL.

Happy New Year!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I stretched the drawing a bit to fit the aerial. Once we agree on the fit, I can use the door width of 3 feet as a gauge and redraw/dimension the walls. Because I am curious about the 13 foot trajectory of a 9 pound rock, I plan to build the floor plan and 3D model again using whatever correct template of the floor plan is agreed on with the aerial. It's takes a couple of hours max, and I need the practice ... unless someone has the exact dimensions. Maybe now that the house is on the market, the realtor would like some floorplans. Maybe we can make a trade with the realtor/owner - measurements and sketch in exchange for all building floor plans on aerial. The ten bedroom house could easily be converted to offices upstairs and studios downstairs, and 3D virtual interiors would help sell the place. Knox paid €300 or €400 per month? Total income is €5000 per month, so maybe the outbuildings also bring rent.

http://www.tecnocasa.it/schedaimmobile/ ... ta&lang=it

The thing is, about the rock, I don't believe that someone scaled the wall to open the exterior shutters, climbed down to the ground and back up to the parapet, searched for a large rock, threw that rock 13 feet through a window where it ricocheted off the interior shutter and scooched under the desk. Gravity would have kicked in at some point when the rock hit the interior shutter after crashing through a window - depending on the force with which it was thrown. Could Guede throw a 9 pound rock like a basketball? This wasn't a child's rubber ball that ricochets around a room. This was a nine pound rock. I don't know much about physics, but it seems to me that if a 9 pound rock was thrown 13 feet through a glass window (this slows it down a bit) and then hit a "friction" closed shutter (this slows down the 9 pound rock a lot more as both shutters are knocked open), and then gravity was suspended while the rock curved around the other shutter and under the desk?

The other problem is that it is argued that given the trajectory of the rock from the parapet to the window, the glass should be strewn throughout the bedroom in the direction of the door, but if the rock ricocheted off the interior shutter and rolled under the desk, the glass could have done nothing more than fall straight to the floor (that gravity thing). The problem with this is that the glass is actually neatly laid on the outside of the window, on the ledge, but not a shard of glass on the ground below.

This suggests that the exterior shutters were closed when the window was broken. Not only do we have the appearance of closed exterior shutters, but we have bouncing nine pound rocks that change direction, rather than fall, as they ricochet off wood after being thrown 13 feet. This should be an easy problem for an accident reconstructionist. Why did the accident reconstructionist skip the physics question and go directly to assuming that "the perp" was in the cottage? It appears that the traffic accident reconstructionist fancied himself as a blood spatter expert and neglected to answer the question for which he is purported to be an expert.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Where on .org most are spitting Mr Pink's idiotic ideas out, he arrives here, in his hobbyist thing --when collecting picture cards is a hobby and someone's murder should not be (= have no feelings/sympathy at all for the actual victim, since Meredith then becomes model airplane collection) -- as did Slade, after being spat out and you, Ergon, welcome him in, which is to me as much as encouraging him to start all of that same nonsense here. For fuck's sake, great.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

After Tom on .org, and many others there too, laying out facts and Tom's explanations, etc., of course being based on his legal expertise as an American lawyer and Popper and the other Italians like Yummi having explained it all too, also according to the laws in Italy, Mr Pink comes up with ball crunching crap such as the following:
_________________

Mr Pink wrote:
I think an American judge would probably throw it out, not because it isn't a perfect match to the victim it is but because Stefanoni used a non-standard protocol that she didn't explain well enough to allow the defence or the court to assess its reliability.
_________________

Tiring nonsense, for someone to come up with that at this late time, after all that is known and has been ascertained, tells me that someone is referring to FOA talking points (these ideas being based clearly on the FOA ignorance, call it agenda), and has not thought things through because unlike such a person as Tom, he has no understanding of American law let alone any idea of Italian law.
So where everyone has now just about decided they've had enough of him and his ideas (as in started to make it clear they cannot take Mr Pink seriously), he starts it up here, or transfers his hobby from there to here.

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba, we welcome all new members, and as to Mr. Pink's views on trace 36-b on the knife, he's welcome to that too. Though I disagree with it, I'll still discuss that, with courtesy.

And regarding what you said to guermantes about Knox's post, she didn't "link" to the blog, she quoted comments made there. As an illustration of Knox's frame of mind and self-delusion even at this late stage, that was very interesting.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
This is the above plan on the aerial ... does it look right?

Image

It has been suggested that Knox is such a nice girl. For example, even though she arrived first, she took the smaller room. That is half the truth. The other half is that she choose the room with the better view - the valley. It had nothing to do with Knox being a nice girl, yet it is one of the odd remarks perpetrated by the Knox trolls.


Does it look right? No

I can't post or link to it here but if you go to .org and the gallery, crime scene photos, Filomena's break in room, then you will find a photo taken from the inside of her room looking out through the window. The photo is taken from slightly to the right of the window but you can clearly see the corner of the parking lot fence. That's not a trick of perspective and would be impossible given where you have placed the window above.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

And, concerning my views on the knife, and by extension the so called independent experts, and, speculation how the Florence court might rule, this was discussed already, on dot net around June:

Quote:
Barbie Nadeau wrote: The Daily Beast
Knox and Sollecito won their freedom after an independent review of key pieces of evidence, but, according to Italy’s highest court, those weren’t the only things that linked them to the crime. The high court was particularly hard on the team of independent forensic examiners who they say erred during the appellate process. The high court called into question not only their methods in attempting to prove that evidence was contaminated, but their seeming alliance with the defense teams against the state’s prosecutor and Kercher’s own lawyers. Rumors around Perugia, where the appeal took place, have long suggested that the team was working for the defense, possibly even for monetary gain. Those allegations may soon become part of a separate judicial inquiry to be filed by the family of Meredith Kercher, bolstered by the high court ruling. “The theory ‘anything is possible’ in genetic testing is not valid,” wrote the judges. “Contamination must be proven with certainty not supposition.”


I don't have any fears regarding Florence, though, I do expect surprises.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I stretched the drawing a bit to fit the aerial. Once we agree on the fit, I can use the door width of 3 feet as a gauge and redraw/dimension the walls. Because I am curious about the 13 foot trajectory of a 9 pound rock, I plan to build the floor plan and 3D model again using whatever correct template of the floor plan is agreed on with the aerial. It's takes a couple of hours max, and I need the practice ... unless someone has the exact dimensions. Maybe now that the house is on the market, the realtor would like some floorplans. Maybe we can make a trade with the realtor/owner - measurements and sketch in exchange for all building floor plans on aerial. The ten bedroom house could easily be converted to offices upstairs and studios downstairs, and 3D virtual interiors would help sell the place. Knox paid €300 or €400 per month? Total income is €5000 per month, so maybe the outbuildings also bring rent.

http://www.tecnocasa.it/schedaimmobile/ ... ta&lang=it

The thing is, about the rock, I don't believe that someone scaled the wall to open the exterior shutters, climbed down to the ground and back up to the parapet, searched for a large rock, threw that rock 13 feet through a window where it ricocheted off the interior shutter and scooched under the desk. Gravity would have kicked in at some point when the rock hit the interior shutter after crashing through a window - depending on the force with which it was thrown. Could Guede throw a 9 pound rock like a basketball? This wasn't a child's rubber ball that ricochets around a room. This was a nine pound rock. I don't know much about physics, but it seems to me that if a 9 pound rock was thrown 13 feet through a glass window (this slows it down a bit) and then hit a "friction" closed shutter (this slows down the 9 pound rock a lot more as both shutters are knocked open), and then gravity was suspended while the rock curved around the other shutter and under the desk?

The other problem is that it is argued that given the trajectory of the rock from the parapet to the window, the glass should be strewn throughout the bedroom in the direction of the door, but if the rock ricocheted off the interior shutter and rolled under the desk, the glass could have done nothing more than fall straight to the floor (that gravity thing). The problem with this is that the glass is actually neatly laid on the outside of the window, on the ledge, but not a shard of glass on the ground below.

This suggests that the exterior shutters were closed when the window was broken. Not only do we have the appearance of closed exterior shutters, but we have bouncing nine pound rocks that change direction, rather than fall, as they ricochet off wood after being thrown 13 feet. This should be an easy problem for an accident reconstructionist. Why did the accident reconstructionist skip the physics question and go directly to assuming that "the perp" was in the cottage? It appears that the traffic accident reconstructionist fancied himself as a blood spatter expert and neglected to answer the question for which he is purported to be an expert.


I too, have pondered the rock problem...I pretty much agree with what you assert. One thing bothers me greatly, and it is a photo I saw on IIP some time ago. Please don't ask for links...can't. In the photo there was glass on the floor all the way up to the bed in Filomenas room. At the time, I was impacted...but now I wonder if that image was another example of photo altering we have seen from them in the past....
Thanks for your perspectives. pp-(


Last edited by tamale on Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Latest comment from Knox in response to a reader's suggestion to moderate her blog and rein in her vicious supporters ("Karen" doesn't sound like "Karen Pruett", thank God):

Attachment:
Reader's Comment on Knox's Blog.JPG


Attachment:
Amanda Knox Blog Comment 30 Dec 2013.JPG


Why is Mander upset about the valid feelings of Merediths family? She should worry about that giant gash in her spirit. Maybe she could worry a little about paying Patrick the court ordered fines...Maybe she could tell the Kercher family what her role was in the murder of Meredith, so her dear friends parents can heal properly.
Because of lying murders like Amanda Knox and RS, we must exist to counter the mega lies and expose the fraud laden Save Amanda Campaign.
Amanda Knox compounds lies with fantasy...and murders women who out class her. RIP Meredith. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The Groupies like to think that Filomena's room was exactly as seen in the crime scene photos without taking into account that Filomena and a postal police officer had been in it before Meredith was discovered murdered and before the photographers arrived. Filomena had started checking what, if any, of her things were missing. Apart from her computer we know not what else she may have moved around. She certainly recalled that she picked up the computer, which I think was still in it's case. Did she move it to the bed to open it and check inside? I don't know. She said that there was glass on top of it. Maybe glass fell onto the floor, onto the blue rug, as she moved her computer.

Massei made the point that one cannot go by the photos alone. The testimony of the witnesses who were the first there is even more crucial. Sadly not all of Filomena's testimony was as detailed and as clear as I would like it to have been, even allowing for the vagaries of a google translation. But we have to allow for the fact that she was frightened and upset.

One thing I have never really understood is her referring to being able to see the computer "from underneath". Is that another way of saying that it was upside down on the floor? Is there an upside down? Also I have never been entirely clear where it was when she found it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

tamale wrote:
Jester wrote:
I stretched the drawing a bit to fit the aerial. Once we agree on the fit, I can use the door width of 3 feet as a gauge and redraw/dimension the walls. Because I am curious about the 13 foot trajectory of a 9 pound rock, I plan to build the floor plan and 3D model again using whatever correct template of the floor plan is agreed on with the aerial. It's takes a couple of hours max, and I need the practice ... unless someone has the exact dimensions. Maybe now that the house is on the market, the realtor would like some floorplans. Maybe we can make a trade with the realtor/owner - measurements and sketch in exchange for all building floor plans on aerial. The ten bedroom house could easily be converted to offices upstairs and studios downstairs, and 3D virtual interiors would help sell the place. Knox paid €300 or €400 per month? Total income is €5000 per month, so maybe the outbuildings also bring rent.

http://www.tecnocasa.it/schedaimmobile/ ... ta&lang=it

The thing is, about the rock, I don't believe that someone scaled the wall to open the exterior shutters, climbed down to the ground and back up to the parapet, searched for a large rock, threw that rock 13 feet through a window where it ricocheted off the interior shutter and scooched under the desk. Gravity would have kicked in at some point when the rock hit the interior shutter after crashing through a window - depending on the force with which it was thrown. Could Guede throw a 9 pound rock like a basketball? This wasn't a child's rubber ball that ricochets around a room. This was a nine pound rock. I don't know much about physics, but it seems to me that if a 9 pound rock was thrown 13 feet through a glass window (this slows it down a bit) and then hit a "friction" closed shutter (this slows down the 9 pound rock a lot more as both shutters are knocked open), and then gravity was suspended while the rock curved around the other shutter and under the desk?

The other problem is that it is argued that given the trajectory of the rock from the parapet to the window, the glass should be strewn throughout the bedroom in the direction of the door, but if the rock ricocheted off the interior shutter and rolled under the desk, the glass could have done nothing more than fall straight to the floor (that gravity thing). The problem with this is that the glass is actually neatly laid on the outside of the window, on the ledge, but not a shard of glass on the ground below.

This suggests that the exterior shutters were closed when the window was broken. Not only do we have the appearance of closed exterior shutters, but we have bouncing nine pound rocks that change direction, rather than fall, as they ricochet off wood after being thrown 13 feet. This should be an easy problem for an accident reconstructionist. Why did the accident reconstructionist skip the physics question and go directly to assuming that "the perp" was in the cottage? It appears that the traffic accident reconstructionist fancied himself as a blood spatter expert and neglected to answer the question for which he is purported to be an expert.


I too, have pondered the rock problem...I pretty much agree with what you assert. One thing bothers me greatly, and it is a photo I saw on IIP some time ago. Please don't ask for links...can't. In the photo there was glasss on the floor all the way up to the bed in Filomenas room. At the time, I was impacted...but now I wonder if they that image was another example of photo altering we have seen from them in the past....
Thanks for your perspectives. pp-(


I too have seen a photo where a glass trail from the window, along the bed, and towards the door is presented as evidence that the rock was thrown through the window, but if the rock ricocheted off the closed shutter, then it went through the far right edge of the window. Glass should have hit the shutter first, and fallen to the floor. I can't see a scenario where the glass would fly towards the door and then the rock would hit the closed shutter.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jape wrote:
Jester wrote:
This is the above plan on the aerial ... does it look right?

Image

It has been suggested that Knox is such a nice girl. For example, even though she arrived first, she took the smaller room. That is half the truth. The other half is that she choose the room with the better view - the valley. It had nothing to do with Knox being a nice girl, yet it is one of the odd remarks perpetrated by the Knox trolls.


Does it look right? No

I can't post or link to it here but if you go to .org and the gallery, crime scene photos, Filomena's break in room, then you will find a photo taken from the inside of her room looking out through the window. The photo is taken from slightly to the right of the window but you can clearly see the corner of the parking lot fence. That's not a trick of perspective and would be impossible given where you have placed the window above.


In terms of dimensions, the wardrobe is against the wall, and that appears to be about 24" deep. The window is roughly a foot away from the wardrobe, so that would place the window approximately 3' from the wall on the inside, and about 4' from the wall on the outside. It might be 4' on the inside and 5 on the outside.


Last edited by Jester on Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
tamale wrote:
Jester wrote:
I stretched the drawing a bit to fit the aerial. Once we agree on the fit, I can use the door width of 3 feet as a gauge and redraw/dimension the walls. Because I am curious about the 13 foot trajectory of a 9 pound rock, I plan to build the floor plan and 3D model again using whatever correct template of the floor plan is agreed on with the aerial. It's takes a couple of hours max, and I need the practice ... unless someone has the exact dimensions. Maybe now that the house is on the market, the realtor would like some floorplans. Maybe we can make a trade with the realtor/owner - measurements and sketch in exchange for all building floor plans on aerial. The ten bedroom house could easily be converted to offices upstairs and studios downstairs, and 3D virtual interiors would help sell the place. Knox paid €300 or €400 per month? Total income is €5000 per month, so maybe the outbuildings also bring rent.

http://www.tecnocasa.it/schedaimmobile/ ... ta&lang=it

The thing is, about the rock, I don't believe that someone scaled the wall to open the exterior shutters, climbed down to the ground and back up to the parapet, searched for a large rock, threw that rock 13 feet through a window where it ricocheted off the interior shutter and scooched under the desk. Gravity would have kicked in at some point when the rock hit the interior shutter after crashing through a window - depending on the force with which it was thrown. Could Guede throw a 9 pound rock like a basketball? This wasn't a child's rubber ball that ricochets around a room. This was a nine pound rock. I don't know much about physics, but it seems to me that if a 9 pound rock was thrown 13 feet through a glass window (this slows it down a bit) and then hit a "friction" closed shutter (this slows down the 9 pound rock a lot more as both shutters are knocked open), and then gravity was suspended while the rock curved around the other shutter and under the desk?

The other problem is that it is argued that given the trajectory of the rock from the parapet to the window, the glass should be strewn throughout the bedroom in the direction of the door, but if the rock ricocheted off the interior shutter and rolled under the desk, the glass could have done nothing more than fall straight to the floor (that gravity thing). The problem with this is that the glass is actually neatly laid on the outside of the window, on the ledge, but not a shard of glass on the ground below.

This suggests that the exterior shutters were closed when the window was broken. Not only do we have the appearance of closed exterior shutters, but we have bouncing nine pound rocks that change direction, rather than fall, as they ricochet off wood after being thrown 13 feet. This should be an easy problem for an accident reconstructionist. Why did the accident reconstructionist skip the physics question and go directly to assuming that "the perp" was in the cottage? It appears that the traffic accident reconstructionist fancied himself as a blood spatter expert and neglected to answer the question for which he is purported to be an expert.


I too, have pondered the rock problem...I pretty much agree with what you assert. One thing bothers me greatly, and it is a photo I saw on IIP some time ago. Please don't ask for links...can't. In the photo there was glasss on the floor all the way up to the bed in Filomenas room. At the time, I was impacted...but now I wonder if they that image was another example of photo altering we have seen from them in the past....
Thanks for your perspectives. pp-(


I too have seen a photo where a glass trail from the window, along the bed, and towards the door is presented as evidence that the rock was thrown through the window, but if the rock ricocheted off the closed shutter, then it went through the far right edge of the window. Glass should have hit the shutter first, and fallen to the floor. I can't see a scenario where the glass would fly towards the door and then the rock would hit the closed shutter.

Would not the rock follow and propell the glass? Yeah,,,I thinkt that glass on the floor by bed was photo shopped.
Top Profile 

Offline MisterPink


Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:27 pm

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Zorba, The knife is like a bad boyfriend. At first it seemed great but over time significant problems have emerged, and yet people are making excuses for it because it's been a central part of the case for so long. I include myself in this because, although I was always skeptical, until the Carabinieri report I remained open to the possibility that it was one of the murder weapons.

But now the Supreme Court has given Nencini a great opportunity to put the knife in its proper place as an ambiguous piece of evidence. The Kerchers have always said that they just want the truth and this is the truth in my carefully considered opinion. Here's why:

* I don't think the killers would try to wash the knife and put it back in the drawer. They would just throw it away. Too risky that it could turn out to be a perfect match for the wounds.

* Knox and Sollecito's suspicious statements about the knife seem to concede that Meredith's blood could be on the knife, but they do not suggest the knife was ever taken to the cottage. This supports the idea that Meredith's blood got on the knife because there was a clean-up at Sollecito's flat.

* There is no evidence that Knox carried the knife in her purse.

* There is no reason to believe that Sollecito, a knife afficianado, would let his new girlfriend carry around a cheap kitchen knife. He would give her one from his collection. Indeed Knox's DNA is on the handle of one of the other knives in his collection.

* The knife is too big for one (arguably both) of the wounds. A swtiching of knives or attackers in the middle of the attack is hard to envision. More likely the two wounds were made by the same person (Knox), with the same knife, in quick succession.

* This knife has dents in the blade suggesting that it had not been sharpened for a long time. Those kinds of injuries couldn't be inflicted with a dull knife, unless the attacker was far stronger than Meredith.

* The knife does not match the imprint on the sheet, or at least it does not match the imprint better than a thousand other knives and household items.

* The amount of Meredith DNA on the blade is LCN. Touch transfers, like from a bloody object used in the clean-up, are much more likely with LCN DNA than regular DNA.

* It is very hard to sterilize an object without soaking it in bleach or using an autoclave. This is particularly true with 36-I which is in the crevice where the blade meets the handle. When the Carabinieri found none of Meredith's DNA at 36-I, even at extremely low concentrations, it made the idea that blade was once covered in blood much less tenable.

zorba wrote:
After Tom on .org, and many others there too, laying out facts and Tom's explanations, etc., of course being based on his legal expertise as an American lawyer and Popper and the other Italians like Yummi having explained it all too, also according to the laws in Italy, Mr Pink comes up with ball crunching crap such as the following:
_________________

Mr Pink wrote:
I think an American judge would probably throw it out, not because it isn't a perfect match to the victim it is but because Stefanoni used a non-standard protocol that she didn't explain well enough to allow the defence or the court to assess its reliability.
_________________

The question of whether an American judge would admit the knife is separate from whether the knife was a murder weapon. The point I intended to make by invoking American law was that it's better in the sense that controversial scientific evidence is thoroughly evaluated in pretrial hearings, and therefore situations in which a piece of evidence is gradually discredited over a course of years, which makes it awkward for the prosecution to develop their theory of the crime, is less likely to occur.

Finally, everyone pays tribute to Meredith in their own way. I will not be subject to a purity test from someone who writes (and yes I read them) some of the most out-there stuff this side of Catnip.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

MisterPink wrote:
Zorba, The knife is like a bad boyfriend. At first it seemed great but over time significant problems have emerged, and yet people are making excuses for it because it's been a central part of the case for so long. I include myself in this because, although I was always skeptical, until the Carabinieri report I remained open to the possibility that it was one of the murder weapons.

But now the Supreme Court has given Nencini a great opportunity to put the knife in its proper place as an ambiguous piece of evidence. The Kerchers have always said that they just want the truth and this is the truth in my carefully considered opinion. Here's why:

* I don't think the killers would try to wash the knife and put it back in the drawer. They would just throw it away. Too risky that it could turn out to be a perfect match for the wounds.

* Knox and Sollecito's suspicious statements about the knife seem to concede that Meredith's blood could be on the knife, but they do not suggest the knife was ever taken to the cottage. This supports the idea that Meredith's blood got on the knife because there was a clean-up at Sollecito's flat.

* There is no evidence that Knox carried the knife in her purse.

* There is no reason to believe that Sollecito, a knife afficianado, would let his new girlfriend carry around a cheap kitchen knife. He would give her one from his collection. Indeed Knox's DNA is on the handle of one of the other knives in his collection.

* The knife is too big for one (arguably both) of the wounds. A swtiching of knives or attackers in the middle of the attack is hard to envision. More likely the two wounds were made by the same person (Knox), with the same knife, in quick succession.

* This knife has dents in the blade suggesting that it had not been sharpened for a long time. Those kinds of injuries couldn't be inflicted with a dull knife, unless the attacker was far stronger than Meredith.

* The knife does not match the imprint on the sheet, or at least it does not match the imprint better than a thousand other knives and household items.

* The amount of Meredith DNA on the blade is LCN. Touch transfers, like from a bloody object used in the clean-up, are much more likely with LCN DNA than regular DNA.

* It is very hard to sterilize an object without soaking it in bleach or using an autoclave. This is particularly true with 36-I which is in the crevice where the blade meets the handle. When the Carabinieri found none of Meredith's DNA at 36-I, even at extremely low concentrations, it made the idea that blade was once covered in blood much less tenable.

zorba wrote:
After Tom on .org, and many others there too, laying out facts and Tom's explanations, etc., of course being based on his legal expertise as an American lawyer and Popper and the other Italians like Yummi having explained it all too, also according to the laws in Italy, Mr Pink comes up with ball crunching crap such as the following:
_________________

Mr Pink wrote:
I think an American judge would probably throw it out, not because it isn't a perfect match to the victim it is but because Stefanoni used a non-standard protocol that she didn't explain well enough to allow the defence or the court to assess its reliability.
_________________

The question of whether an American judge would admit the knife is separate from whether the knife was a murder weapon. The point I intended to make by invoking American law was that it's better in the sense that controversial scientific evidence is thoroughly evaluated in pretrial hearings, and therefore situations in which a piece of evidence is gradually discredited over a course of years, which makes it awkward for the prosecution to develop their theory of the crime, is less likely to occur.

Finally, everyone pays tribute to Meredith in their own way. I will not be subject to a purity test from someone who writes (and yes I read them) some of the most out-there stuff this side of Catnip.


I haven't read Sollecito's book, but I have seen comments about it. One of the comments is that Sollecito's newest story is that he did prick Meredith with the knife, but it happened when he prepared dinner at the cottage. I have no idea whether this is true, but if so, then Sollecito admits to hauling his knife to the cottage. Every murderer takes something away (souvenir) and leaves something behind. The knife would be a souvenir. There is evidence of two knives of different size, and stab attacks from both the right and the left, suggesting more than one person and more than one knife. The knife very clearly matches the print on the sheet. Sollecito's apartment reportedly smelled of bleach, and Meredith's DNA was found in a groove on the blade. All parties agree that the DNA on the knife belongs to Meredith with the difference being that the Prosecution alleges it got there during the murder, and the defence alleging that it is a result of contamination (but contamination theory is unsupperted). Knox's DNA was found where the blade meets the handle, which is an odd place to find her DNA. Sollecito's DNA is not on the knife, which suggests that it was thoroughly cleaned.

If Knox wanted US law to apply, she should have committed murder in the US. Instead, she chose to commit murder in a foreign country, one she describes as "medieval", "backwards", and possessed of a corrupt judicial system. She could try to make the same complaints about the US judicial system, but no one would buy it. Apparently people do buy it when it is Italy.

Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 11:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi Jester, you might want to look at these photos to give you a better idea re room dimensions furniture placement etc.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscella ... edited.zip

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/dec_18.zip

I would also reverse the orientation of the knife in your drawing above, so its cutting edge is on the left side. Otherwise the handle and knife tip is aligned correctly. Check the high def pictures in the Nov 2 and 3 zip file, you'll see what I mean.

PS: Move the blade tip up 5 degrees; there are two knife images at "O", due to a slight movement of the knife. (Hint: the serrations on the blade edge show more clearly on the high def photo)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, Mister Pink, your analysis of the knife evidence seems very close to this Supreme Court Summary of the Hellmann Report here: Murder Weapon

Quote:
Murder Weapon

As regards the murder weapon, the appeal court believed that apart from the genetic investigations, there was no objective evidence that this knife had been used in the commission of the crime. The experts appointed by the investigating magistrate should have found not only the incompatibility of the seized knife with the wounds, the knife blade being 17.5cm long and the wounds at most 8cm deep. The court then held that if they had used the knife, the two defendants would not have returned it to the drawer of the house even if it were part of the rental inventory.


I'm sorry, but I don't see where, the Supreme Court, having already explained its limitations here: Supreme Court limits of judicial review it has opened the possibility of the Florence court will mark the knife as being of less than probative value, but, we'll see in two weeks time anyhew.

I already wrote a lengthy piece back in June arguing the width and depth of the fatal knife wound as reported in Massei (8cms deep, 3 cms wide) match the dimensions of the knife imprint on the bed sheet, and thanks to Jester for providing the line drawing that shows the length of the blood stain and the width.

This might also answer your question why Meredith's DNA wasn't found in the crevice where the knife blade meets the handle. The Massei report indicates a blade length of 17.5 cms; it simply hadn't penetrated to its full length. It is also possible the damage to the blade (as observed by Stefanoni and Conti/Vecchiotti) in the first 6 cms (from the tip) was caused by rigorous sawing along one of the bones of the neck, but I don't see that in itself as precluding the kitchen knife from being the murder weapon. Lastly, I believe the secondary wound, of a 1.5 cm width, clearly matches the width of Raffaele Sollecito's Brian Tighe pocket knife; as I argued many times, both knives were transported to and from the cottage.

Anyhow, like your argument, this is all speculative, but I don't see the court throwing out the knife as evidence. Nor do I see them disallowing the DNA evidence, either on the bra clasp or the knife itself. The Supreme Court did cast aspersions on the independent experts report, and Hellmann for allowing them to get away with it. Taking the Supreme Court report as a whole, I am more confident than most, but who knows? We shall see in two weeks time.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

@MisterPink

Welcome to Net.

MisterPink wrote:
* I don't think the killers would try to wash the knife and put it back in the drawer. They would just throw it away. Too risky that it could turn out to be a perfect match for the wounds.



Never heard of killers keeping trophies? They thought they had the crime scene sown up and the police wouldn't be searching Solecito's place. Why would they, when they'd be too busy chasing the lone phantom rapist?


MisterPink wrote:
* Knox and Sollecito's suspicious statements about the knife seem to concede that Meredith's blood could be on the knife, but they do not suggest the knife was ever taken to the cottage. This supports the idea that Meredith's blood got on the knife because there was a clean-up at Sollecito's flat.


Actually, in her diary she asks whether it was possible that Sollecito stabbed Meredith with the knife and then pressed her fingers onto it as she slept.


MisterPink wrote:
* There is no evidence that Knox carried the knife in her purse.


Is it required? It got to the cottage and it didn't fly there by itself. The only people who could have taken it there were Knox and Sollecito.


MisterPink wrote:
* There is no reason to believe that Sollecito, a knife afficianado, would let his new girlfriend carry around a cheap kitchen knife. He would give her one from his collection. Indeed Knox's DNA is on the handle of one of the other knives in his collection.



There is EVERY reason. One of his friends testified that Sollecito would never let any of his friends touch his knives as he was too aftaid they would injure themselves with them. The knives he had were specialist knives and a novice opening them is likely to slice their fingers off. It takes quite a lot of practice to ve able to use those knives properly. A kitchen knife, even a klutz can use. That's why Knox got the kitchen knife.

MisterPink wrote:
* The knife is too big for one (arguably both) of the wounds. A switching of knives or attackers in the middle of the attack is hard to envision. More likely the two wounds were made by the same person (Knox), with the same knife, in quick succession.


Two knives of two different sizes were used on the victim. This is well established by judges Micheli and Massei.


MisterPink wrote:
* This knife has dents in the blade suggesting that it had not been sharpened for a long time. Those kinds of injuries couldn't be inflicted with a dull knife, unless the attacker was far stronger than Meredith.



Who the hell ever said that knife was "dull"? Don't you imagine, that if that knife was the remotest bit dull a big thing would have been made of it by the defence? Heavy usage dulls a blade and according to Sollecito, he never used that knife for cooking but used his pocket knife instead, only Knox used that knife. It seems to me, you like to make inferences unsupported by any facts and then carve them in stone.


MisterPink wrote:
* The knife does not match the imprint on the sheet, or at least it does not match the imprint better than a thousand other knives and household items.


Yet we've not found any evidence for the existence of "a thousand other knives and household items" being the murder weapon. The kitchen knife exists. There is evidence it is the murder weapon. Yet, you seem to want to discard it for an invisible knife that nobody has ever seen , much less has any evidence that ties it to the scene. Incidentally, Rebel made a good presentation that pretty closely matches Sollecito's pocket knife to the stain on the sheet. Ergon has also made a presentation that argues the kitchen knife can match the sheet stain.


MisterPink wrote:
* The amount of Meredith DNA on the blade is LCN. Touch transfers, like from a bloody object used in the clean-up, are much more likely with LCN DNA than regular DNA.


Oh yes, is this the fabled secondary or tertiary transfer that occurs, though not supported in any of the literature, that results in a complete PRISTINE profile of the victim, yet none of the person doing the transferring or even any environmental DNA? Are you chanelling Halikides and Hampikian? The fact that the profile is complete and has a low noise to peak ratio, renders the fact that it's LCN irrelevant.


MisterPink wrote:
* It is very hard to sterilize an object without soaking it in bleach or using an autoclave. This is particularly true with 36-I which is in the crevice where the blade meets the handle. When the Carabinieri found none of Meredith's DNA at 36-I, even at extremely low concentrations, it made the idea that blade was once covered in blood much less tenable.



I see, it has to be "all or nothing", someone can't simply be successful in partially decontaminating a blade? And the various different types of DNA containing cells would have no part to play in what and how much survives such an attempt?

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:42 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

From Yummi, posted at Nencini Court

November 26, 2013
The court reconvened and Alessandro Crini continued his summing-up, beginning with an introduction about circumstantial evidence.[5] He then continued from the previous day's list of evidence points.
DNA evidence—the knife. Crini gave an introduction, specific to DNA. He moved on to the evidence of the the Double DNA Knife, noting that the new RIS finding is 'important' because it adds new information: the presence of human DNA in a scratch on the blade of a knife is, itself, unusual.[5] He addressed the point that Stefanoni had only been able to conduct a single amplification of the sample of Meredith's DNA on the knife blade, whereas the guidelines specified that at least two amplifications should be performed. He stated that guidelines were just for guidance and this did not necessarily mean that we should discard a piece of evidence, no matter how important and clear, whenever a test is not repeatable.[5] The reason for the guidelines on multiple amplifications is that, in cases where there is a poor quality, 'dirty', DNA sample, such as Knox's profile on the knife, the interpretation of a single test can be difficult or ambiguous. However, in the case of the original sample from the knife blade, Meredith's profile came out absolutely clearly on the single test: there was no doubt that the profile belonged to Meredith.[5] Crini spoke highly of Novelli (as well as Stefanoni) as an expert, and cited Novelli as saying that the profile of Meredith on the knife blade was certain.[5] Crini took the opportunity to criticise the previous appeal's independent DNA experts, saying that someone who keeps a refrigerator like the one Vecchiotti has [ie the one where the DNA samples have been stored], should be less critical about laboratory practice.[5] He also noted Vecchiotti's refusal to test "Trace 36I"—the then newly-discovered DNA trace on the knife blade—saying that this approach was 'ideological', 'weak' and 'insufficient'.[5] In reviewing the DNA evidence, Vecchiotti should (according to Crini) have also referenced the conclusions reached by the other DNA experts who have been involved in the case, but failed to do so.[5] Crini emphasised that, contrary to some reports, Vecchiotti had said she obtained all the cooperation she required from Stefanoni. Raw data could be accessed by accessing the machine itself as Stefanoni offered. Crini confirmed that the negative controls (suggested by some to be missing) were deposited with the other records of the DNA testing, and he pointed out where the court could find the documentation of their deposit.[5] Crini stated that this kitchen knife was compatible with the knife print on Meredith's bed sheet[5]

*TJMK/PMF poster Yummi tweeting from the court room
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, Mister Pink, your analysis of the knife evidence seems very close to this Supreme Court Summary of the Hellmann Report here: Murder Weapon

Quote:
Murder Weapon

As regards the murder weapon, the appeal court believed that apart from the genetic investigations, there was no objective evidence that this knife had been used in the commission of the crime. The experts appointed by the investigating magistrate should have found not only the incompatibility of the seized knife with the wounds, the knife blade being 17.5cm long and the wounds at most 8cm deep. The court then held that if they had used the knife, the two defendants would not have returned it to the drawer of the house even if it were part of the rental inventory.


I'm sorry, but I don't see where, the Supreme Court, having already explained its limitations here: Supreme Court limits of judicial review it has opened the possibility of the Florence court will mark the knife as being of less than probative value, but, we'll see in two weeks time anyhew.

I already wrote a lengthy piece back in June arguing the width and depth of the fatal knife wound as reported in Massei (8cms deep, 3 cms wide) match the dimensions of the knife imprint on the bed sheet, and thanks to Jester for providing the line drawing that shows the length of the blood stain and the width.

This might also answer your question why Meredith's DNA wasn't found in the crevice where the knife blade meets the handle. The Massei report indicates a blade length of 17.5 cms; it simply hadn't penetrated to its full length. It is also possible the damage to the blade (as observed by Stefanoni and Conti/Vecchiotti) in the first 6 cms (from the tip) was caused by rigorous sawing along one of the bones of the neck, but I don't see that in itself as precluding the kitchen knife from being the murder weapon. Lastly, I believe the secondary wound, of a 1.5 cm width, clearly matches the width of Raffaele Sollecito's Brian Tighe pocket knife; as I argued many times, both knives were transported to and from the cottage.

Anyhow, like your argument, this is all speculative, but I don't see the court throwing out the knife as evidence. Nor do I see them disallowing the DNA evidence, either on the bra clasp or the knife itself. The Supreme Court did cast aspersions on the independent experts report, and Hellmann for allowing them to get away with it. Taking the Supreme Court report as a whole, I am more confident than most, but who knows? We shall see in two weeks time.



But my understanding is, that the High Court is describing here Hellmann's motivazioni:

The APPEAL COURT believed.... reads that the HELLMANN COURT believes
and that means, this is non existent (anulled)
And since it is legally non existent, it should have (IMHO) no whatever influence at the Florence court. nw)

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jape


Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:57 pm

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jape wrote:
Jester wrote:
This is the above plan on the aerial ... does it look right?

Image

It has been suggested that Knox is such a nice girl. For example, even though she arrived first, she took the smaller room. That is half the truth. The other half is that she choose the room with the better view - the valley. It had nothing to do with Knox being a nice girl, yet it is one of the odd remarks perpetrated by the Knox trolls.


Does it look right? No

I can't post or link to it here but if you go to .org and the gallery, crime scene photos, Filomena's break in room, then you will find a photo taken from the inside of her room looking out through the window. The photo is taken from slightly to the right of the window but you can clearly see the corner of the parking lot fence. That's not a trick of perspective and would be impossible given where you have placed the window above.


Edit : The picture I'm talking about is disc 0063 in the following link -

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscella ... edited.zip

I think that what may have happened is that the car parking area has been extended since 2007. The cars (If they are cars) in the overhead shot above look somewhat small to me but in any event we can see that the area is now larger just by comparing with those pictures back in 2007. SomeAlibi took a picture showing building materials piled up on the parking area and I can't see that the cottage itself has been extended.

Possibly the owner has had the thought of selling for a while now and an enlarged parking lot would be a selling feature.


Last edited by jape on Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Mr Pink is from the other side. It's Thursday. His statement about the knife contains outright falsehoods.

Sollecito said twice that the knife was part of the scenario. Used once, improbably by the victim in his apartment (explaining the DNA trace, confirming it as the murder weapon). Now incredibly he says that it was taken to the murder house (for cooking). He confirms his statement of explanation as to why the DNA is on the knife. Knox had reason to take a demonstrably big knife in her role playing / fantasy scenario. Confirmed by the encounter with Kokomani. Knife carried in the 'large green bag' confirmed by Kokomani.

"blunt knife"? It's a cheap kitchen knife (reportedly) the knife was used to stab. It didn't have to be that sharp on the blade.

I think Mr Pink should be banned. He's trolling / outright falsehoods. Places for that (JREF/IJIP).

I'm still not sure why the evidence of Kokomani wasn't used. Too much of a "hot potato?"? (the "superwitness"). How did all that scenario (Kokomani described) arise? Out of nowhere. Has Guede ever confirmed his encounter with Kokomani? Will leave for a bit .. not enough new material.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrrooniicc wrote:
I think Mr Pink should be banned (as it's Tuesday). He's trolling / outright falsehoods. Places for that (JREF/IJIP).



MisterPink is not a troll, only someone somewhat uninformed, or at least, one who has great gaps in his knowledge on the case which ferments the risk of giant leaps to incorrect conclusions. Here, in regards to the knife at least, he demonstrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline McCall


Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I like the cottage overlay graphic. Who made that?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MisterPink


Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:27 pm

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
I'm still not sure why the evidence of Kokomani wasn't used. Too much of a "hot potato?"? (the "superwitness"). How did all that scenario (Kokomani described) arise? Out of nowhere. Has Guede ever confirmed his encounter with Kokomani? Will leave for a bit .. not enough new material.


I am far from a troll. I'm with you on everything but the knife, and in raising my concerns about the knife I have only the best intentions to prevent it from weakening the overall case.

As for why Kokomani wasn't used more, I have just one thing to say: Would the prosecution really want to build its case around a guy who looks like this?
Attachment:
Hekuran-Kokomani-150x150.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

MisterPink wrote:
ttrroonniicc wrote:
I'm still not sure why the evidence of Kokomani wasn't used. Too much of a "hot potato?"? (the "superwitness"). How did all that scenario (Kokomani described) arise? Out of nowhere. Has Guede ever confirmed his encounter with Kokomani? Will leave for a bit .. not enough new material.


I am far from a troll. I'm with you on everything but the knife, and in raising my concerns about the knife I have only the best intentions to prevent it from weakening the overall case.

As for why Kokomani wasn't used more, I have just one thing to say: Would the prosecution really want to build its case around a guy who looks like this?
Attachment:
Hekuran-Kokomani-150x150.jpg


He didn't want to be recognised. Do you think that is his normal appearance? Kokomani had been threatened (reportedly).

Irrelevant. There is a facial picture of Kokomani out there. He was on an Italian daytime TV show.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Komomani wasn't used more because he became a reluctant, and therefore unreliable witness, and it was decided there was sufficient evidence to convict anyway. With hindsight, one could wish he produced the picture of Sollecito at the scene for the courts. Those who wish to know more about him should read Nadeau and Follain. I know HK convinced me, which is enough :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

And BTW, I believe the knife is the strongest element of the case, much as some might honestly believe otherwise, that the DNA is problematic. There still are agnostics, fair enough.

But if there was a place where Meredith spoke clearly on her behalf, it is the presence of her DNA on trace 36 B of the kitchen knife. We'll know after .Jan 10 what weight the court places on it
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:47 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Pelerine wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Hi, Mister Pink, your analysis of the knife evidence seems very close to this Supreme Court Summary of the Hellmann Report here: Murder Weapon

Quote:
Murder Weapon

As regards the murder weapon, the appeal court believed that apart from the genetic investigations, there was no objective evidence that this knife had been used in the commission of the crime. The experts appointed by the investigating magistrate should have found not only the incompatibility of the seized knife with the wounds, the knife blade being 17.5cm long and the wounds at most 8cm deep. The court then held that if they had used the knife, the two defendants would not have returned it to the drawer of the house even if it were part of the rental inventory.


I'm sorry, but I don't see where, the Supreme Court, having already explained its limitations here: Supreme Court limits of judicial review it has opened the possibility of the Florence court will mark the knife as being of less than probative value, but, we'll see in two weeks time anyhew.

I already wrote a lengthy piece back in June arguing the width and depth of the fatal knife wound as reported in Massei (8cms deep, 3 cms wide) match the dimensions of the knife imprint on the bed sheet, and thanks to Jester for providing the line drawing that shows the length of the blood stain and the width.

This might also answer your question why Meredith's DNA wasn't found in the crevice where the knife blade meets the handle. The Massei report indicates a blade length of 17.5 cms; it simply hadn't penetrated to its full length. It is also possible the damage to the blade (as observed by Stefanoni and Conti/Vecchiotti) in the first 6 cms (from the tip) was caused by rigorous sawing along one of the bones of the neck, but I don't see that in itself as precluding the kitchen knife from being the murder weapon. Lastly, I believe the secondary wound, of a 1.5 cm width, clearly matches the width of Raffaele Sollecito's Brian Tighe pocket knife; as I argued many times, both knives were transported to and from the cottage.

Anyhow, like your argument, this is all speculative, but I don't see the court throwing out the knife as evidence. Nor do I see them disallowing the DNA evidence, either on the bra clasp or the knife itself. The Supreme Court did cast aspersions on the independent experts report, and Hellmann for allowing them to get away with it. Taking the Supreme Court report as a whole, I am more confident than most, but who knows? We shall see in two weeks time.



But my understanding is, that the High Court is describing here Hellmann's motivazioni:

The APPEAL COURT believed.... reads that the HELLMANN COURT believes
and that means, this is non existent (anulled)
And since it is legally non existent, it should have (IMHO) no whatever influence at the Florence court. nw)


My point, too, exactly, and if I didn't say that clearly, sorry, I should have underlined instead of bolded the relevant section :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

jape wrote:
jape wrote:
Jester wrote:
This is the above plan on the aerial ... does it look right?

Image

It has been suggested that Knox is such a nice girl. For example, even though she arrived first, she took the smaller room. That is half the truth. The other half is that she choose the room with the better view - the valley. It had nothing to do with Knox being a nice girl, yet it is one of the odd remarks perpetrated by the Knox trolls.


Does it look right? No

I can't post or link to it here but if you go to .org and the gallery, crime scene photos, Filomena's break in room, then you will find a photo taken from the inside of her room looking out through the window. The photo is taken from slightly to the right of the window but you can clearly see the corner of the parking lot fence. That's not a trick of perspective and would be impossible given where you have placed the window above.


Edit : The picture I'm talking about is disc 0063 in the following link -

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscella ... edited.zip

I think that what may have happened is that the car parking area has been extended since 2007. The cars (If they are cars) in the overhead shot above look somewhat small to me but in any event we can see that the area is now larger just by comparing with those pictures back in 2007. SomeAlibi took a picture showing building materials piled up on the parking area and I can't see that the cottage itself has been extended.

Possibly the owner has had the thought of selling for a while now and an enlarged parking lot would be a selling feature.


I've looked at current, and historic, aerial photos of the cottage and it does not look like the parking pad was extended. However, the railing is set back from the edge of the parking pad. The floor plan is placed correctly, but it should be understood that the edge of the parking pad in the aerial is not the location of the railing.

Image

Image
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

MisterPink wrote:
I am far from a troll. I'm with you on everything but the knife, and in raising my concerns about the knife I have only the best intentions to prevent it from weakening the overall case.



I will just point out at this juncture that your concerns are not exactly new arguments that nobody has put forward before. Indeed, were you to read the FOAKers over the past few years, they are very stale. The only difference is that they come over as misinformed because they have deliberately ignored the context, whilst you do simply because you've missed it. Hence why, a little knowledge is dangerous.

A case in point. When asserting that there is no conceivable way Sollecito would have furnished Knox with a common kitchen knife to use in lieu of his professional collectors items, to not recall the testimony regarding his refusal to allow anyone to touch his knives because they were so dangerous, serves as one of the best examples of how one can jump to misinformed conclusions when one is missing context. This is easily done in a complex case, which is why I would caution people relatively new to it to not be in such a rush to get out their hammer and chisels to carve "answers" in stone. For 7 years we have been on the case and have talked it inside out. Do not therefore, imagine that your next great idea is one nobody has had before. Such ideas do happen, but are far rarer then you might think.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi Jester, you might want to look at these photos to give you a better idea re room dimensions furniture placement etc.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscella ... edited.zip

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/dec_18.zip

I would also reverse the orientation of the knife in your drawing above, so its cutting edge is on the left side. Otherwise the handle and knife tip is aligned correctly. Check the high def pictures in the Nov 2 and 3 zip file, you'll see what I mean.

PS: Move the blade tip up 5 degrees; there are two knife images at "O", due to a slight movement of the knife. (Hint: the serrations on the blade edge show more clearly on the high def photo)


I don't see a photo of the knife in either the two zip files. The knife photo that I used came from the .org site.

The photo of the knife overlaid on the photo on the sheet is not a drawing.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:23 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I would like to offer my warm thanks to Jester for the attempt to create a superimposed ariel view/plan of the cottage. I would very much like to see an agreement on an end result, as I would consider it to be a great asset to the case. Seeing the cottage and visualising where everything lies in respect to it is a difficult task for many and if we could make that a little simpler with a cottage Atlas such as this, it would be grand :)


ETA: And there we have a good name for it...the Cottage Atlas :)

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Mr Pink is from the other side. It's Thursday. His statement about the knife contains outright falsehoods.

Sollecito said twice that the knife was part of the scenario. Used once, improbably by the victim in his apartment (explaining the DNA trace, confirming it as the murder weapon). Now incredibly he says that it was taken to the murder house (for cooking). He confirms his statement of explanation as to why the DNA is on the knife. Knox had reason to take a demonstrably big knife in her role playing / fantasy scenario. Confirmed by the encounter with Kokomani. Knife carried in the 'large green bag' confirmed by Kokomani.

"blunt knife"? It's a cheap kitchen knife (reportedly) the knife was used to stab. It didn't have to be that sharp on the blade.

I think Mr Pink should be banned. He's trolling / outright falsehoods. Places for that (JREF/IJIP).

I'm still not sure why the evidence of Kokomani wasn't used. Too much of a "hot potato?"? (the "superwitness"). How did all that scenario (Kokomani described) arise? Out of nowhere. Has Guede ever confirmed his encounter with Kokomani? Will leave for a bit .. not enough new material.


I have only seen comments that Sollecito wrote in his book that his knife was taken to the cottage for cooking. Do we know for sure that he wrote this in his book?
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
I like the cottage overlay graphic. Who made that?


I did.

If we agree that this is the best floor plan available, I'll rebuild the 3D model using this template. I've added one dimension to illustrate that the template is scaled correctly.

Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I have only seen comments that Sollecito wrote in his book that his knife was taken to the cottage for cooking. Do we know for sure that he wrote this in his book?


I've never read his book, so I've no idea what he wrote in it. What I do know, is that he never wrote this in his prison diary, said this in his statements to the police or in any of his spontaneous statements to the court. It's very easy, years after the event, to attempt to the rewrite facts in something you have complete control over, such as a memoir or book, so that they conveniently answer all the things you overlooked years before. Indeed, given enough years, I'm sure one could think of all manner of clever answers to all of the problems. But, this is a murder case where we're not looking for clever answers one may think of years after the fact, but the TRUTH. Aside from the result of specific medical issues, the truth is not something that requires years to remember, it IS.

There is a reason why when we have to sit exams we only have that morning or afternoon to answer the questions. Were we all given endless years to answer them we'd all, everyone on the planet, score A+ on every knowledge based exam that exists. And in the case of Knox and Sollecito, they've had their followers working around the clock year on year to fill in the answers for them. All Knox and Sollecito have had to do is study their talking points and it seems, they've done exactly that.

And for this reason, none of these belated answers have the ring of truth, indeed it's the opposite and that condemns them.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
I like the cottage overlay graphic. Who made that?


I did.

If we agree that this is the best floor plan available, I'll rebuild the 3D model using this template. I've added one dimension to illustrate that the template is scaled correctly.





I don't know if that floor plan is the best, but it's certainly the oldest. That's the first floor plan we ever had. I can't, however, tell you how accurate it is. It always looked slightly wonky to me...but then, maybe the building is.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
I like the cottage overlay graphic. Who made that?


I did.

If we agree that this is the best floor plan available, I'll rebuild the 3D model using this template. I've added one dimension to illustrate that the template is scaled correctly.



I don't know if that floor plan is the best, but it's certainly the oldest. That's the first floor plan we ever had. I can't, however, tell you how accurate it is. It always looked slightly wonky to me...but then, maybe the building is.


I think the building is slightly wonky. The original building was from a couple of hundred years ago (don't remember exactly anymore), and then there is the addition. I might also add that this is Italy, and Italy has never been known for precision (as opposed to Germany). I know that's stereotyping, but those stereotypes originated somewhere.

I've added the walls, an now will go ahead with windows and doors. From looking at interior photos of Filomina's window, it looks to be approximately 4 feet from the interior wall. I can move this later if it should be 3 feet.



Last edited by Jester on Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Happy New Year and all that :mrgreen:

You could also use the video of the rock climber to get an idea of how the 'burglar' would have thrown a rock at that window. The 'burglar' has to walk all the way to the left to the railing to get somewhat of a straight angle at the window, but still has to throw a little to the left IMO. Not an angle where you would expect the damage on the inside shutter all the way on the right (from outside). Makes no sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:19 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, jape, and jester, I don't think the parking lot was extended, but here are some older Google Street View pictures of the cottage posted Mar 26, 2009 viewtopic.php?f=7&t=129 which you can compare with the later ones I took Mar18-23, 2013 viewtopic.php?f=7&t=433 (best viewed on large screens).

Yes, dsc 063 on the zip file did cause me some problems understanding too, but I was told it was a problem of perspective, though the fence edge DID throw me. I still believe the rock throw, while not impossible in terms of distance, is unlikely because of the angles involved (I think the latest overlay is slightly off in terms of relative sizes of Amanda's room vs Filomena's, and the window might be moved slightly to the left. I could be wrong, so will let people decide from the photographs and original floor plan posted above)

The zip files contain the knife imprints on the bed I was referring to, not the actual knife.

Note
Just a Note.
~ Here's the crux of the matter. The C&V Report contained the knife photos as an appendix, but the IIP translation did not include it, probably because they point to guilt. I had to obtain them from my sources in Italy and posted here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=442 as part of the public record. Those photos were taken March 22, 2013, by the C&V team, and posted here May 31, 2013.~
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

One more thing, and I really thought I would be done with the rock through the window scenario ;)

Filomena testified she shut the outside shutters, but not completely because it stuck a little (The night time crime scene photos show them closed) It boggles the mind how many times 'experienced burglar' Rudy is supposed to have clambered up and down the wall to open them, with or without boulder in hand, then to throw it. Interesting to observe those who believe THAT scenario.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:44 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I might also add that this is Italy, and Italy has never been known for precision (as opposed to Germany). I know that's stereotyping, but those stereotypes originated somewhere.


No, no...I agree with you. They're not known for being able to tell the time well either.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, jape, and jester, I don't think the parking lot was extended, but here are some older Google Street View pictures of the cottage posted Mar 26, 2009 viewtopic.php?f=7&t=129 which you can compare with the later ones I took Mar18-23, 2013 viewtopic.php?f=7&t=433 (best viewed on large screens).

Yes, dsc 063 on the zip file did cause me some problems understanding too, but I was told it was a problem of perspective, though the fence edge DID throw me. I still believe the rock throw, while not impossible in terms of distance, is unlikely because of the angles involved (I think the latest overlay is slightly off in terms of relative sizes of Amanda's room vs Filomena's, and the window might be moved slightly to the left. I could be wrong, so will let people decide from the photographs and original floor plan posted above)

The zip files contain the knife imprints on the bed I was referring to, not the actual knife.

Note
Just a Note.
~ Here's the crux of the matter. The C&V Report contained the knife photos as an appendix, but the IIP translation did not include it, probably because they point to guilt. I had to obtain them from my sources in Italy and posted here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=442 as part of the public record. Those photos were taken March 22, 2013, by the C&V team, and posted here May 31, 2013.~



Listen...let me put it in context. The question was never whether a single element alone was possible, be it making the climb to the window, or throwing a rock through it, but whether the whole was credible (or even possible) when ALL the necessary elements required to make the break-in were put together in sequence. When one puts them together, the break-in becomes so far fetched as to make it risible and that's before even getting started on the evidence that actually disproves the break-in (glass on top of clothing, etc).

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Happy New Year and all that :mrgreen:

You could also use the video of the rock climber to get an idea of how the 'burglar' would have thrown a rock at that window. The 'burglar' has to walk all the way to the left to the railing to get somewhat of a straight angle at the window, but still has to throw a little to the left IMO. Not an angle where you would expect the damage on the inside shutter all the way on the right (from outside). Makes no sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs



Yeah, and remember, he's got to do this from a position where first he has to climb down and then up to open the outer shutters, climb down again, then climb up to his vantage point, throw the rock and get a bullseye first time or he loses the rock and has to retrieve it, then climb up to the window (second time) in full view of the street, gate and traffic and try and gain entry, hoping like hell nobody has heard the enormous blast, all whilst hanging one handed by his fingertips from the window ledge and gain entry through the window, all without cutting himself, leaving any trace of himself or knocking any glass to the ground to enter a window he has no possible idea he can enter in the first place because he doesn't even know if the inner shutters are locked or not. All apparently, to rob some skint students and interns.

Alternatively, he could simply go to the boys' front door and use their window to climb onto the balcony where he would be standing on firm ground and could simply put his elbow through the kitchen window and climb in out of view of all traffic and nearly all overlooking flats...right where the two REAL break-ins took place.

Instead, we are left with this waterfall of improbability.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Happy New Year, everyone!!! :) :) :)

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
I like the cottage overlay graphic. Who made that?


I did.

If we agree that this is the best floor plan available, I'll rebuild the 3D model using this template. I've added one dimension to illustrate that the template is scaled correctly.



I don't know if that floor plan is the best, but it's certainly the oldest. That's the first floor plan we ever had. I can't, however, tell you how accurate it is. It always looked slightly wonky to me...but then, maybe the building is.


I think the building is slightly wonky. The original building was from a couple of hundred years ago (don't remember exactly anymore), and then there is the addition. I might also add that this is Italy, and Italy has never been known for precision (as opposed to Germany). I know that's stereotyping, but those stereotypes originated somewhere.

I've added the walls, an now will go ahead with windows and doors. From looking at interior photos of Filomina's window, it looks to be approximately 4 feet from the interior wall. I can move this later if it should be 3 feet.




Alright, okay, let's go with that then. Let's follow the assumption that the building is inherently wonky and see how that plan fits. I can think of no reason, being that it's a very old building expanded in an ad hoc manner, why it has to be sleek. I think that the only thing that mattered to them, back in the day, is whether it stood up or not. No such thing as building regs back then and this is hardly the Great Pyramid of Giza.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Here we can see how the railing is set back from the edge of the parking pad

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
Michael wrote:
Jester wrote:
McCall wrote:
I like the cottage overlay graphic. Who made that?


I did.

If we agree that this is the best floor plan available, I'll rebuild the 3D model using this template. I've added one dimension to illustrate that the template is scaled correctly.



I don't know if that floor plan is the best, but it's certainly the oldest. That's the first floor plan we ever had. I can't, however, tell you how accurate it is. It always looked slightly wonky to me...but then, maybe the building is.


I think the building is slightly wonky. The original building was from a couple of hundred years ago (don't remember exactly anymore), and then there is the addition. I might also add that this is Italy, and Italy has never been known for precision (as opposed to Germany). I know that's stereotyping, but those stereotypes originated somewhere.

I've added the walls, an now will go ahead with windows and doors. From looking at interior photos of Filomina's window, it looks to be approximately 4 feet from the interior wall. I can move this later if it should be 3 feet.


Alright, okay, let's go with that then. Let's follow the assumption that the building is inherently wonky and see how that plan fits. I can think of no reason, being that it's a very old building expanded in an ad hoc manner, why it has to be sleek. I think that the only thing that mattered to them, back in the day, is whether it stood up or not. No such thing as building regs back then and this is hardly the Great Pyramid of Giza.


I'm looking at maps to try to find a better aerial ... one that is an accurate aerial rather than approximate. I've been looking at ArcGIS maps, but the resolution for Perugia is not much better than Bing, Google Maps, or Google Earth. If someone that speaks Italian knows how to search Urban Maps, or City Planning Maps in Perugia, that would be the best resource. Historical maps might be listed under Perusia.

I'll use the wonky floor plan. I'm heading out for a bit, but will look at it later.
Top Profile 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Happy New Year and all that :mrgreen:

You could also use the video of the rock climber to get an idea of how the 'burglar' would have thrown a rock at that window. The 'burglar' has to walk all the way to the left to the railing to get somewhat of a straight angle at the window, but still has to throw a little to the left IMO. Not an angle where you would expect the damage on the inside shutter all the way on the right (from outside). Makes no sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs


I would also remind that during the trial all participants of the Massei-court had a thorough inspection at the cottage, which provided them the best impression and understanding of the crime scene.



"The house inspection by the court was closed to journalists. Spectators, however, could see the judge, jurors, prosecutors and defense attorneys arrive and begin inspecting the exterior of the building, including a window in the rear that had been found broken by investigators when the body was discovered."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/knox-trial-italian-court-eyes-crime-scene/

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MisterPink


Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:27 pm

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
I will just point out at this juncture that your concerns are not exactly new arguments that nobody has put forward before. Indeed, were you to read the FOAKers over the past few years, they are very stale. The only difference is that they come over as misinformed because they have deliberately ignored the context, whilst you do simply because you've missed it. Hence why, a little knowledge is dangerous.

A case in point. When asserting that there is no conceivable way Sollecito would have furnished Knox with a common kitchen knife to use in lieu of his professional collectors items, to not recall the testimony regarding his refusal to allow anyone to touch his knives because they were so dangerous, serves as one of the best examples of how one can jump to misinformed conclusions when one is missing context. This is easily done in a complex case, which is why I would caution people relatively new to it to not be in such a rush to get out their hammer and chisels to carve "answers" in stone. For 7 years we have been on the case and have talked it inside out. Do not therefore, imagine that your next great idea is one nobody has had before. Such ideas do happen, but are far rarer then you might think.

Sollecito's father's claim that he never let anyone touch his knives is contradicted by Knox's DNA on the handle of one of the knives.

I don't stake any claim on the idea that the knife was not a murder weapon and it's unimportant to me that the points I raised were raised first by the other side. My opinion is that the knife is the biggest weakness in the prosecution's case. I predict Bongiorno will go hard at the knife when she presents her closing arguments next week, hoping that by raising questions it will taint everything. I don't think it will succeed but it would be nice to have Nencini acknowledge the problems with the knife so we can finally move past it.

If we want to get to the truth, which is what the Kerchers say they want, there can be no sacred cows.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline dgfred


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:19 pm

Posts: 1082

Location: N.C., USA

Highscores: 13

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I think the father meant the tactical knives... NOT one from the utensil drawer.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

MisterPink wrote:
Michael wrote:
I will just point out at this juncture that your concerns are not exactly new arguments that nobody has put forward before. Indeed, were you to read the FOAKers over the past few years, they are very stale. The only difference is that they come over as misinformed because they have deliberately ignored the context, whilst you do simply because you've missed it. Hence why, a little knowledge is dangerous.

A case in point. When asserting that there is no conceivable way Sollecito would have furnished Knox with a common kitchen knife to use in lieu of his professional collectors items, to not recall the testimony regarding his refusal to allow anyone to touch his knives because they were so dangerous, serves as one of the best examples of how one can jump to misinformed conclusions when one is missing context. This is easily done in a complex case, which is why I would caution people relatively new to it to not be in such a rush to get out their hammer and chisels to carve "answers" in stone. For 7 years we have been on the case and have talked it inside out. Do not therefore, imagine that your next great idea is one nobody has had before. Such ideas do happen, but are far rarer then you might think.

Sollecito's father's claim that he never let anyone touch his knives is contradicted by Knox's DNA on the handle of one of the knives.

I don't stake any claim on the idea that the knife was not a murder weapon and it's unimportant to me that the points I raised were raised first by the other side. My opinion is that the knife is the biggest weakness in the prosecution's case. I predict Bongiorno will go hard at the knife when she presents her closing arguments next week, hoping that by raising questions it will taint everything. I don't think it will succeed but it would be nice to have Nencini acknowledge the problems with the knife so we can finally move past it.

If we want to get to the truth, which is what the Kerchers say they want, there can be no sacred cows.


Firstly I believe judge Nencini experienced enough to weigh the evidence regarding the knife correctly.

Secondly I would predict that Bongiorno will not go much on the knife,since there is no direct involvment of her client except belonging to his appartement. My believe is she'll rather focus on the bra-clasp-DNA-evidence, incriminating RS.

Members of PMF:
please forgive my bad grammar - seams to get worse instead of better sor-)

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Pelerine


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:19 pm

Posts: 414

Highscores: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:35 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
I think the father meant the tactical knives... NOT one from the utensil drawer.


exactly!

_________________
r-(( Rest in Peace Meredith Kercher r-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jhansigirl


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:58 am

Posts: 307

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Happy New Year to all. hugz-) gh-))

May the Kerchers see justice this year very soon. :D

RIP Meredith

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

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The wonky sketch probably has the correct dimensions, but the drawing is not accurately proportioned. Thank you Ergon for the zipped files with interior photos. They certainly helped with proportions ... leading me to believe that the dimensions in the sketch are probably correct. Using the dimensions in the wonky sketch, I've adjusted several walls. If anyone has better eyes than I and can read any more of the dimensions, please let me know.

Image

Perspectives, not quite a 360.

Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I think the room dimensions and window placement is just right, Jester, thanks, next step is to add the external features: parking lot and parapet. And looking at the photos, I think the wonky alignment of Meredith and Amanda's rooms to the wall is correct as you did it originally.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

There were four knives seized that I recall: the Spyderco and Brian Tighe pocket knives, the Kitchen knife, and the combat knife over his bed that Della Vadova was waving under Knox's nose in court (Photos in "Evidence Files" viewtopic.php?f=7&t=442

IIP says that was a "replica", LOL.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:13 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks. That's what I decided as well. I based the original on the dimensions, and I straightened out the crooked walls. This is more accurate because the interior photos clarified questions I had. I have placed the downstairs door to illustrate just how easy it would be to break in by climbing onto the deck and breaking a window. Does anyone have handy a good picture of the downstairs front entrance. I seem to recall that there was a metal grill on the door. Was it unlocked when police arrived? Spiderman could have saved himself a lot of time and trouble by climbing onto the deck with his nine pound rock, or tossing it onto the deck before he climbed.



As for the parking lot, I have not found a city plan where there is a surveyors drawing that would provide accurate info. I'll use the aerial photo and distance of 13' from the window to the parking lot. I'll add the railing 16" from the edge of the parking pad. Does that sound right?

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

It is 13 feet from the wall to to the base of the parking pad, or 13 feet from the window to the railing? I'll assume window to railing unless there is clarification from whomever measured. I think it's possible to photograph the railing while standing a little to the right on the inside of the window.



Last edited by Jester on Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

McCall wrote:
I like the cottage overlay graphic. Who made that?


Jester, with thanks for his work. Much appreciated, though it still is a work in progress :)

Will dig up some more photos, have one of the door downstairs. And there's no stairs down the side of the house, but, a gravel path around the upstairs entrance leading to concrete steps around the corner leading to the downstairs main entrance, which isn't right at the corner, but a few feet to the right under the balcony. I have a video of Lorena Zugarini karate kicking it in through the glass, LOL. Will post link to it soon.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Did you see this picture, Jester? viewtopic.php?style=6&p=108080#p108080 The corner of the railings is very slightly to the left edge of the widow casement. (I used the nylon twine in other photos in the series to establish angles)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:07 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Did you see this picture, Jester? viewtopic.php?style=6&p=108080#p108080 The corner of the railings is very slightly to the left edge of the widow casement. (I used the nylon twine in other photos in the series to establish angles)


Thank you, I hadn't. If we assume that the grill is 6" squares, then the total width is 30", plus some for the hardware on either side. A shutter width would be 15-18", and then estimating how many shutter widths to the wall, I come up with the window being 4.5' - 5' from the exterior edge of the front wall. In the drawing, the window is five feet from the exterior wall, and four feet from the interior wall. I'm assuming that Filomina had a single bed. The railing appears to be set back about 16".

Exterior
Image

Interior
Image
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I did a visual estimation of 13 feet from the railing to the window edge when I was there, Jester. Saw the Moroccan family outside once in a while, didn't want to intrude, or disturb any way.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Is the rock thrown from the parking pad a possibility, given that the exterior shutters were closed when the window was broken? Did the nine pound rock trajectory shift 90 degrees after hitting the interior shutter, gravity kicked in, and the rock rolled under the desk?



Were the cell phones tossed just up the road?

Image

picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Fixed image width.
Top Profile 

Offline LUFC1972


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:36 pm

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

A Happy New Year to all who post or read here; I hope 2014 finally brings peace of mind to Meredith's family and friends.

I awoke early this morning and this case started playing on my mind as it does sometimes when I can't sleep. I'd welcome some input but apologize if the following have been discussed recently. I have searched unsuccessfully on tinterwebs for answers.

Firstly, what is the likely source of the rock? It looks like a piece of dry stone wall. I have seen pictures of this type of wall in the area but what would be the closest place to the cottage that it may have come from? I don't think it is from the garden as there are no signs of soil on it. Perhaps Ergon can answer this having visited the area.

Secondly, what was the weather like on the night of the murder? I seem to recall it was raining or had been raining. If either was the case the earth below the window would have been damp or wet. IMHO it would not be possible to scale the outside (whitewashed) wall and enter Filomena's room via the window without leaving any traces of mud.

Thirdly RG in both his Skype conversation and letter from prison mentions that Meredith repeated the sound 'AF, AF, AF' and he recorded this on the wall in blood (not having a pen and paper(!)). I have not seen a photograph of any such writing. Did it in fact exist at the crime scene? If not, it would strengthen the argument for a clean-up. If it did exist what was Guede hoping to achieve with this device?

Sorry for spelling and grammar.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

<<<BREAKING NEWS>>>

Latest update from Andrea Vogt (change in court dates):

UPDATE JAN. 3, 2014

Court hearing dates set for 2014 have changed slightly. The next dates are January 9 and 16 (Sollecito defense) and 20th, according to legal staff aware of the court schedule. If this schedule holds, last arguments will be heard on Jan. 20th, before the court retreats for a verdict decision. *(In the U.S. January 20th is a national holiday, one of the few “floating holidays” as it always falls on the third Monday of each January to mark the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr.) The presiding judge may change the hearing schedule at any time depending on length of hearings or per requests by the interested parties.


THE FREELANCE DESK

Oh no, I thought we'd be done with it by Jan 15! :(
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

LUFC1972 wrote:
A Happy New Year to all who post or read here; I hope 2014 finally brings peace of mind to Meredith's family and friends.

I awoke early this morning and this case started playing on my mind as it does sometimes when I can't sleep. I'd welcome some input but apologize if the following have been discussed recently. I have searched unsuccessfully on tinterwebs for answers.

Firstly, what is the likely source of the rock? It looks like a piece of dry stone wall. I have seen pictures of this type of wall in the area but what would be the closest place to the cottage that it may have come from? I don't think it is from the garden as there are no signs of soil on it. Perhaps Ergon can answer this having visited the area.

Secondly, what was the weather like on the night of the murder? I seem to recall it was raining or had been raining. If either was the case the earth below the window would have been damp or wet. IMHO it would not be possible to scale the outside (whitewashed) wall and enter Filomena's room via the window without leaving any traces of mud.

Thirdly RG in both his Skype conversation and letter from prison mentions that Meredith repeated the sound 'AF, AF, AF' and he recorded this on the wall in blood (not having a pen and paper(!)). I have not seen a photograph of any such writing. Did it in fact exist at the crime scene? If not, it would strengthen the argument for a clean-up. If it did exist what was Guede hoping to achieve with this device?

Sorry for spelling and grammar.


Crini stated that it was raining on the night of the murder. That was included in an article translated and posted on this forum in November. It would have been impossible to scale a wall constructed of rock in the rain because rock is slippery when wet. The ground beneath Filomina's window is grass and dirt, and there should have been some evidence that someone walked in the area while scaling the wall twice, but there was no evidence. All that was found beneath the window was a dinner knife. There were no shards of glass. Nothing supports the theory of scaling the wall and climbing through the window, not even the trajectory of the rock.

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi Jester, you might want to look at these photos to give you a better idea re room dimensions furniture placement etc.

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscella ... edited.zip

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/dec_18.zip

I would also reverse the orientation of the knife in your drawing above, so its cutting edge is on the left side. Otherwise the handle and knife tip is aligned correctly. Check the high def pictures in the Nov 2 and 3 zip file, you'll see what I mean.

PS: Move the blade tip up 5 degrees; there are two knife images at "O", due to a slight movement of the knife. (Hint: the serrations on the blade edge show more clearly on the high def photo)


I had another look at the knife, and reversed the orientation to see whether it is a better fit. I'm inclined to go with what I originally thought, but here are both possibilities. Here are the two originals.

Image

Image

First, I scaled the photo of the knife to ensure that five centimetres was equal length on both photos.

Image

Then, I rotated the knife an placed it over the blood stain.

Image

Image
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I prefer the lower one, Jester, matches the serrations on the knife blade, side more likely to show blood, but thanks again. Photoshop?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
I prefer the lower one, Jester, matches the serrations on the knife blade, side more likely to show blood, but thanks again. Photoshop?


Yes, photoshop. Either way, the suggestion that the print is not compatible with the knife is illogical. Clearly it is a match in terms of length, width and pattern.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

So the decision gets delayed again, fair enough. It looks like Judge Nencini is going to cross and dot everything. It should be a humdinger of a motivations report!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:50 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

LUFC1972 wrote:
A Happy New Year to all who post or read here; I hope 2014 finally brings peace of mind to Meredith's family and friends.

I awoke early this morning and this case started playing on my mind as it does sometimes when I can't sleep. I'd welcome some input but apologize if the following have been discussed recently. I have searched unsuccessfully on tinterwebs for answers.

Firstly, what is the likely source of the rock? It looks like a piece of dry stone wall. I have seen pictures of this type of wall in the area but what would be the closest place to the cottage that it may have come from? I don't think it is from the garden as there are no signs of soil on it. Perhaps Ergon can answer this having visited the area.

Secondly, what was the weather like on the night of the murder? I seem to recall it was raining or had been raining. If either was the case the earth below the window would have been damp or wet. IMHO it would not be possible to scale the outside (whitewashed) wall and enter Filomena's room via the window without leaving any traces of mud.

Thirdly RG in both his Skype conversation and letter from prison mentions that Meredith repeated the sound 'AF, AF, AF' and he recorded this on the wall in blood (not having a pen and paper(!)). I have not seen a photograph of any such writing. Did it in fact exist at the crime scene? If not, it would strengthen the argument for a clean-up. If it did exist what was Guede hoping to achieve with this device?

Sorry for spelling and grammar.


Hi, LUFC1972, and a Happy New Year to you too!

The rock is limestone, which is found all over the property, including the retaining wall dividing the grounds from Viale San Antonio, and, the parking lot. So, it definitely came from on site, and looks like it was a loose piece that broke off from somewhere, so was washed clean of soil by rain.(I photographed a similar wall along the basket ball court leading down to the cottage, there are many like that all around Perugia)

Some dispute over weather conditions the night of the murder. Curatolo says it was raining, IIP says historical weather report says otherwise, no rain fell in Perugia night of November 01. What isn't disputed is it really poured the night before, Oct. 31, 2007, so the ground would have been wet anyway. Weather readings for Perugia are taken at the airport 6 kms away, so it is possible it rained the night on November 01 as well, at that higher elevation. I had similar rain in Perugia March 18, so took a photograph of the wet basketball court, to see what Curatolo would have seen. I believe he told the truth.

The blood smears along the wall and the closet door provided no clues, so we can only guess if there had been a clean up. The lack of useable fingerprints does point to that. Aside from Rudy's Skype call, we also have his unrecorded MSN messenger exchanges which show he even then was implicating the other two perpetrators. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... her_two_2/
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Ergon wrote:
I prefer the lower one, Jester, matches the serrations on the knife blade, side more likely to show blood, but thanks again. Photoshop?


Yes, photoshop. Either way, the suggestion that the print is not compatible with the knife is illogical. Clearly it is a match in terms of length, width and pattern.


I agree. The M.E. indicates the major wound's width as 3 cms, which is the same as the imprint, and the shape is that of a kitchen knife, and not the tactical knife. Rafaelle's pocket knife was a lot smaller, but then, we got misled by IIP and their wonky photoshopping, same as with the RS footprint on the bathmat.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:04 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Jester wrote:
Ergon wrote:
I prefer the lower one, Jester, matches the serrations on the knife blade, side more likely to show blood, but thanks again. Photoshop?


Yes, photoshop. Either way, the suggestion that the print is not compatible with the knife is illogical. Clearly it is a match in terms of length, width and pattern.


I agree. The M.E. indicates the major wound's width as 3 cms, which is the same as the imprint, and the shape is that of a kitchen knife, and not the tactical knife. Rafaelle's pocket knife was a lot smaller, but then, we got misled by IIP and their wonky photoshopping, same as with the RS footprint on the bathmat.


The footprint on the pillow case is another example of photo manipulation. The print that is aligned with Guede's shoe is in fact scaled incorrectly, so it does look like the print attributed to Knox could in fact belong to Guede. It's another case of: "Honey, I shrunk the black kid."
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:12 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
A long report on today's trial proceedings by Roberto Davide Papini for La Nazione (improved Google trans):

Meredith, Prosecutor Crini: "Elements converge on the two defendants." But Sollecito replies: "Allegations uncertain and approximate"

At 10:28 started the indictment of the prosecutor Allessandro Crini in the appeal process for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the British student murdered on November 1, 2007, with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as defendants. Seven hours were not enough, however (six counting the lunch break), to play all of Crini's speech.

Crini has, however, retraced the path laid out by the Supreme Court to stress that "there are converging elements that lead to the two defendants," whereas [there are] reliable witnesses who were brought by the prosecution, there are "implausible" reconstructions of the defendants and defenses. It starts, then, tomorrow, Tuesday, November 26th at 9.30. Sollecito, present in court, declined to comment on the indictment of Crini and said briefly: "Elements uncertain and approximate."

Crini began his indictment stressing that the judgment of the Supreme Court has advanced a number of reliefs and "wide spectrum censorship spread on the judgment of acquittal," asking the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence to "assess the evidential framework in a non-atomized manner by putting together the various aspects, not making the mistake of the court of appeal of Perugia."

Crini then addresses the issue of the defendants, their being or not being present at the crime scene. The prosecutor argued that the fact that Sollecito had used his computer at his home in the evening when the English girl was killed elsewhere (ie in the apartment the victim shared with other students, including Amanda) is not proven. "The first human interaction with the machine is at 5:20 in the morning," says Crini (so hours after the murder), recovering the assessment carried out in the first trial. In his speech Crini also talked about a couple of witnesses "which seem fought." The first is that the homeless Antonio Curatolo" and some felt resentful that he spoke of the presence of the two defendants in the Grimana Square in a zone that has its compatibility with the facts."

Crini stresses that Curatolo is trusted to have already testified usefully in another murder case." Curatolo is sure of his memory and it is not enough to say that he is a drug addict to devalue the testimony - Crini continues - and the fact that he confused a date with another is not well founded, because he mixed up the night of Halloween, but the memory is correct for the fact that he remembered how in the evening (between 1 and 2 November 2007) it was raining and in fact it was raining the night of the murder." Crini continues, reminding that Curatolo said he perceived a discussion between the two defendants, with Sollecito who looked over the railing in the direction of the house where the crime took place, "so it is not a generic memory, but gives a lively scene." Thus, according Crini, the testimony of Curatolo belies the alibi of Sollecito.

The prosecutor then goes over to the testimony of Marco Quintavalle, the trader who said he saw Amanda Knox in front of his shop early in the morning after the murder, tired and agitated. "His story - says Crini - is accurate and reliable, and the fact that he came to testify months after the crime does not mean anything." For Crini, therefore, the story of Quintavalle belies the reconstruction of Amanda who said she was in bed in the house of her boyfriend, Raffaele, until 10 in the morning.

Sollecito, as mentioned, is present in the courtroom at the courthouse Novoli, smiling and dressed in a purple sweater. Always absent, however, is Knox that has remained in the United States. During a break in the trial, Sollecito made ​​a brief statement to reporters: "The evidence against me is uncertain and approximate, it's been years that I have to fight against elements that have no basis in reality." For Giulia Bongiorno, one of his lawyers, "the prosecutor is trying to make the defender elegantly errors of the prosecution. Sollecito is innocent and the picture that emerges in this process confirms this. In the indictment, there are many uncertainties and gaps."

In the afternoon Crini resumes his indictment stressing that there was an alteration of the crime scene: "The fact that they have attempted to clean up and fix the scene of the crime to make it look like it [the murder] was committed by a stranger, who had the only interest to escape as soon as possible, not to erase his tracks." According to Crini, the bloody footprint left on the floor in the bathroom would be just "part of a more general set up to cover up activity performed on the crime scene." Crini emphasizes that this is a male footprint and it does not make sense that it is Rudy Guede's: "Absurd that he has, after the crime, left footprints with the shoes and then one bare foot in an attempt to clean up, since he has left his feces in the bathroom without flushing the toilet." Speaking of Guede (sentenced to 16 years for conspiracy to commit murder), Crini notes that "the penalty was not centratissima", implying he feels it is too mild.

The prosecutor continued his long speech, giving a joke: "The trace of the female foot size 36/38 is certainly a woman's, unless it is the former footballer of Catanzaro Palanca, famous for having small feet". Crinicontinues: "There is, then, a fluorescence in Romanelli's room (a roommate in the house, ndr) that refers to both the DNA of the victim and of Knox." The prosecutor then speaks of the hypothesis of theft and Guede, climbing through the window, "as being completely implausible, a baroque attempted theft, with the launch of a rock and a climb to get into the house of someone who knows him well."

The prosecutor Crini goes on to analyze, then, the statements of the accused, talking about stories unconvincing," Knox said she saw, on entering the house of the crime, the door open, feces in the Italian girls' bathroom, found that Meredith's door was locked was normal (Meredith and her friends say it was unusual), then goes into her and Meredith's bathroom to take a shower and discovers blood stains and does not see the "spray" of blood and even the room where there would be theft where the door was open. So does not see things the most egregious."

Beyond that, continues Crini, "Knox spoke about certain facts, slandering Patrick Lumumba, accusing him of being the murderer, then talking about a scream of a victim and sexual violence suffered by Meredith, data that can only be derived from the fact that it was the protagonist who knew the real facts. Segments of truth with which Amanda intersperses her slander." A slander, according to Crini, "with an intent to mislead by Knox." According to the reasoning of Crini (in line with what was said by the Supreme Court) "if Knox accused Lumumba, even knowing he was totally alien to the crime, it is precisely because she was present at the crime scene and her presence can not be detached from that of Sollecito " .

In first degree trial, Knox and Sollecito were convicted (respectively 26 and 25 years), then acquitted by a judgment of appeal. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this judgment sending it back to a new appeal process, the current year, in fact, in Florence.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, November 26 , back in the courtroom: more word to the prosecution. Then it's up to the civil plaintiffs, then in the next hearings - defenses, according to a schedule that would lead to the judgment in January.


LA NAZIONE (FIRENZE)

Maori says at the end of the video on the La Nazione website that Sollecito is 'tranquillamente' (as usual) - calm, serene, tranquil. I wonder how long his good mood will last. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline LUFC1972


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:36 pm

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks for the replies. Sometimes it's difficult to see the wood for the trees!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:57 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

You're welcome, LUFC1972. There's so much noise out there it's easy to get distracted. But this delay is good, it gives us time to focus on what is important.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

GOOGLE TRANSLATION:




There is a love for Oderzo Sollecito

The accused "excellent" seen in the center of Perugia in good company . And he click "like" on the page of a well-known pub

* Crime of Perugia



ODERZO . All Oderzo talking about it and now the news is public domain . Among other things, the manager of a well known local city did not deny , just yesterday, that the protagonist of this story is one of his clients . First things first. Raffaele Sollecito , accused of the process of Perugia for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher , attend Oderzo. He seems to have a love story , but there are those who only defines an affectionate friendship with a nice girl as he studied at the University of Verona. A clue to his frequent opitergine arrived on these holidays , in which the same Sollecito , from his Facebook profile, it has been clicked the " Like" on the well-known local . One whose owner (who does not want to appear and we respect the will) does not deny it as a customer.

Raffaele Sollecito these days is studying how to get to the bottom of what has happened recently. Or the annulment by the Court of Cassation 's judgment of acquittal was concerned that he and former girlfriend and roommate, the U.S. citizen Amanda Knox , who was also a key figure in the investigation that led to years in prison, Rudy Guede , who was sentenced to 18 years for murder, with the summary procedure. Only Guede is paying for that crime , in an investigation that has many dark sides .

But Sollecito has always maintained his innocence and is conducting a free man , besides a normal life, a battle for justice . The look of many people, Oderzo crossed his . He always reciprocated eyes , knowing that he has now become a public figure , though in spite of himself has been stuck in the media meat grinder that you put into action to cases in the news like this. Impossible , however, that frequent urge Oderzo like any other boy his age , more so if accompanied by a female figure who apparently thinks it is important in this period of his life , to the point that the couple would also recently made a holiday " exotic ."

His girlfriend would be a person with a view known . A beautiful and intelligent girl , who apparently had too many admirers among peers opiterigni . Under the arcades , in Piazza Grande , people talk and whispers , obeying traditional vocation of word of mouth among friends. The city seems to have given , however , an imprint of confidentiality on the matter. People recognize Sollecito on the street, but leaves it in peace. It is a sign of deep respect and perhaps it is precisely for this reason that the accused excellent, from Puglia , prefers to study and live in Veneto.



LA TRIBUNA

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jaybee51


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 pm

Posts: 112

PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Using this software will put paid to defence claims that mixed Dna could belong to anyone:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/9577038/ ... -mixed-DNA
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Image

The side of the cottage where all other burglaries occurred, except the lame ass Knox staged break in.



picture of a pumpkin
This Post has been edited by a Moderator
Details: Fixed image hotlink
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The stand of trees where Meredith Kercher's two phones were dumped. Little did the perp know there was a garden below. The Biscarini cottage entrance is just up ahead. Was there a police car there that night, checking the toilet bomb hoax?

Image
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon, I am unable to see the image in the above comment, but I right clicked on it and this came up (along with close up knife photos). I have seen debate about whether the clasp was cut or torn, and that definitely appears to be cut. It's stretched until the clasp is bent, and then cut.

Image
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Image

The side of the cottage where all other burglaries occurred, except the lame ass Knox staged break in.


Thank you - there is no question that there is a grill, or grate, over the door to the downstairs flat. It is essentially a ladder for climbing onto the deck.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

dgfred wrote:
I think the father meant the tactical knives... NOT one from the utensil drawer.


Yep. Sollecito would not let anyone touch his knives. He was wearing a knife when he was arrested. A knife in his kitchen drawer has been linked to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and apparently he wrote in his book that the remark about "pricking Meredith with his knife" happened some other day when he was cooking at the cottage.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Emerald?

Where are you? The decision has been extended to January 20.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:03 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?

Awesome. Guede was a basketball player so maybe he gave the rock a bit of a spin. Rock to the left. glass to the right :mrgreen:
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:15 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?

Awesome. Guede was a basketball player so maybe he gave the rock a bit of a spin. Rock to the left. glass to the right :mrgreen:


Gravity is the factor. I threw a racquetball ball at the hinge side of the door today. I was curious. It rebounded. A nine pound rock would not only ricochet but roll across clothing that was allegedly not ransacked?
Top Profile 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 3:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?

Awesome. Guede was a basketball player so maybe he gave the rock a bit of a spin. Rock to the left. glass to the right :mrgreen:


Gravity is the factor. I threw a racquetball ball at the hinge side of the door today. I was curious. It rebounded. A nine pound rock would not only ricochet but roll across clothing that was allegedly not ransacked?


If spin is introduced (on the rock), then the computations will be far more complicated as there will be large transfer of angular momentum and interconversion of linear and angular momenta.

Gravity is only a minor factor.

If the rock had some initial spin, it is likely to survive the collision with the window shutters and is certain to roll some distance as and when it lands on the floor.

Your experiment was not successful because (1) the projectile was light compared to the door and (2) you need to have comparable moment of inertia (window shutters / rock).

What physics you used for the simulation?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:52 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I think the father meant the tactical knives... NOT one from the utensil drawer.


Yep. Sollecito would not let anyone touch his knives. He was wearing a knife when he was arrested. A knife in his kitchen drawer has been linked to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and apparently he wrote in his book that the remark about "pricking Meredith with his knife" happened some other day when he was cooking at the cottage.


That "not letting anyone touch his knives" is a lie for public consumption. Knox's DNA was found on one of the other knives seized from his flat.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

chami wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?

Awesome. Guede was a basketball player so maybe he gave the rock a bit of a spin. Rock to the left. glass to the right :mrgreen:


Gravity is the factor. I threw a racquetball ball at the hinge side of the door today. I was curious. It rebounded. A nine pound rock would not only ricochet but roll across clothing that was allegedly not ransacked?


If spin is introduced (on the rock), then the computations will be far more complicated as there will be large transfer of angular momentum and interconversion of linear and angular momenta.

Gravity is only a minor factor.

If the rock had some initial spin, it is likely to survive the collision with the window shutters and is certain to roll some distance as and when it lands on the floor.

Your experiment was not successful because (1) the projectile was light compared to the door and (2) you need to have comparable moment of inertia (window shutters / rock).

What physics you used for the simulation?


I certainly wasn't going to throw a nine pound rock in my house! What physics should I use? What do you think the speed of the rock would be?
Top Profile 

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:33 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?



Jester...I am very impressed with your efforts. pp-(
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?



Hi, Jester, yes it is fun, making fun of the Amanda apologists :) Given Guede's height: 5'10" and impact point about 10" high on the inner shutter, (from memory, consult the zip file) I think a flatter downward trajectory.

And spin? Yes, a fast or knuckleball at 60-90 mph can cause baseballs to curve impressively, and larger basketballs at lower velocity, sure, even they can bend it like Beckham :)

But an irregular shaped stone? Whatever spin is imparted would cause it to wobble a bit, but not change direction all that much.

Could an interior shutter cause it to change direction? Only if it were made of rubber, given the rock's mass, and velocity required to heft it 13 feet? The inner shutter, should have shattered, not get that little teensy chip.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Jester wrote:
dgfred wrote:
I think the father meant the tactical knives... NOT one from the utensil drawer.


Yep. Sollecito would not let anyone touch his knives. He was wearing a knife when he was arrested. A knife in his kitchen drawer has been linked to the murder of Meredith Kercher, and apparently he wrote in his book that the remark about "pricking Meredith with his knife" happened some other day when he was cooking at the cottage.


That "not letting anyone touch his knives" is a lie for public consumption. Knox's DNA was found on one of the other knives seized from his flat.



No, that testimony was from a witness that was one of Sollecito's friends. Note that the DNA was on the the handle only, not on the blade/metal area of the knife that one must handle in order to open it. Therefore, all the DNA on the handle shows is that Knox may have simply just picked it up (she may even had done so when he wasn't looking, out of curiosity, or while he was elsewhere in the flat, living with him she'd have had plenty of opportunity) or held it after Sollecito had opened it for her. I think the main problem here is that people don't actually understand his knives and how dangerous they are for a novice to use. They require a degree of skill through practice to be able to open with surety of not cutting ones fingers off. They are NOT knives for the novice. And if you are going to team up with someone to commit a murder (or nasty prank, whichever you choose to believe) that involves knives, you're going to want your "knife novice" partner to be using a knife you can be sure they can handle, not one that has a high probability of leaving their own fingertips on the floor part way through the attack.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Were the cell phones tossed just up the road?


It was further up that road on the north east corner of your posted image.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
LUFC1972 wrote:
A Happy New Year to all who post or read here; I hope 2014 finally brings peace of mind to Meredith's family and friends.

I awoke early this morning and this case started playing on my mind as it does sometimes when I can't sleep. I'd welcome some input but apologize if the following have been discussed recently. I have searched unsuccessfully on tinterwebs for answers.

Firstly, what is the likely source of the rock? It looks like a piece of dry stone wall. I have seen pictures of this type of wall in the area but what would be the closest place to the cottage that it may have come from? I don't think it is from the garden as there are no signs of soil on it. Perhaps Ergon can answer this having visited the area.

Secondly, what was the weather like on the night of the murder? I seem to recall it was raining or had been raining. If either was the case the earth below the window would have been damp or wet. IMHO it would not be possible to scale the outside (whitewashed) wall and enter Filomena's room via the window without leaving any traces of mud.

Thirdly RG in both his Skype conversation and letter from prison mentions that Meredith repeated the sound 'AF, AF, AF' and he recorded this on the wall in blood (not having a pen and paper(!)). I have not seen a photograph of any such writing. Did it in fact exist at the crime scene? If not, it would strengthen the argument for a clean-up. If it did exist what was Guede hoping to achieve with this device?

Sorry for spelling and grammar.


Hi, LUFC1972, and a Happy New Year to you too!

The rock is limestone, which is found all over the property, including the retaining wall dividing the grounds from Viale San Antonio, and, the parking lot. So, it definitely came from on site, and looks like it was a loose piece that broke off from somewhere, so was washed clean of soil by rain.(I photographed a similar wall along the basket ball court leading down to the cottage, there are many like that all around Perugia)

Some dispute over weather conditions the night of the murder. Curatolo says it was raining, IIP says historical weather report says otherwise, no rain fell in Perugia night of November 01. What isn't disputed is it really poured the night before, Oct. 31, 2007, so the ground would have been wet anyway. Weather readings for Perugia are taken at the airport 6 kms away, so it is possible it rained the night on November 01 as well, at that higher elevation. I had similar rain in Perugia March 18, so took a photograph of the wet basketball court, to see what Curatolo would have seen. I believe he told the truth.

The blood smears along the wall and the closet door provided no clues, so we can only guess if there had been a clean up. The lack of useable fingerprints does point to that. Aside from Rudy's Skype call, we also have his unrecorded MSN messenger exchanges which show he even then was implicating the other two perpetrators. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php ... her_two_2/




Weather, here: http://www.wunderground.com/history/air ... atename=NA

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?


Jesters graphic demonstrates that the indentation on the shutter can't have been made by throwing the rock from the outside.

The indentation is on the jamb of the window shutter.

Image
Image

Rock thrown right through that window can't have caused that mark. They can't abandon that. The arrowed damage was made by the rock. The other indentations surrounding are it's profile.

The rock went through that plate from the inside.


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:58 am, edited 7 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I don't understand why someone would throw a rock through a window with closed inner shutters in the first place.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:39 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

We believe the rock was thrown from the inside, and accept Filomena's testimony she closed the inner shutters, with the outer shutters unable to close completely because of the swelling of the wood. But, as an exercise in proving how incongruous the defense argument is, this was great, thanks, Jester!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:18 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?


Jesters graphic demonstrates that the indentation on the shutter can't have been made by throwing the rock from the outside.

The indentation is on the jamb of the window shutter.

Image
Image

Rock thrown right through that window can't have caused that mark. They can't abandon that. The arrowed damage was made by the rock. The other indentations surrounding are it's profile.

The rock went through that plate from the inside.


Correct.

Further, any expert can tell that the nature of the damage (bottom photo; red arrow) shows that the rock was moving from inside to outside when it hit the wood. The nature of the damage tells all.

If you look hard, perhaps one can see bits of the rock got embedded in wood. That can be used to fix the direction the rock hit the wood.

However, accurate calculation of the path is very tricky in my honest opinion because there are too many parameters.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline chami


Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:36 pm

Posts: 166

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:38 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Jester wrote:
Now I'm having fun. This is very low resolution because that's the only way I could load it as a publishable .gif. Could an interior shutter cause a nine pound rock to take this path?



Hi, Jester, yes it is fun, making fun of the Amanda apologists :) Given Guede's height: 5'10" and impact point about 10" high on the inner shutter, (from memory, consult the zip file) I think a flatter downward trajectory.

And spin? Yes, a fast or knuckleball at 60-90 mph can cause baseballs to curve impressively, and larger basketballs at lower velocity, sure, even they can bend it like Beckham :)

But an irregular shaped stone? Whatever spin is imparted would cause it to wobble a bit, but not change direction all that much.

Could an interior shutter cause it to change direction? Only if it were made of rubber, given the rock's mass, and velocity required to heft it 13 feet? The inner shutter, should have shattered, not get that little teensy chip.


I am not familiar with knuckleballs or baseballs. If the spin were high, then the wooden piece would have shattered, as you say. If it is a simple throw, it would get reflected nicely.

Is there a mark on the floor where it first landed? Or it directly landed in the final resting place? It appears to me (not a real expert) that it did not fall there with any appreciable velocity, it was just put there at rest.

These rocks are not really hard and they crack and break very easily. I would expect many fragments if it hits the hard floor from a height of 2 meters.

Flatter downward trajectory means high initial velocity. But then it may land in the middle of the room.

You are right that it is usually difficult to spin an irregularly shaped rock.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

MisterPink wrote:
Zorba, The knife is like a [BLA BLA BLA BLA]



I am not about to start trying to talk to someone who approaches the murder of a girl as one of his hobbies.

To me you are a troll. To most people at .org you are a troll, including Piktor, who I greatly respect.

You are just another one who comes along says, oh yes, let me pay the entry fee by saying I agree, they are all as guilty as sin but what about this, bla bla bla, and that, bla bla bla...

then systematically, sneakily, tries to get people to agree with your points which are one by one against the case for the prosecution of these murderers.

Trying to discredit the lady opposite the murder scene who heard the screams, a credible witness, is low, the knife has been set out, it's clear to those with sense just how real it is that Meredith's DNA is clearly on that knife, and it is clear what that means and has been to most who grasp just what a pair of liars Knox and Sollecito are, the knife is in the evidence, you have no point to make, you have NO points to make.

This was the first and the last time I am talking to you directly; I do not like people who turn a person's murder into a hobby, that's what you said you are into, this to you is a hobby.

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

From .org



by penelope » 06 Jan 2014, 01:14

MisterPink wrote:
So here's my takeaway from Capezalli's testimony. I think I am being fair, although at times it's hard to hide my incredulity:

*She can only see the roof, the fence and part of the driveway of the cottage. The second floor apartment, which she rented out to some boys, has a full view of the cottage. She did not know the names of the boys but they were the ones who first told her about the murder, apparently on November 2. They did not witness anything themselves.

*In very leading testimony for which Mignini was admonished several times, she explains that on what she believes was the night of the murder she went to sleep around 21:30 and woke up to use the bathroom about two hours later. It is then revealed that she also wakes up around 3am, and on rare days even a third time. So in just a few minutes of testimony the time of the scream is already in doubt, and perhaps the date as well. Indeed she says that there is rowdiness in the area every night up until one or two in the morning, and it often wakes her from sleep.

*She said at first she thought it was a car accident, but when she looked out the window she saw nothing except a few cars in the lot. She could not localize the scream. She then heard people running simultaneously in two directions as if trying to escape. She can distinguish that it was leaves and gravel, and later shoes (though definitely not women's shoes) on the metal staircase.

*She didn't wake her daughter even though she was very distraught. She drank some chamomile (apparently this was a new detail that wasn't mentioned in the deposition). She woke up the next morning at 7:30-8. Or maybe 8:45 like she said in her deposition of 11/27/2007.

*What happens next is very muddled, but she insists that that morning while she was doing housework, about 9:30 or 10:00, the boys, her tenants, ran to her and said, "The killed a girl there in that little house." She then apparently looked out the window to see the police at the cottage (and even "Knox" and "Sollecito" standing atop the parking garage!)

*She then went out to get bread around 11, in order to have lunch ready when her daughter came home from work around one or two. She remembers it being quite unusual for her daughter to work the early morning shift, but she doesn't remember what kind of work she did, except that maybe it was agritourism. It was also the first time in several days she had gone out as she had been battling labyrinthitis and the flu for weeks.

*When she went out she saw some posters about the murder and realized that she must have heard Meredith's scream. Mignini led her to say that this may have actually been a day later, November 3. So now we've lost a whole day.

*One wonders if she actually saw these posters weeks later, just before a reporter encouraged her to contact the police on November 26. She says the posters talked about Knox and Sollecito and Lumumba and Guede. She says reporters overheard her remarking about the scream to two elderly women friends while reading the poster. She doesn't recall the women's names. When pressed, she sarcastically refers to them as Dina and Lina. (She is admonished several times by Massei for sarcastic answers.) Offered multiple chances to clarify the timeline, she insists that this incident took place November 3 (most likely) or November 5. In one retelling the posters disappear from this story entirely. So at this point everyone is totally confused.

*She then helpfully explains that the scream was on Halloween. Pressed, she admits she doesn't know when Halloween is but that the scream was "one of those nights". Annoyed with Bongiorno, who she accuses of trying to confuse her, she says that she only knows "that scream and running up stairs and running on the weeds, and I don't know anything else." Thereafter she refuses to talk about dates at all.

*It took her 25 days to call the police but she confusingly refers to it as a "couple" days. She apparently talked to her daughter about what she heard but when she did this is unclear. Her daughter heard nothing and she did not ask her daughter if she should contact police, nor did her daughter encourage her to do so. She said she agonised every day about what to do about what she'd heard but only called the police after she was urged to do so by the reporter.

*It turns out she had seen Knox and Meredith walking to school every day, initially together and then separately. She is sad that it was obvious to her their friendship had soured. (Quite a perceptive insight given that she claimed in this same testimony she doesn't follow the case.) Initially she said she'd seen Sollecito many times. When pressed she said three or four times, sometimes with Knox.

*Then it was revealed that, at least at the time of her deposition, she thought the one with the cold sore was Meredith! And she said that she had never seen Lumumba yet somehow still recognized him sitting in court.

So I ask what exactly did we learn here?

Penelope wrote: That you really want to discredit Ms. Capezalli's testimony. Along with the MK DNA on the knife, the can't-be-definitively-established-anyway timeline, and throw in the possible conspiracy of the bomb-hoax "coincidence". Did I miss anything?

______________________________________________________

by piktor » 06 Jan 2014, 01:28

MisterPink wrote:

So I ask what exactly did we learn here?


Piktor wrote: That you are the living definition of a troll
________________________________________________________

by pataz1 » 06 Jan 2014, 04:59

MisterPink wrote:
So here's my takeaway from Capezalli's testimony. I think I am being fair, although at times it's hard to hide my incredulity:


Pataz1 wrote: When you first posted the other day trying to discredit her testimony, I was wondering how long it would be before a certain twitter user would say something about "even over at PMF", since I've seen that to be a common followup occurrence. I was not disappointed, as today I saw this tweet:

https://twitter.com/Annella/status/420051257399603200

Annella
‏@Annella
Any #amandaknox haters want 2 refute Nara Capezzali's testimony as presented by MrPink at .org? + why he is called a troll 4 speaking truth?
Reply Retweet Favourite More

_____________________________________________________

by Skeptical Bystander » 06 Jan 2014, 05:23

pataz1 wrote:
MisterPink wrote:
So here's my takeaway from Capezalli's testimony. I think I am being fair, although at times it's hard to hide my incredulity:


Pataz1 wrote: When you first posted the other day trying to discredit her testimony, I was wondering how long it would be before a certain twitter user would say something about "even over at PMF", since I've seen that to be a common followup occurrence. I was not disappointed, as today I saw this tweet:


Skeptical Bystander wrote: Maybe it is time for Mister Pink to come clean, whatever that means. Everyone knows I don't like people who pretend to hold a position they don't really hold and who come with ulterior motives. Is this your case, Mr. Pink? Why did you choose such a strange email name when you signed up? Can you explain please. Thanks in advance.

P.S. I detest liars.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Nara Capezalli
Postby Earthling » 06 Jan 2014, 05:38

I may not have read her entire testimony, but I've read snippets as reported in valid news articles.

What struck me most was how she was terribly haunted by that scream she heard. She described it as awful and worse than anything she had ever heard in either real life, or even the movies. She said she was haunted by it, even to this day (of testifying).

I don't understand why Mr. Pink left out that part of her testimony. To me, that alone makes her very credible. She also dates the night of the scream before the day of the murder being discovered (which she could visually see from her window, with police cars etc.).

She may not have had the best memory for minor details, but those two major memories make her credible to me.

ETA: I've had a hinky feeling about Mr. Pink for a while now, due to his weasely and dare I say ridiculous arguments about MK DNA on the knife. Thanks for asking for bonafides, Skep.

________________________________________________________________________

Postby McCall » 06 Jan 2014, 06:24

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
pataz1 wrote:
MisterPink wrote:
So here's my takeaway from Capezalli's testimony. I think I am being fair, although at times it's hard to hide my incredulity:


Pataz1: When you first posted the other day trying to discredit her testimony, I was wondering how long it would be before a certain twitter user would say something about "even over at PMF", since I've seen that to be a common followup occurrence. I was not disappointed, as today I saw this tweet:

https://twitter.com/Annella/status/420051257399603200

Annella
‏@Annella
Any #amandaknox haters want 2 refute Nara Capezzali's testimony as presented by MrPink at .org? + why he is called a troll 4 speaking truth?
Reply Retweet Favourite More



Skeptical Bystander wrote: Maybe it is time for Mister Pink to come clean, whatever that means. Everyone knows I don't like people who pretend to hold a position they don't really hold and who come with ulterior motives. Is this your case, Mr. Pink? Why did you choose such a strange email name when you signed up? Can you explain please. Thanks in advance.

P.S. I detest liars.


Mc Call wrote: The name is a reference to the movie Reservoir Dogs. A group of criminals are brought together to commit a bank heist and the person who organizes the robbery assigns each person a name based on a color. One criminal gets Mr Pink and he wants to switch colors and there is a famous scene.

With respect to our Mr. Pink I skipped his last post because it was long and I didn't have the time but in the past he has made some statements that left me wondering. After two such instances in succession I started reading past his posts if they were more than a few lines.

_________________________________________________________________________

Bon giorno, tutto bene

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

by Hungarian » 06 Jan 2014, 06:36

piktor wrote:
MisterPink wrote:

So I ask what exactly did we learn here?


Picktor wrote: That you are the living definition of a troll.



Hungarian wrote: A quite subtle one, in fact. The classic agent dormant. (And using the victim's childhood photo as an avatar put up as a shield before constantly and rather subtly discrediting -- trying to discredit -- key elements of the case.) Interesting. Dropping little hints here and there, waiting for a reaction. Funny to observe. An intelligent guy. If he is really a troll, I do think he is, he is a hardworking one. But I can also imagine him laughing at anybody who takes him seriously.

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Zorba wrote:
I am not about to start trying to talk to someone who approaches the murder of a girl as one of his hobbies.

To me you are a troll. To most people at .org you are a troll, including Piktor, who I greatly respect.

You are just another one who comes along says, oh yes, let me pay the entry fee by saying I agree, they are all as guilty as sin but what about this, bla bla bla, and that, bla bla bla...



Well, MisterPink came over here with a list of reasons for why he thought the kitchen knife is a dud. I then took the time to reply to each of those reasons to lay down the counter arguments. He hasn't bothered to acknowledge them, much less provide rebuttals. That tells me that MisterPink isn't really interested in debate, only in the sound of his own voice. He stirs everyone up, then sods off. Does that make him troll? Yes, in effect, although he probably isn't a FOAKer troll, it makes him a troll all the same.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:17 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, chami, I assumed the rock would require a high initial velocity, otherwise, given its weight, it would have fallen into the gully outside. Therefore my point was it should end up further down the room, and not change direction and land in a paper bag almost directly under the window and flop over sideways.

Note: I go by Filomena's testimony she closed the shutters. As an exercise in proving IIP idiocy, this was fun.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

According to Jesters graphic (enabled real subjectivity on this), the rock would have to have bounced off a main area (like a bat), or the open edge of the shutter. Where is that mark. There is no mark. The glass was remaining in the upper part of the window. The rock didn't fly through the upper sector of the window. I would think that they would have the rock having flown through the lower part of the window, bounced off the shutter and left. Again, the mark is on the inner jamb. Really it took the graphic to visualise a theory which enables the rock landing far to the left, not way inside the room.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Already pointed out, and acknowledged. The mark is on the lower side of the jamb.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Zorba wrote:
I am not about to start trying to talk to someone who approaches the murder of a girl as one of his hobbies.

To me you are a troll. To most people at .org you are a troll, including Piktor, who I greatly respect.

You are just another one who comes along says, oh yes, let me pay the entry fee by saying I agree, they are all as guilty as sin but what about this, bla bla bla, and that, bla bla bla...



Well, MisterPink came over here with a list of reasons for why he thought the kitchen knife is a dud. I then took the time to reply to each of those reasons to lay down the counter arguments. He hasn't bothered to acknowledge them, much less provide rebuttals. That tells me that MisterPink isn't really interested in debate, only in the sound of his own voice. He stirs everyone up, then sods off. Does that make him troll? Yes, in effect, although he probably isn't a FOAKer troll, it makes him a troll all the same.



I saw you did take the time Michael, your patience, Ergon's too amazes me.
What I see is this type pf poster seems to have become better at it, but the main thing is, the line they use is, yes but I'm the same as you ONLY, followed by Christmas shopping list.

Takes a lot before Piktor comes out with such as he did, in fact, I have NEVER seen him do it before.

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester your art and your other work are always fantastic, I like the animated stuff, some people really need to see something like that to GET IT, while a little common sense ought to have made them realise no rock could have angled off like that, but then again, some people are not quite so handy, couldn't fix a punctured bicycle tyre, a squeaky door, even a light bulb in some cases, so to be fair, such people do need demonstrations.

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


Last edited by zorba on Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Jester your art and your other work are always fantastic, I like the animated stuff, some people rerally need to see something like that to GET IT, while a little common sense ought to have made them realise no rock could have angled off like that, but then again, some people are not quite so handy, couldn't fix a punctured bicycle tyre, a sweaky door, even a light bulb in some cases, so to be fair, such people do need demonstrations.


Thanks. I should probably set up a youtube account so I can post the high resolution clip. The proposed trajectory might happen if the object was a rubber ball rather than a rock, but nine pound rocks just don't bounce off vertical surfaces, change direction, curve, land and roll. They hit vertical surfaces and fall. With the shutter, the rock might force the shutter to open somewhat, but it's not going to change direction because the rock should be stronger than wood. That is, the wood will give while the rock continues on a path. I would expect there to be damage all along the shutter, not just at the one location.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Zorba wrote:
I am not about to start trying to talk to someone who approaches the murder of a girl as one of his hobbies.

To me you are a troll. To most people at .org you are a troll, including Piktor, who I greatly respect.

You are just another one who comes along says, oh yes, let me pay the entry fee by saying I agree, they are all as guilty as sin but what about this, bla bla bla, and that, bla bla bla...

.org does - really? I said right away he's FOA / should be relegated to tuesday. Obvious talking points of theirs. No creative thought around. Pretence of impartiality. The tuesday rule is the fairest thing. They tend to pollute. BTW Ergon - no harm in restating. From Jesters construction (IMO) there'd be massive splintering of the frame at some point on the opening edge of the shutter. The amount of glass remaining in the window after the hurling of such a rock / lack of glass spatter within the room is also an issue. Nobody has talked much about the rock trajectory within the room relating to the mark on the inner shutter until now. It's the most incontrovertible evidence that can't be warped. Second only to the bathmat foot-print. Did the FOA really re-scale that to the dimension of Guede? Blatant.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
zorba wrote:
Jester your art and your other work are always fantastic, I like the animated stuff, some people rerally need to see something like that to GET IT, while a little common sense ought to have made them realise no rock could have angled off like that, but then again, some people are not quite so handy, couldn't fix a punctured bicycle tyre, a sweaky door, even a light bulb in some cases, so to be fair, such people do need demonstrations.


Thanks. I should probably set up a youtube account so I can post the high resolution clip. The proposed trajectory might happen if the object was a rubber ball rather than a rock, but nine pound rocks just don't bounce off vertical surfaces, change direction, curve, land and roll. They hit vertical surfaces and fall. With the shutter, the rock might force the shutter to open somewhat, but it's not going to change direction because the rock should be stronger than wood. That is, the wood will give while the rock continues on a path. I would expect there to be damage all along the shutter, not just at the one location.



Hi Jester, yes good idea, I do not know a lot about such stuff, I'm sure someone will be able to help out, the best place would be here, Mc I think will know the best solution.

The rock, yes, if there had been a rubber wall right behind the window then maybe if the rock had been thrown with gorilla-like force it could have wound up rebounding and making that damage, otherwise it would have landed on the floor and damaged that floor, so where is the damage to the floor?. Even if it had miraculously made a sharp left turn upwards the rocjk still had to fall to the ground and that rock would surely have made a mark/caused damage to the floor. I'm guessing that Sollecito, acting as the hero tough guy, woman protecting swell guy that he was (NOT EVER) was preoccupied with avoising getting harmed by the glass and or by having the rock land on his toe, that's why he set about smashing the glass without takling any precaution aimed at protecting the wall behind the pane.

It seems to me, thus, that when whoever was playing Clever Dick at that moment by taking responsibility for fixing the crime scene, hadn't thought ahead, didn't think it through and hadn't realised something that seems so obvious now, namely that if a rock is thrown through that window while standing in the room, it is bound to hit the wall within inches of the window, right behind the pane of glass and leave a mark.

If he/she had thought it through then a piece of material, such as a solid piece of wood positioned behind the pane of glass with the window in open position, would have stopped any marks being made. The mark is yet another piece of solid evidence that the rock business was part of a set-up designed to mislead the police. However, the police smelt a rat within no time at all; nothing seemed to be right about what they were seeing/hearing.

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:45 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi, ttrroonniicc, Not to take away from Jester's wonderful animations, but geebee2 of FOA fame and I had the same discussion in 2012 during FOAKER Tuesdays about the rock, the trajectory, and how it could possibly land into the bag under the desk. We even had the shutter, the jamb, etc. They countered with Sgt. Pasquali and Ron Hendry, LOL. I asked for a simple diagram; they couldn't comply, LOL.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

People who appear to be too helpful, while at the same time trying to be convincing, instead of just helpful, are picked up on fast by the police.

Why would they need to convince anyone of anything?

Trying to convince people of things is not something someone who has nothing to do with a crime, would feel a need to do, a person might come up with a couple of ideas, this notwithstanding, who in hell has a whole theory, in relation to which he/she goes into lengthy debate about, such as Knox is seen doing in her DEBATE with the police specialists stood right there at the crime scene?

In real life, police have a hard job finding out what is what, so through what is now multiple decades of experience, police forces in the world worked out what the things are that they CAN pick up on.

That is why they are taught to pick up on such things that CAN be picked up on (call these detectable things oddities) and which even a policeman with a low rank could learn to do.

One of the main oddities police are taught to pick up on is someone trying to be someone they just are not.

This means all communication carried out by a good policeman is executed with this in mind, as the backdrop to the proceedings at that moment.

People get caught out by trying to be someone else that they just haven't worked on enough to be able to carry off convincingly.
In the mind of someone trying to hide something, the aim is to get the police off their back and to convince the police of something.
Sollecito did this right from the very start.



Sollecito was immediately trying to act as Mr Helper while at the same time acting as Mr Helper + it must be like this don't you think so too Sir (trying to get the police to agree and confirm = exactly the bit the police are trained to pick up on = if the police were to agree and confirm it would be a relief to the person trying to hide things, the police worked the synamics of these things out ages ago).
When civilians start trying to be Mr Crime Solver Citizen Cop, the police antennae pick up on that right away.

Imagine these police, there they were, having awoken, showered, had breakfast before setting off for a day's work, and then they meet this pair, the ashen-faced Sollecito, strained jaw bones protruding, (while you look at him now and he is Mr Chub and was a few years before the crime too = overweight), in his dirty looking horrible coloured jeans, huge wrap around scarf like more of a hide behind garment than a keep you warm thing.
I mean I did not see anyone else at all with such Siberian attire on.

Then Knox, her tales of yeah well I got up did this did that had a shower, yet all of the freshly showered and clean clothed cops could already smell the fragrant scent of soaps and shampoos stink of sweat mixing with bacteria radiating a shit don't these people wash atmosphere and thinking; didn't they just say they all had their showers and breakfast and stuff!!!

Then flash forward, to court rooms in which Sollecito always made a show of wearing his designer clothing, his choice of clothing no less weird.
You are on trial for your damned life and the way to go, as anyone in prison knows, is to try to show respect to the court whether you actually ever wore a suit in your own time, for court put a suit on, or clothing that is as tidy as possible, and wear a tie.

Women should not at any time try to accentuate their bodies (curves in a sexual manner) in court, to do so is seen as an insult to those judging and to the court as a whole, because if you do that the idea would be that you are trying to lead people astray by drawing attention to sexual things/sexuality = leading to possible bias when judging someone.


Neither looked right in court but their faces fattened out while in prison, they no longer looked exhausted as they had at the most RELEVANT MOMENT in all of THIS; the hours around when Meredith had been murdered.

They changed from dirty and exhausted looking, they went on to become gradually healthy looking (as in regular meals no drugs) during the court proceedings.

After release from prison and starring TV roles, it looked like Hollywood make-up artists had turned them into two copies of so many other fake, glossy looking unreal people, perfectly groomed and dressed.

This in itself is an insult to the intellect, namely, trying to convince the world that these are such tidy people, when the reality is, at the moment that mattered (at the time Meredith was murdered), they were EVERYTHING BUT healthy, tidy looking people.

I do think a picture is worth a thousand words - vast amount of data processed with the blink of an eye.
The words from their mouths did not match up with the way they were, that is why their appearance in relation to what they are known to have said, it very important indeed.

They were not being themselves, the words they told the police didn't match up with the reality right then, everything defied the cops' senses, nothing seemed to cognate.

Words, actions and appearances were not univocal at all, this contradiction is precisely the very thing that police are taught to pick up on.

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The Telegraph had a picture in 2009 showing the Massei Jury visiting the cottage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... urder.html (Click on images, #4)
It shows the outside shutters closed almost all the way, as Filomena testified. Do tell, Amanda Knox, how the rock made it past the shutters?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 10:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
The Telegraph had a picture in 2009 showing the Massei Jury visiting the cottage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... urder.html (Click on images, #4)
It shows the outside shutters closed almost all the way, as Filomena testified. Do tell, Amanda Knox, how the rock made it past the shutters?



There are a lot of images somewhere, I had always though most had been stored here but the other day when I looked I couldn't find as much as I'd expected to find.

Will look a bit more, there are more taken from under the window.

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

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Hi, ttrroonniicc, Not to take away from Jester's wonderful animations, but geebee2 of FOA fame and I had the same discussion in 2012 during FOAKER Tuesdays about the rock, the trajectory, and how it could possibly land into the bag under the desk. We even had the shutter, the jamb, etc. They countered with Sgt. Pasquali and Ron Hendry, LOL. I asked for a simple diagram; they couldn't comply, LOL.


The only thing that Hendry is qualified to comment on is the rock trajectory, as that is the only thing that even begins to resemble a vehicle accident in terms of projectiles impacting an object and following a logical path. In this case the projectile is a rock, the object that is impacted is wood, and gravity is an additional factor. That Hendry suddenly fancied himself as a blood spatter expert, ignoring the one thing he should know about, suggests to me that he became delusional about his area of expertise (which is questionable since he did not address the rock) while taking a hobbyist interest in Murderess Foxy Knoxy.

Rock Paper Scissors comes to mind. Rock is stronger than paper, and it is stronger than an old wooden shutter. The shutter is not going to stand still when hit with a rock. The shutter should probably swing open with the rock continuing on it's path, albeit, more slowly. That is, it is not going to result in a rock rebounding like a rubber ball and taking a 90 degree turn.


Last edited by Jester on Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:51 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
People who appear to be too helpful, while at the same time trying to be convincing, instead of just helpful, are picked up on fast by the police.

Image
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
Zorba wrote:
I am not about to start trying to talk to someone who approaches the murder of a girl as one of his hobbies.

To me you are a troll. To most people at .org you are a troll, including Piktor, who I greatly respect.

You are just another one who comes along says, oh yes, let me pay the entry fee by saying I agree, they are all as guilty as sin but what about this, bla bla bla, and that, bla bla bla...

.org does - really? I said right away he's FOA / should be relegated to tuesday. Obvious talking points of theirs. No creative thought around. Pretence of impartiality. The tuesday rule is the fairest thing. They tend to pollute. BTW Ergon - no harm in restating. From Jesters construction (IMO) there'd be massive splintering of the frame at some point on the opening edge of the shutter. The amount of glass remaining in the window after the hurling of such a rock / lack of glass spatter within the room is also an issue. Nobody has talked much about the rock trajectory within the room relating to the mark on the inner shutter until now. It's the most incontrovertible evidence that can't be warped. Second only to the bathmat foot-print. Did the FOA really re-scale that to the dimension of Guede? Blatant.



Yes, really, I also didn't need to have it confirmed by them to sense it wasn't okay, but it does help to see that others feel the same. I said it before, that actually saying I agree with you all.... is a price these people are prepared to pay, it seems, if they can get people to believe their take, which then cancels out their having said I agree they are all guilty, since their talking points are designed to have people think they are not guilty.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
zorba wrote:
People who appear to be too helpful, while at the same time trying to be convincing, instead of just helpful, are picked up on fast by the police.

Image


Exactly what I had in mind Troooon

Thanks

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

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Hi, ttrroonniicc, Not to take away from Jester's wonderful animations, but geebee2 of FOA fame and I had the same discussion in 2012 during FOAKER Tuesdays about the rock, the trajectory, and how it could possibly land into the bag under the desk. We even had the shutter, the jamb, etc. They countered with Sgt. Pasquali and Ron Hendry, LOL. I asked for a simple diagram; they couldn't comply, LOL.


The only thing that Hendry is qualified to comment on is the rock trajectory, as that is the only thing that even begins to resemble a vehicle accident in terms of projectiles impacting an object and following a logical path. In this case the projectile is a rock, the object that is impacted is wood, and gravity is an additional factor. That Hendry suddenly fancied himself as a blood spatter expert, ignoring the one thing he should know about, suggests to me that he became delusional about his area of expertise (which is questionable since he did not address the rock) while taking a hobbyist interest in Murderess Foxy Knoxy.

Rock Paper Scissors comes to mind. Rock is stronger than paper, and it is stronger than an old wooden shutter. The shutter is not going to stand still when hit with a rock. The shutter should probably swing open with the rock continuing on it's path, albeit, more slowly. That is, it is not going to result in a rock rebounding like a rubber ball and taking a 90 degree turn.


Precisely. In trying to build up Mr. Hendry 'world class' expertise, they still had to admit his entire reconstruction came from photographs provided by them, LOL. Most accident reconstructionists I know tend to prefer seeing the accident scene with their own eyes.

A bit like criticizing the lab work of someone whose lab they never visited, or assuming EDF's weren't provided to the court based on the say so of defense supporters, or writing a psychology article implying that Amanda Knox had been coerced into signing a statement without actually meeting or interviewing her, the list of white knights galloping off in all directions goes on and on...

I am no expert, but it seemed to me that a rock thrown at that rightward angle would cause it to land on the bed or the center of the room, and not to the left. So thanks for confirming the suspicions so many of us had back then.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

ttrroonniicc wrote:
zorba wrote:
People who appear to be too helpful, while at the same time trying to be convincing, instead of just helpful, are picked up on fast by the police.

Image


And just in time, the failing website for Knox apologists (you know which one, initials GR) has a new article out by the looney Liberal Councillor for Haringey, (you know who, initials NS :) claiming that AK was a suspect from day one. Well, looking at this photo, one can see why, and what these detectives were thinking.

NS's proof for Amanda being railroaded by a 'conspiracy to manipulate evidence'? A Daily Mail article of Nov.06, 2007, that came out before the news of the arrest arrived. He claims it is proof they were already looking at her as a suspect, ergo, the evidence was manipulated.

Ahem. Do the groupies know the source for that article? One Frank Sfarzo, who knew through his source in the Questura that Knox was a suspect, and sold his story to the DM :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What's ol' Nigel on about as proof of a "conspiracy" targeting herself, and as proof, a DM article of November 06, 2007? All I can find in their archives is this piece http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urder.html which says not quite wot he says, LOL.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

The joys of twitter: jokes in 140 characters or less.

Example: "#AmandaKnox on the Mother of All Myths: there was a conspiracy to frame her, since she was the most likely suspect, LOL."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
Jester wrote:
Ergon wrote:
Hi, ttrroonniicc, Not to take away from Jester's wonderful animations, but geebee2 of FOA fame and I had the same discussion in 2012 during FOAKER Tuesdays about the rock, the trajectory, and how it could possibly land into the bag under the desk. We even had the shutter, the jamb, etc. They countered with Sgt. Pasquali and Ron Hendry, LOL. I asked for a simple diagram; they couldn't comply, LOL.


The only thing that Hendry is qualified to comment on is the rock trajectory, as that is the only thing that even begins to resemble a vehicle accident in terms of projectiles impacting an object and following a logical path. In this case the projectile is a rock, the object that is impacted is wood, and gravity is an additional factor. That Hendry suddenly fancied himself as a blood spatter expert, ignoring the one thing he should know about, suggests to me that he became delusional about his area of expertise (which is questionable since he did not address the rock) while taking a hobbyist interest in Murderess Foxy Knoxy.

Rock Paper Scissors comes to mind. Rock is stronger than paper, and it is stronger than an old wooden shutter. The shutter is not going to stand still when hit with a rock. The shutter should probably swing open with the rock continuing on it's path, albeit, more slowly. That is, it is not going to result in a rock rebounding like a rubber ball and taking a 90 degree turn.


Precisely. In trying to build up Mr. Hendry 'world class' expertise, they still had to admit his entire reconstruction came from photographs provided by them, LOL. Most accident reconstructionists I know tend to prefer seeing the accident scene with their own eyes.

A bit like criticizing the lab work of someone whose lab they never visited, or assuming EDF's weren't provided to the court based on the say so of defense supporters, or writing a psychology article implying that Amanda Knox had been coerced into signing a statement without actually meeting or interviewing her, the list of white knights galloping off in all directions goes on and on...

I am no expert, but it seemed to me that a rock thrown at that rightward angle would cause it to land on the bed or the center of the room, and not to the left. So thanks for confirming the suspicions so many of us had back then.


I think I'll have a look at what I think the path of the rock would be given the dent on the inside shutter.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
I think I'll have a look at what I think the path of the rock would be given the dent on the inside shutter.


Thank you for your diagrams and animations Jester. They are very helpful.

A few months back I made a post on .org (http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic. ... 02#p135902) explaining that I didn't think a right-hander could throw a rock from the parking pad and hit the damaged area of the scuri.

From Jar's photo and the one I added, one can see that the parking pad (its right edge is visible below the black shutter) is too far to the wrong side of the window. In my crude diagram I attempted to approximate a right hand release position from both inside and outside the fence, the thickness of the wall, and how far back the glass and scuri were inset from the outside.

I'd love to have you provide a more accurate diagram of the perpatrator's approximate right arm position relative to the damaged side of the window to see if my hypothesis holds water. That is, I believe that if a right hander threw a rock directly at the damaged area of the scuri, the rock would hit the outside edge of the wall.

PS. Happy New Year all! Hoping for justice soon.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
Jester wrote:
I think I'll have a look at what I think the path of the rock would be given the dent on the inside shutter.


Thank you for your diagrams and animations Jester. They are very helpful.

A few months back I made a post on .org (http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic. ... 02#p135902) explaining that I didn't think a right-hander could throw a rock from the parking pad and hit the damaged area of the scuri.

From Jar's photo and the one I added, one can see that the parking pad (its right edge is visible below the black shutter) is too far to the wrong side of the window. In my crude diagram I attempted to approximate a right hand release position from both inside and outside the fence, the thickness of the wall, and how far back the glass and scuri were inset from the outside.

I'd love to have you provide a more accurate diagram of the perpatrator's approximate right arm position relative to the damaged side of the window to see if my hypothesis holds water. That is, I believe that if a right hander threw a rock directly at the damaged area of the scuri, the rock would hit the outside edge of the wall.

PS. Happy New Year all! Hoping for justice soon.


That's a very interesting point. I've just added the shutters and I'm having a look at the path of the rock hitting the shutter and then sliding under the desk. I'm left handed, and I played baseball, basketball, volleyball, racquetball and squash until I blew my knee, so I have some experience as a left hander managing in a right hander's world. As a right hander trying to hit that edge of the shutter, I would expect that the rock would be tossed like a volleyball or basketball pass. I don't think that a right hand toss would work. I'll put a person in and adjust the path for a right hand throw. Would it be like a shot put throw?

I'm going to render the shutter opening first. The only way this works is if one shutter opened and the other one remained closed. If the second shutter opened, the rock would have hit it next and it would have dropped to the floor - given the assumption that it changed direction by 90 degrees after hitting the first shutter. Essentially, I'm saying that if both of the interior shutters were open, the rock would have ricocheted between those two shutters and dropped to the floor with a thud.


Last edited by Jester on Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Itchy Brother


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:35 pm

Posts: 423

Location: California/U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
Jester wrote:
I think I'll have a look at what I think the path of the rock would be given the dent on the inside shutter.


Thank you for your diagrams and animations Jester. They are very helpful.

A few months back I made a post on .org (http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic. ... 02#p135902) explaining that I didn't think a right-hander could throw a rock from the parking pad and hit the damaged area of the scuri.

From Jar's photo and the one I added, one can see that the parking pad (its right edge is visible below the black shutter) is too far to the wrong side of the window. In my crude diagram I attempted to approximate a right hand release position from both inside and outside the fence, the thickness of the wall, and how far back the glass and scuri were inset from the outside.

I'd love to have you provide a more accurate diagram of the perpatrator's approximate right arm position relative to the damaged side of the window to see if my hypothesis holds water. That is, I believe that if a right hander threw a rock directly at the damaged area of the scuri, the rock would hit the outside edge of the wall.

PS. Happy New Year all! Hoping for justice soon.


That's a very interesting point. I've just added the shutters and I'm having a look at the path of the rock hitting the shutter and then sliding under the desk. I'm left handed, and I played baseball, basketball, volleyball, racquetball and squash until I blew my knee, so I have some experience as a left hander managing in a right hander's world. As a right hander trying to hit that edge of the shutter, I would expect that the rock would be tossed like a volleyball or basketball pass. I don't think that a right hand toss would work. I'll put a person in and adjust the path for a right hand throw. Would it be like a shot put throw?


That's a good question. I was imagining it more like a simple overhand baseball throw, but given the weight of the rock it makes sense that it might be more like a shot put throw. Perhaps launched with the right hand pushing from near the right shoulder.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:08 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Itchy Brother wrote:
Jester wrote:
Itchy Brother wrote:
Jester wrote:
I think I'll have a look at what I think the path of the rock would be given the dent on the inside shutter.


Thank you for your diagrams and animations Jester. They are very helpful.

A few months back I made a post on .org (http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic. ... 02#p135902) explaining that I didn't think a right-hander could throw a rock from the parking pad and hit the damaged area of the scuri.

From Jar's photo and the one I added, one can see that the parking pad (its right edge is visible below the black shutter) is too far to the wrong side of the window. In my crude diagram I attempted to approximate a right hand release position from both inside and outside the fence, the thickness of the wall, and how far back the glass and scuri were inset from the outside.

I'd love to have you provide a more accurate diagram of the perpatrator's approximate right arm position relative to the damaged side of the window to see if my hypothesis holds water. That is, I believe that if a right hander threw a rock directly at the damaged area of the scuri, the rock would hit the outside edge of the wall.

PS. Happy New Year all! Hoping for justice soon.


That's a very interesting point. I've just added the shutters and I'm having a look at the path of the rock hitting the shutter and then sliding under the desk. Would it be like a shot put throw?


That's a good question. I was imagining it more like a simple overhand baseball throw, but given the weight of the rock it makes sense that it might be more like a shot put throw. Perhaps launched with the right hand pushing from near the right shoulder.


I think you're correct in that a right hand overhand throw would be a very tight fit, but he could straddle the fence. There's a 12-16" ledge on the drop-to-floor-below side of the fence. I'll add the person after the shutters render, which may take an hour or so. I'll add a five foot ten inch man on the parking lot side of the fence, draw a trajectory arc from the right shoulder pivot point (human factors ergonomic charts) to the dent on the shutter 13 feet away. I'll assume that the rock continues on it's path after hitting the shutter and see where it ends up. I haven't used this software in a few years and I'm enjoying getting back into it.

Does anyone know how to insert or post an avi here? It's better resolution.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
The joys of twitter: jokes in 140 characters or less.

Example: "#AmandaKnox on the Mother of All Myths: there was a conspiracy to frame her, since she was the most likely suspect, LOL."


Knox has a very good understanding of framing people. Knox pulled Patrick Lumumba's name right out of a hat and left him to rot in prison (two weeks) until he could independently prove that he was not at the scene of the murder. Knox stated to police on three separate occasions (until Nov 7) that she was not lying about Patrick when she eye-witness accused him of murdering her roommate. She told her mother that she lied about Patrick murdering Meredith on Nov 10 and her mother remained silent until Ptartick could independently prove that he was innocent two weeks after his arrest, his business destroyed.

Knox claimed flashbacks and imagined confusion/fuzziness around the event when she was caught attempting to focus attention away from what she did on the night of her roommates murder by accusing an innocent man of murder. From the beginning to the end of the investigation, Knox and Sollecito continue to manipulate, distort and lie about the facts surrounding the night that they murdered Meredith Kercher. A simple compare and contrast skill should lead to Sollecito's huge exaggeration that he concocted to support Knox's claims of torture for 9.5 hours. Sollecito reduced the torture allegations to five hours, but in reality his storybook claims are not supported by testimony. There was no torture. A couple of hours after they ate they were sitting at the police station, flipping cartwheels, and providing information about a murder. They must have been stone out of their minds that night!

Knox made three separate declarations by November 7. If she was as stoned on November 5 as it looks (cartwheels with the Carabinieri), the three statements probably correlate to coming down and gathering her sensibilities in prison. Knox's initial declaration of guilt against Patrick Lumumba was discarded by the courts. However, Knox made two additional declarations against Patrick Lumumba on Nov 6 and 7. Knox fully expected that her mom was arriving to whisk her away to Germany on the morning of November 6, but even after the mother arrived, Knox wrote a false statement against Patrick Lumumba. Knox confessed her lies to her mother and her mother covered for her. That's not a good sign.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Alleged rock path with shutters

Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:21 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

This is not lined up ... but I will line it up in a bit. The only question is whether virtual re-enactment will be viewed as a "cartoon" (typically funny; like Donald Duck), or as a virtual re-enactment or a crime.

Image
Top Profile 

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:12 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
This is not lined up ... but I will line it up in a bit. The only question is whether virtual re-enactment will be viewed as a "cartoon" (typically funny; like Donald Duck), or as a virtual re-enactment or a crime.

Image

It shows the insanity of entry from that position. Dead of night, cold air. Sound carries fast. Hurling heavy rock through, in view of the road. Alerting those inside (for a burglary or a direct attack). Motive has never been addressed (Guede was historically a rapist?). Its nuts .. we are questioning this because of the crazy rash immediate decision of the intoxicated Sollecito to stage the break through that window. Why did he choose that room? I think it's possible (because of the blood traces found in there), that something had occurred in that room to partially disturb it to start with. Kokomani stated that somebody was signalling from the house. Trying to get attention. From that window?. Has been discussed here. If the room was already disturbed, staging would be made in that room. Rather than venturing into any other room. Either Meredith Kercher fled into that room at one point or possibly she was signalling from the room (as recollected by Kokomani). That was when Knox and Sollecito were outside the house (to intercept, with Guede, the car of Kokomani). Kokomani was delivering drugs (cocaine). Meredith Kercher may have been silenced soon after. The attack may have had two stages. Guede discovered Meredith Kercher (dying), subsequent to the departure of Kokomani. Knox and Sollecito had fled (the running footsteps in two directions, reported by Nara Capezalli).


Last edited by ttrroonniicc on Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

https://maps.google.nl/maps?saddr=via+d ... m&t=m&z=19


I cannot work out how to embed the google map here. The link shows exactly the distance, see for yourself how ridiculously close Guede and Sollecito lived to one another, in fact they could have shouted at one house and have heard it at the other.


Anyhow, Sollecito's flat was 200 feet away from Guede's home (note: home = not a drifter = not homeless).

Question 1: What are the chances they never bumped into one another of a morning WHEN POPPING OUT IN SLIPPERS to get a box of eggs and some coffee?

Answer: 100% because neither ever ate or needed something from the store located on their own doorsteps.


Question 2:What is the likelihood -- where the main route, direct route, almost narrow alley-like route down into town passes Sollecito's house, which is positioned 5 doors down from the store -- that they NEVER EVER saw one another?

Answer: 100% if both were blind and led by dogs.

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
This is not lined up ... but I will line it up in a bit. The only question is whether virtual re-enactment will be viewed as a "cartoon" (typically funny; like Donald Duck), or as a virtual re-enactment or a crime.

Image


I would view it as a cartoon, but that's just me, and only because it's a staged break in, not the murder. I'm thinking daffy duck :) But it is a virtual re-enactment nevertheless.

A shot put throw would be hardest to place with any accuracy, if one were a thrower in the middle of the night. Not hitting the ledge, or bouncing back against the shutter and falling into the gully? I doubt that. It makes more sense to throw like a baseball, with velocity, and there were many, smaller 'baseballs' around the property. Why a 4 kilo boulder?

And, being the imp that I am, here's a suggestion, never done before: A re-enactment from the inside, with the 5'3" Knox. (She was inside the room, according to the forensics :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:18 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Question: Did Guede need to buy any weed (from Sollecito)?

Answer: No, he only needed to open his window and could get a twos-up (second-hand smoke) on Sollecito's smoke as he leant out of his window 200 feet away.

La la la, who in hell was the dealer here, when it was Sollecito caught by police in the possession of 3 grams of hash anno 2003.
Guede was never caught with any hash, nor was he ever tried for dealing.

Rumours, dripping off your mouth like dirt.

Hearsay, hearsay; there is absolutely no proof at all that Guede ever was a dealer.

The rumours were spread on the basis of ideas from the 1920s originating from American DEA propaganda against black citizens, those portraying black people as drug maniacs intent on raping white women and murdering the good, law-abiding white folks.

Since it is Sollecito with the record for hash possession then if it can be said that if anyone was a user or even dealer, then the person doing both was Sollecito, NOT Guede.

Among weed smokers it is normal practice to sell a gram here or there to friends. I see Sollecito as being a person who probably wheeled and dealed, to subsidise his own habits, those not accounted for in the budget received from dad every month including, study, house, food & drink, hobby money, pocket money, drink/socializing money, car money, fuel money, in fact, it's true Sollecito never even undertook as much as a paper round in his entire life.

He was not just born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he was born with one glued to his gob.
Dad had enough bills and I doubt son-love could submit an invoice for smokes, dad could have bought a life time's supply of his favourite cigars for just a month's worth of hash expenses.

Son, what are these cigars you say you are smoking, they seem to be more expensive than gold?
Sollecito Silver Spoon: Oh just some Havanas dad

The thing is, there is more data available on him as having used other types of drugs and at the time of the murder he certainly didn't look like he was into 3 square meals a day, studying and doing fitness, I can easily imagine him being into having a few lines of this and a few lines of that, his mirror resembling a train station in the winter snow.

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline LUFC1972


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:36 pm

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:32 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Ergon wrote:
LUFC1972 wrote:
Secondly, what was the weather like on the night of the murder? I seem to recall it was raining or had been raining. If either was the case the earth below the window would have been damp or wet. IMHO it would not be possible to scale the outside (whitewashed) wall and enter Filomena's room via the window without leaving any traces of mud.





Weather, here: http://www.wunderground.com/history/air ... atename=NA


Thanks for the link. Looking at those records the last time it rained before the murder was the 30th of October. The precipitation measurement shows as zero but this cannot be correct as there at least 8 hours of rain that day, including a thunderstorm. With low temperatures at that time of year the ground would still have been wet and muddy on the night of the murder. Footprints would have been left below the window and marks on the whitewashed wall as well as on the bedroom floor.

I revisited the fingerprint evidence on the excellent Wiki yesterday. I find it interesting that a print of RS was found on the inside of Laura's bedroom door. This is more unusual than a print being found on the outside of the door. Did he leave the print post clean-up when pushing the door closed to make furtive 'phone calls?

No prints of AK in her bedroom is also very strange. I see Nigel Scott on Twitter claims PLE said they didn't look for AK's prints in her own room. Yeah, right. It's appropriate that his Twitter avatar is a dog as he is barking mad.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What happened when son Sollecito got pulled in for hash possession in 2003;

Ring ring, ring ring

Father: Hello son how are you?
Son: Not too good now dad
Father: Why is that?
Son: The police caught me with hash
Father: Where are you son?
Son: At the police station dad
Father: Dammit, shame-o, so what now?
Son: I don't know yet dad, call what's her name, er, what's she called
Dad: Who?
Son: My sister
Dad: Huh, for fuck's sake son, you need to quit smoking that gear
Son: Her name?
Dad: Vanessa
Son: What was I talking about?
Dad: You at the police station
Son: When?
Dad: Now you idiot
Son: Yes it is all the fault of marijuana
Dad: Yes
Son: What's my name?
Dad: Fuck wit
Son: I was just kidding ya dad, I know where I am, I know who my sister is, weed in fact does not make you lose your memory, you may start to consider certain trivial matters as being unimportant, and a waste of your head space
Dad: Is that right?
Son: Yes it is dad, I've been smoking since I was 14 and selling it for years
Police: You got that down Charlie?
Son: Ah ah ah stop slapping me upside the head, you didn't read me my rights, you planted it on me
Police: You got that water board ready Carlo?
Police Carlo: Sure, let's torture him and pull his toenails out with a pair of rusty liars
Dad: What, stop, I have friends in high places, you'll never work again

4 years later

Ring ring, ring ring

Dad: dad here, who is this?
Son: It's me dad
Dad: How ya doing son
Son: not too good right now dad
Dad: Why is that son
Son: I'm in trouble AGAIN
Dad: Not smoking again?
Son: Not quite dad, it's my girlfriend the Americano, I think she may have murdered her house mate
Dad: What? Are you nuts?
Son: It is the weed's fault again dad, I will never smoke the joint again
Dad: I told you before, look I'll call your sister, she'll appreciate losing her career to help you out.
Son: Ah ah ah stop torturing me, you didn't read me my rights
Police: Carlo, get the water board and the electric shock machine out of storage will ya

Sollecito, spontaneous statement of the century: They made me take my socks off.... torture!!!!

tra la la la la

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hi everyone,

I hope you all had a great start into the new year 2014.

I am looking forward to the new court dates (according to Andrea Vogt January 9, 16 and 20 The Freelance Desk - Amanda Knox Appeal #2) and I remain hopeful that the Kerchers will finally see justice done this year.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:26 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Hi everyone,

I hope you all had a great start into the new year 2014.

I am looking forward to the new court dates (according to Andrea Vogt January 9, 16 and 20 The Freelance Desk - Amanda Knox Appeal #2) and I remain hopeful that the Kerchers will finally see justice done this year.


Thank you Nell and a Happy New Year to you and everyone else doing their bit for justice, for Meredith here and in the ether.

Seems that about Sollecito returning, again, to Italy was a case of false info as a kind of propaganda. Whoever devised that plan, I know not who, is odd, because how would his return to Perugia and the visiting of bars help him to look better?

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

John Douglas has a new post up on his blog, in defense of Knox, of course, and a well-known G-man has posted something about ducklings, imprinting, and the 'identity' of Harry Rag, at his place. Looks like a coordinated effort between the self-appointed, home-grown "legal experts" on the Knox case. Now waiting for the retired judge to emerge and say something in the same vein next. Knox is now advertising Judges for Justice on her blog. -->> viewtopic.php?p=116462#p116462

Amanda’s Unending Punishment
By John Douglas and Mark Olshaker On January 6, 2014

MINDHUNTERS

(Actually, not worth reading at all unless you want to know about their activities. Just FYI.)
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
John Douglas has a new post up on his blog, in defense of Knox, of course, and a well-known G-man has posted something about ducklings, imprinting and the 'identity' of Harry Rag in his place. Looks like a coordinated effort between the self-appointed, home-grown "legal experts" on the Knox case. Now waiting for the retired judge to emerge and say something in the same vein next. Knox is now advertising Judges for Justice on her blog. -->> http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewto ... 62#p116462

Amanda’s Unending Punishment
By John Douglas and Mark Olshaker On January 6, 2014

MINDHUNTERS

(Actually, not worth reading at all unless you want to know about their activities. Just FYI.)


Not exactly interesting those people but, in relation to them, this is, and I'm sure Britain is not the only place with means to go after those who try to intimidate people.

TWITTER AND THE LAW
Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, any 'indecent or grossly offensive' message that causes 'distress or anxiety' to the recipient can lead to prosecution.
The maximum punishment is a fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale - i.e. no more than £2,500.
Since the 1988 law came into force before the widespread use of the internet, e-mail and social networking, prosecutors have used a number of different laws to charge Twitter trolls.
Student Liam Stacey, who sent a series of racially abusive tweets after footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed, was charged under the Crime and Disorder Act.
Two men jailed for inciting riots last summer were found guilty under the Serious Crime Act, and Paul Chambers, who joked he would blow Doncaster airport 'sky high' was charged under the Communications Act 2003.

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


Last edited by zorba on Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Hopeless isn't it, judges for justice

What else is a judge supposed to stand for?

Milk deliveries?

The actual title already belittles their maligned venture.


Who the hell do they think they are? Doctors without borders?

That is the big deal vibe they intend to give their lost cause.

Judge more or less condemned by his peers says, I am the power, and I am the justice. I am the law unto myself in my make-believe world.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:49 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Seems that about Sollecito returning, again, to Italy was a case of false info as a kind of propaganda. Whoever devised that plan, I know not who, is odd, because how would his return to Perugia and the visiting of bars help him to look better?


I don't think Sollecito has been to Perugia recently. It was an error in Google translation. The La Tribuna headline reads:

C’è un amore opitergino per Sollecito

L’imputato “eccellente” di Perugia visto in centro in dolce compagnia. E lui clicca “mi piace” sulla pagina di un noto pub


Google trans, according to Michael -->> http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewto ... 86#p116386

There is a love for Oderzo Sollecito

The accused "excellent" seen in the center of Perugia in good company. And he click "like" on the page of a well-known pub


A more accurate translation would be:

There is a love in Oderzo for Sollecito

The 'first-class' accused of Perugia seen in the center [of Oderzo] in good company. And he clicked "like" on the page of a well-known pub.


So he was seen in the center of Oderzo some time in the past, that's all.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:41 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
zorba wrote:
Seems that about Sollecito returning, again, to Italy was a case of false info as a kind of propaganda. Whoever devised that plan, I know not who, is odd, because how would his return to Perugia and the visiting of bars help him to look better?


I don't think Sollecito has been to Perugia recently. It was an error in Google translation. The La Tribuna headline reads:

C’è un amore opitergino per Sollecito

L’imputato “eccellente” di Perugia visto in centro in dolce compagnia. E lui clicca “mi piace” sulla pagina di un noto pub


Google trans, according to Michael -->> http://www.perugiamurderfile.net/viewto ... 86#p116386

There is a love for Oderzo Sollecito

The accused "excellent" seen in the center of Perugia in good company. And he click "like" on the page of a well-known pub


A more accurate translation would be:

There is a love in Oderzo for Sollecito

The 'first-class' accused of Perugia seen in the center [of Oderzo] in good company. And he clicked "like" on the page of a well-known pub.


So he was seen in the center of Oderzo some time in the past, that's all.



I'm wondering why nobody said a lot on it though on PMF.org, as there are plenty of native Italian speakers there!


The first class accused would mean then [I did not look into this myself at all] main offender or some such thing, primary defendant, etc.

If he did return his big chums at OGGI would be on him like leaches.

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

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

RIP Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:31 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito and his Harem of Prossies on that Holiday Package They Just Don't Sell

Girl: So, you are leaving?
Sollecito: Yes, I will be back within a month or 2, if not then I'll see you in about 25 years, you okay with that?
Girl: Sure, I'll wait
Sollecito: You are discrete and unlike the corrupt Europeans, I love this other place here, other than where they do not stop with nonsense against me, I think I will send an e-mail to the judge too.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:06 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Knox (to be referred to from hereonin as Nada) famous for riding while on the train sends second e-mail to the judge

Nada: Dear Judge, your honorable, I hope my mail finds you in good health, and I also hope you did not misinterpret my last post to you, when I said I didn't trust anyone in Italy, I didn't mean you of course, why would I think that? No, no I wouldn't. Let's be friends, I'm sure I could learn lots from you and you could learn even more about what I choose to tell you. Your eminence, I said I could not star at court, it's true, because after my experiences of repeated torture and sensory deprivation at the hands of your workers other courts [the different ones to your good one] I became convinced they would trick you into believing their half of the evidence your lordship. In fact, I say other half of evidence but as you and I know there was no evidence. The boyfriend I had for 7 days, well, about him, I stayed with him that night, when my enemy friend was murdered. I think he may have slipped out in the night, committed murder, then sneaked back in to where I was asleep all innocent, and he then placed that knife in my hand, then put it in the drawer, in fact I offered this long before any analysis had been conducted of the knife, why I did say that I don't know because I have no clear recollection, why would I say it? Mmm, it could be, could have been, that's what I thought back then before I knew if you the police had found any of my traces on that knife, get it?
If you like, you can come here and I will interview you you can hear the story I've been waiting to have heard. We could go for a nice meal and I could show you around Seattle, I have an Internet Everywhere account and so you could update your court cases and try the others in (your) absentia.

You could instruct everyone to take part from home or from jail, with their laptops and twitter accounts, you could issue your decisions and rulings by e-mail and it would save a lot of money and time, in fact you could work from home your regulationness.
Anyhow, thanks for waiting to hear me. This is my e-mail address, please don't give it to anyone, can I trust you on that Your Highness?
No need to answer, I know I can, you are different.
E-mail: foxiousfilms&self-pro.incorporated@unde ... rinwood.sl

I know it's on the long side but I did abbreviate it.

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

Offline ttrroonniicc


Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:12 pm

Posts: 1073

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Knox has a very good understanding of framing people. Knox pulled Patrick Lumumba's name right out of a hat

She bounced names off Sollecito

While at the police station on Nov4, RS popped out to get a pizza. The lovebirds were put in a room and their conversation was 'secretly' recorded.

4'40;

RS; What are you thinking about?

AK; That I don't want to be here. I want everything to be over because I want to know who is (sic d) his friends, because he doesn't have many friends. Now, it's like this, it's interesting. In fact, nobody is his friend now. because before when (his? ndr) house was here he doesn't have..., he didn't go out, he didn't speak to many people..., he was always focusing on his girlfriend. That's what he told me.

RS. (in bad English) You...because I've got many friends, if I tell everyone to look after you...or...this is the difference, I have good friends, not his friends.

6'30;

AK; (In Italian) I know, but he's a bit crazy when he's...(she hesitates, stumbles in Italian and continues in English) When he thinks about breaking off a relationship with a woman (incomprehensible)...strange to me. He says he trusts his girlfriend but he doesn't like it when he sees her talk to a man he doesn't know. Even if they've just split up...(incomprehensible). He looks at her and gets crazy. And...but then he (not clear, seems like 'He forced me')all the time. He's terrible. He says he doesn't mind seeing his girlfriend, even if he's talking to a man he doesn't know, but then he gets arrogant with me.

RS; (in English) This is ridiculous.

7'20;

AK; (In English) I don't like him anymore frankly. I mean; it was nice of him to find me a job and I liked it when he played the guitar with...when I went home (the missing word isn't clearly audible because of backgound voices and sounds. It could be 'with me', 'with Meredith' or something else)

RS; Hang on, are we talking about...(he hesitates) your friend from Le Chic or ...

AK; (She interrupts him) Friend from Le Chic?

RS; I'm not talking about the one that...

AK; Who?

RS; I'm mean the one that...

AK; Spiros?

RS; No. Shaky, Shaky, eh, eh (sniggering)

AK; I don't like him. He's not...I detest that man (sniggering). He tried it on with me.

RS; (after an interruption) Yes, OK, and...if he says something (?) ...with friends (?) Do you think he's...because I'm just..."
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

Image


From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.

My best guess, is that it used to occupy an old stone wall that used to serve as a boundary between the cottage and the main road there, long since demolished and replaced with the relatively modern metal railings that we see today. Those railings are pretty buckled, no doubt from various car prangs, and that indicates why a stone wall would have been replaced with a more flexible (so safer) and cheaper to maintain metal railing.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

That's another really good bit you've remembered Troooon.

This one is so odd too

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:31 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

Image


From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.




Looking at that Michael, all I can say is there's NO burglar that ever uses such an unhandy, heavy thing, it isn't as if it fits snugly into a hand, so that would make it horrible for aiming with any accuracy.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:29 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I know it's well-known that in prisons the first thing anyone new will get to hear is, don't speak about your case, you never know who is listening. What that means is, people sat in a hall, one filled with prisoners sat at tables with their visitors, could get away with talking but everywhere else prisoners learn to be very careful.
I reckon Guede was smart enough to know right from the start that anything he said, even to someone he had always considered to be a friend, might be listened in on, that's why what he said while on the run cannot be counted on as real. He was already talking trying to protect himself by protecting Knox and Sollecito's identities.

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


Last edited by zorba on Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:01 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I know that in prisons the first thing anyone new will get to hear is, don't speak about your case, you never know who is listening. What that means is, people sat in a hall, one filled with prisoners sat at tables with their visitors, could get away with talking about things they do not want the law to know.

In any room where it is just the prisoner and a visitor, a prisoner is going to be very careful.

A person, and here I mean such as Guede, who is involved in a murder, who has had his identity established by the police, by means of DNA and fingerprints, knows then that if nobody has cleaned up it is quite certain they are going to be after him.

Upon reading about a person being sought, Guede would have known it was him they wanted.

Even when speaking to a friend, he would have known that the police could have been sat right there next to that friend, therefore anything Guede said, when talking to that friend, cannot be relied on.

All as Guede did was work on a way to explain how he had been there but was in fact innocent of any crimes.

He, just like the other two, could never know what his co-offenders would say to the police, however, for all three, it did not take long to work out that each one could not tell on the other without running the risk of being exposed too.

It is all well and good Knox and Sollecito saying you have your killer it is Guede, saying that only after several years, in fact only in 2013, but by 2013 they knew, absolutely, where Guede was positioned on the chess board, if there had been any room for Guede to make a move, if they were not sure he would make a move, then they'd not have said such things, they did not before, only when they were sure, as no damage could be done to themselves.

They worked out Guede wasn't willing to have his share in the murder revealed, by them, and he wasn't going to be owning up.

At that point they realised they could pretend to think it was all Guede, knowing Guede will somehow have heard what they started saying, but still taking no action.

That means Knox and Sollecito can now take on their support's lines but it is totally meaningless, since when it mattered, they just tried to act as though Guede didn't exist, they were scared shitless about mentioning a word against him, in real terms, for fear he'd crack and expose them.

One minute they do not know him, never saw him, then it appears they both DID know him.

In trying to work out what is real, the way or one way of doing it, is transposing certain bits into the way things go in ordinary every day life.

Like you meet someone, and there is a certain degree of sociability involved.

For instance:
Oh, hi, where you from?
Where do you live?

Now if they ever met, and they did, then when asking where do you live, the thing that would have become clear, was that Sollecito and Guede were next door neighbours.

Therefore, someone saying, yes I did meet him once (as though that means you were still complete strangers to one another) cannot mean that since it was just once it was a nothing/of no consequence; it was definitely a something, especially in a small place, it was:
What? there, oh there, man that's a coincidence, hey, I live right next door to ya.

How odd then would it be to say, hummmfff, we live next door to one another.... so what?

This is not the way ordinary people interact, the ordinary way would be, hey, we are neighbours, hey how about that, we're neighbours.

Sollecito definitely knew who Guede was and where he lived and what he was about.

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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I am catching up with the posts written while I was enjoying the holidays and it is not my intention to interrupt the ongoing discussion about the staged break in, but I discovered something that I wanted to share with you.


I spotted a red haired guy in one of the photos taken from Raffaele Sollecito's book signing tour. The original photo can be found on Sollecito's (mostly dysfunctional) blog.

In the photo below you can see him standing behind a camera mounted on a tripod. A camera bag and a folder of documents are on the table in front of him. In the background you can spot Candace Dempsey, Sharlene Martin, Judge Michael Heavey and Frank Sfarzo.

Image

It turns out his name is Leo Novsky and he is the founder of Speak with Power Consulting. He specialises in speech coaching, communication workshops and motivational speaking. He can also be hired as an event EMCEE.


Image


To my surprise I found a blog post written by him in which he describes how he helped retired Judge Michael Heavey to improve his Rotary Club speech regarding Amanda Knox. Either click on the screenshot to see it full size or go to read the article on the original blog.


Image

So yes, Raffaele Sollecito and Judge Michael Heavey have used the services of a professional to get ready for their audience. I assume Amanda Knox did the same before she faced the cameras for the first time.

For a pair of "innocents" wanting to be heard so that we get to know their true persona, they need an awful lot of preparation in my humble opinion. They don't leave anything to chance.


Well, that's all folks. Now we know. I just wanted to share this with you.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

What a great find, Nell. We knew he hired a "media turtor" and his CV shows his three month "communications training" from July 2012. This guy appears to be part of Sharlene Martin's services in preparing her clients for book tours and TV appearances. Nice to put a face (and name) to him, I'm sure he's quite good.

Raffaele Sollecito still came across as scripted and stilted, however :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
What a great find, Nell. We knew he hired a "media turtor" and his CV shows his three month "communications training" from July 2012. This guy appears to be part of Sharlene Martin's services in preparing her clients for book tours and TV appearances. Nice to put a face (and name) to him, I'm sure he's quite good.

Raffaele Sollecito still came across as scripted and stilted, however :)


I am not sure he's that good. Heavey's presentation makes me laugh and cry at the same time, Sollecito's interviews were irritating and Novsky's website has quite a few significant typos.

Just look at the screenshots: thorough instead of through, fundrazing, innosense, enought - and that's only what you can see in the screenshots.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I'm such a polite Pakistani-Canadian, even if I think Novsky's a dunce :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Good find Guermantes.

He cannot/does not write English very well at all.

If you say: "Wrongfully convicted of a murder of her roomate"[sic] and it's your very own presentation page, what does that say about your own skills and the level of care taken?

I would say it is THE murder, since a person only gets murdered, thank god, once.


Quote: Presentation of the innocense [sic]


Quote: The curse of knowledge is when you know too much about subject and not pay attention to what the audience needs.


The curse of knowledge
The curse of passion


They really make sure they find others who are exactly like they are.

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


Last edited by zorba on Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline LUFC1972


User avatar


Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:36 pm

Posts: 81

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:13 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.

My best guess, is that it used to occupy an old stone wall that used to serve as a boundary between the cottage and the main road there, long since demolished and replaced with the relatively modern metal railings that we see today. Those railings are pretty buckled, no doubt from various car prangs, and that indicates why a stone wall would have been replaced with a more flexible (so safer) and cheaper to maintain metal railing.


Michael, thanks for this - I asked about the origin of the rock up thread. It does look like it was part of a wall. It is fairly clean with no signs of soil so would not have come from the garden. I was hoping that someone who had visited the cottage could suggest a likely source close by. At 9lbs it would not have been carried far.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

LUFC1972 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.

My best guess, is that it used to occupy an old stone wall that used to serve as a boundary between the cottage and the main road there, long since demolished and replaced with the relatively modern metal railings that we see today. Those railings are pretty buckled, no doubt from various car prangs, and that indicates why a stone wall would have been replaced with a more flexible (so safer) and cheaper to maintain metal railing.


Michael, thanks for this - I asked about the origin of the rock up thread. It does look like it was part of a wall. It is fairly clean with no signs of soil so would not have come from the garden. I was hoping that someone who had visited the cottage could suggest a likely source close by. At 9lbs it would not have been carried far.



But the land attached to the property is 5000 square metres, so it would have come from the premises, not somewhere else, as there were other buildings, non-residential, on the property too, a rock of that density doesn't absorb water fast, it's solid, easy to wipe dry. The whole town (or the majority) is built of similar natural stone. However, it didn't come out of Sollecito's inside kitchen wall.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

According to Adnkronos, Sollecito has returned to Italy and will be in the courtroom tomorrow.

Improved Google translation:

Meredith Murder, Sentence Postponed to January 20th
Article published on January 8, 2014

Perugia, January 8 - (Adnkronos) - The verdict of a trial being held in Florence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher has been postponed to January 20th. The Assize Court of Appeal of Florence has revised its schedule of hearings: tomorrow it's back to the courtroom for the closing arguments of the defenders of Raffaele Sollecito, Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, then, instead of the date of January 10, has been assigned that of 16 for the rebuttals, and finally the winds for the judgment. Raffaele Sollecito, returned to Italy, should be present in court tomorrow for the speeches of his defenders.


ADNKRONOS

I wonder what will happen the day after the tomorrow's hearing. Will Sollecito then hurry to the closest airport and flee to the Dominican Republic, once again? ;)
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:36 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Mmmm, well, he's been assured by his lawyers that there is no risk to him, he will be free to leave again, I'm certain, or else he just would not return. Dad obviously demanded that he at least be there for court.

I did just take a look at the link but I haven't examined it Guermantes.

If you use Google Translate, meaning the translated words are the product of an unofficial (machine) translation, I think one needs to state that, the text in the link is Italian.

I knew it must be a Google T since: "the winds for the judgement" is not English.

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:48 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Improved Google trans:

Meredith Kercher trial, the judgment postponed to January 20

Postponed to January 20, the judgment of the trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher, originally scheduled for January 15. For reasons related both to work organization in court, and the lawyers' strike scheduled for 13, 14 and 15 January, the schedule of hearings has undergone some changes.

For tomorrow, at a hearing, beginning at 10 am, there will be oral arguments of defense lawyers of the accused Raffaele Sollecito, Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori. On January 16, there will be replies/rebuttals, while on 20th is expected the verdict. At the trial of the defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the PG has requested a sentence of 30 years for Knox and 26 for Sollecito.


GONEWS.IT (FIRENZE)
Top Profile 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:53 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:

I wonder what will happen the day after the tomorrow's hearing. Will Sollecito then hurry to the closest airport and flee to the Dominican Republic, once again? ;)



I reckon he will.
He is scared of Switzerland as he knows it is not his friend, that's why he turned left into France, so he could, if questioned say, I'm just off to visit some Dear Friends in Paris, etc., as dad already did fill in for him (he's gone for lunch in Paris, he isn't spoilt or nothing like that), which turned out to be yet another untruth, untruth as opposed to lie though they are basically the same; dad may not have known what his dear son was about to do, maybe he told dad I'll be over tomorrow for dinner. Dad, nervous, saying: Yes son.

I reckon he will try to get to a spot in Europe without being seen and depart from it without being seen too, that'd mean he would try to turn right into East Europe, however, nobody noticed him in France or pulled him up, so it may just be Italy that he will want to sneak out of, obviously not by plane this time, but across some border where there are mostly no checks nowadays, though he would still be free to travel, he will have learned and will not want anyone knowing where he is or what he is up to. Back at his hide out, he'll wait for the verdict.

As the Google T tried to say "work out which way the wind is blowing as regards what the court is going to decide" Sollecito will be trying to work that out, everything he does wqill be about that.

He will be hoping for Bongiorno to jump up on the desk, rip of her garments to reveal a Superman suit, and at that point he would see himself in his dreams reclining in his chair smoking an imaginary cigar like successful businessmen seem to need to do, then watch her come up with something spectacular, like: Sollecito has a twin brother and it just wasn't him.


"I had been expecting an e-mail," said the judge sarcastically.
Sollecito: Sorry sir, I'm not very good with computers, you can tell, or I would have known you'd all find out I was lying when I said I'd been using mine all night when it wasn't used AT ALL.

Judge: Yes, well we knew that, yes we did, no need for you to repeat it, anyone ever tell you, that you are your own worst enemy?

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

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
What a great find, Nell. We knew he hired a "media turtor" and his CV shows his three month "communications training" from July 2012. This guy appears to be part of Sharlene Martin's services in preparing her clients for book tours and TV appearances. Nice to put a face (and name) to him, I'm sure he's quite good.

Raffaele Sollecito still came across as scripted and stilted, however :)


I am not sure he's that good. Heavey's presentation makes me laugh and cry at the same time, Sollecito's interviews were irritating and Novsky's website has quite a few significant typos.

Just look at the screenshots: thorough instead of through, fundrazing, innosense, enought - and that's only what you can see in the screenshots.

Big giant thanks Nell. Seems like everybody and their mother jumped on the gravy train.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:08 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
I spotted a red haired guy in one of the photos taken from Raffaele Sollecito's book signing tour. The original photo can be found on Sollecito's (mostly dysfunctional) blog.

In the photo below you can see him standing behind a camera mounted on a tripod. A camera bag and a folder of documents are on the table in front of him. In the background you can spot Candace Dempsey, Sharlene Martin, Judge Michael Heavey and Frank Sfarzo.


Thanks Nell, excellent work!!!

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:10 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

LUFC1972 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.

My best guess, is that it used to occupy an old stone wall that used to serve as a boundary between the cottage and the main road there, long since demolished and replaced with the relatively modern metal railings that we see today. Those railings are pretty buckled, no doubt from various car prangs, and that indicates why a stone wall would have been replaced with a more flexible (so safer) and cheaper to maintain metal railing.


Michael, thanks for this - I asked about the origin of the rock up thread. It does look like it was part of a wall. It is fairly clean with no signs of soil so would not have come from the garden. I was hoping that someone who had visited the cottage could suggest a likely source close by. At 9lbs it would not have been carried far.


Hi, LUFC1972, I did reply up stream last week: viewtopic.php?p=116377#p116377

Quote:
"Hi, LUFC1972, and a Happy New Year to you too!

The rock is limestone, which is found all over the property, including the retaining wall dividing the grounds from Viale San Antonio, and, the parking lot. So, it definitely came from on site, and looks like it was a loose piece that broke off from somewhere, so was washed clean of soil by rain.(I photographed a similar wall along the basket ball court leading down to the cottage, there are many like that all around Perugia)..."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:11 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
I did just take a look at the link but I haven't examined it Guermantes.

If you use Google Translate, meaning the translated words are the product of an unofficial (machine) translation, I think one needs to state that, the text in the link is Italian.

I knew it must be a Google T since: "the winds for the judgement" is not English.


Okay, I've edited my posts by adding that it's an "improved Google translation". I understand why you distrust automated translation. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:14 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

My apologies to everyone in advance, as tomorrow I have appointments and so will be out for much of the day. Therefore, I will be unable to help keep everyone updated with developments from Florence, although I will be in and out sporadically. The good news, is I should be fully available for the two next court hearings after.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

LUFC1972 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.

My best guess, is that it used to occupy an old stone wall that used to serve as a boundary between the cottage and the main road there, long since demolished and replaced with the relatively modern metal railings that we see today. Those railings are pretty buckled, no doubt from various car prangs, and that indicates why a stone wall would have been replaced with a more flexible (so safer) and cheaper to maintain metal railing.


Michael, thanks for this - I asked about the origin of the rock up thread. It does look like it was part of a wall. It is fairly clean with no signs of soil so would not have come from the garden. I was hoping that someone who had visited the cottage could suggest a likely source close by. At 9lbs it would not have been carried far.



No problem. Well, I think it could quite easily have come from the grounds, since whilst there are earth covered areas, there's also plenty of gravel and concrete covered areas as well as parts covered with grass/foliage which could have acted as a barrier between the stone and the soil. As Ergon pointed out, there are also a couple of outhouses there.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:20 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Good find Guermantes.

He cannot/does not write English very well at all.

If you say: "Wrongfully convicted of a murder of her roomate"[sic] and it's your very own presentation page, what does that say about your own skills and the level of care taken?


It wasn't my find. You have Nell to thank for this.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:25 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
zorba wrote:
I did just take a look at the link but I haven't examined it Guermantes.

If you use Google Translate, meaning the translated words are the product of an unofficial (machine) translation, I think one needs to state that, the text in the link is Italian.

I knew it must be a Google T since: "the winds for the judgement" is not English.


Okay, I've edited my posts by adding that it's an "improved Google translation". I understand why you distrust automated translation. ;)


Thanks for posting the info, G. And yes, it's good idea when posting Google translations or cleaned up Google translations, to mark them as such. That way, we don't get accused of trying to pass off Google translations as real translations. It's important to source everything, not only by the author but also the translator.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
zorba wrote:
I did just take a look at the link but I haven't examined it Guermantes.

If you use Google Translate, meaning the translated words are the product of an unofficial (machine) translation, I think one needs to state that, the text in the link is Italian.

I knew it must be a Google T since: "the winds for the judgement" is not English.


Okay, I've edited my posts by adding that it's an "improved Google translation". I understand why you distrust automated translation. ;)



Hi Guermantes,

Yeah that's better then nobody can ever accuse you of doing anything wrong, like if anything is not exactly right.

I usually write: Unofficial translation.

That means; it was done in any way you like, it's unofficial, so relying on it is entirely up to the reader.

Your cleaning up is good, nobody can take that way from you and your efforts, because it IS a lot of work.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:00 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
zorba wrote:
Good find Guermantes.

He cannot/does not write English very well at all.

If you say: "Wrongfully convicted of a murder of her roomate"[sic] and it's your very own presentation page, what does that say about your own skills and the level of care taken?


It wasn't my find. You have Nell to thank for this.



Oops, excuse me Nell and thank you (that's what happens after a daily nap)

Thank you anyhow, both, for the consistency with respect to continuing contributions.

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

Offline tamale


Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:13 pm

Posts: 615

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
My apologies to everyone in advance, as tomorrow I have appointments and so will be out for much of the day. Therefore, I will be unable to help keep everyone updated with developments from Florence, although I will be in and out sporadically. The good news, is I should be fully available for the two next court hearings after.


Thanks for the heads up. Hurry back. Smile
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

More news from Italy - I have been expecting something like this from Sollecito's PR team, working quietly behind the scenes.

Friday, January 10 on Channel 4 at 21:10
Fourth Degree (Quarto Grado)
Running Time: 170 minutes

Gianluigi Nuzzi, Alessandra Viera. Gianluigi Nuzzi and Alessandra Viera return to present images, interviews and unpublished documents on cases of 'sensational' crime. The first episode of 2014 is dedicated, in particular, to the appeal process for the murder of Meredith Kercher, that of defendants Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.


PROGRAMMI TELEVISIONE
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:15 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Good find Guermantes.

He cannot/does not write English very well at all.

If you say: "Wrongfully convicted of a murder of her roomate"[sic] and it's your very own presentation page, what does that say about your own skills and the level of care taken?

I would say it is THE murder, since a person only gets murdered, thank god, once.


Quote: Presentation of the innocense [sic]


Quote: The curse of knowledge is when you know too much about subject and not pay attention to what the audience needs.


The curse of knowledge
The curse of passion


They really make sure they find others who are exactly like they are.


To be fair, the guy is a political refugee from the Soviet Union who came to the US as a 12 year old. Nonetheless, according to his website, he has a BA in English Literature from the University of Chicago and an MBA from the University of Dallas. He is fluent in English, Russian, and conversant in Japanese.

From his website:

Quote:
Leo Novsky is an award winning speaker whose dynamic, humorous and inspirational approach is sure to fire up any audience. He has won numerous speaking competitions, taught lectures, led workshops, and inspired people to action.

Coming to America as political refugee from the Soviet Union, Leo has been living an American Dream ever since. His educational background includes a BA from University of Chicago, 2 years of medical school at Northwestern University, and an MBA from University from Dallas. When not speaking, Leo leads his own start-up, Fitness Arch, Inc—creating innovative fitness equipment for people with physical limitations.

Leo has extensive knowledge on the topics of leading meetings, facilitating events, fitness, disability, interpersonal communication, business consulting, and motivation. Drawing on his experience in the medical, fitness, and start-up industries, Leo connects with and empowers audiences of all ages & sizes.


Quote:
ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL [sic]

Leo Novsky is a professional speaker and executive speech coach whose dynamic, humorous and engaging approach has helped hundreds of professionals to rid themselves of destructive communication habits and to speak with power.

Leo has more than 10 years experience in communication, marketing and business development. He is a published author, inventor and founder of several start-ups.

His educational background includes a BA in English Literature from the University of Chicago and an MBA from the University of Dallas. He is fluent in English, Russian, and conversant in Japanese.



At his website there is somewhere at the bottom of the page a video that shows him giving one of his speeches.



What amazes me most is that an experienced judge like Heavey thinks or has been told he needs a professional to improve his speech. I mean, come on, we all have seen the result. Is that it?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:54 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

tamale wrote:
Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
What a great find, Nell. We knew he hired a "media turtor" and his CV shows his three month "communications training" from July 2012. This guy appears to be part of Sharlene Martin's services in preparing her clients for book tours and TV appearances. Nice to put a face (and name) to him, I'm sure he's quite good.

Raffaele Sollecito still came across as scripted and stilted, however :)


I am not sure he's that good. Heavey's presentation makes me laugh and cry at the same time, Sollecito's interviews were irritating and Novsky's website has quite a few significant typos.

Just look at the screenshots: thorough instead of through, fundrazing, innosense, enought - and that's only what you can see in the screenshots.

Big giant thanks Nell. Seems like everybody and their mother jumped on the gravy train.


From what I understand, Leo Novsky seen in the photo posted above at Raffaele Sollecito's book signing tour is there to work, he is not a supporter. He is there because he is being paid.

The views and opinions of his clients are not necessarily his own. It could be, but in this case I believe it is unlikely.

What stands out for me is the fact that the major part of the audience we have seen on various occasions, for example in pictures taken at the hotel awaiting the verdict in 2011, Amanda Knox's arrival on Seatac, Raffaele Sollecito's book presentations, are not selfless supporters but mostly people doing their job, plus close family friends and people with invested interests. The group of "independent supporter" seems rather small.

This is supported by an article I read on TJMK. Someone who supports the cause of justice for Meredith Kercher and her family, who goes by the name of Professor Snape, went to Raffaele Sollecito's book promotion tour and was immediately identified as a stranger not belonging there. All this after Sollecito's book signing tour had been announced in the media! So apparently they weren't expecting any new faces there, even after all the publicity his book release had received. Snape was questioned by three different individuals what her name was and what business she had to be there. It shows how small the actual group of supporters really is. They spot a stranger immediately.

You can read the full article here.

A fun fact mentioned in the article is that visitors had to pay a $5 entry fee if Sollecito's book 'Honor Bound' wasn't purchased onsite.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:03 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
According to Adnkronos, Sollecito has returned to Italy and will be in the courtroom tomorrow.

Improved Google translation:

Meredith Murder, Sentence Postponed to January 20th
Article published on January 8, 2014

Perugia, January 8 - (Adnkronos) - The verdict of a trial being held in Florence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher has been postponed to January 20th. The Assize Court of Appeal of Florence has revised its schedule of hearings: tomorrow it's back to the courtroom for the closing arguments of the defenders of Raffaele Sollecito, Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, then, instead of the date of January 10, has been assigned that of 16 for the rebuttals, and finally the winds for the judgment. Raffaele Sollecito, returned to Italy, should be present in court tomorrow for the speeches of his defenders.


ADNKRONOS

I wonder what will happen the day after the tomorrow's hearing. Will Sollecito then hurry to the closest airport and flee to the Dominican Republic, once again? ;)


Thank you for all the updates from the press Guermantes!

How many times will Sollecito catch a plane to travel the world while at the same time asking his supporters for money?

I imagine he has a few supporters who lead humble lives and don't travel at all. I find this outreageous.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
zorba wrote:
Good find Guermantes.

He cannot/does not write English very well at all.

If you say: "Wrongfully convicted of a murder of her roomate"[sic] and it's your very own presentation page, what does that say about your own skills and the level of care taken?

I would say it is THE murder, since a person only gets murdered, thank god, once.


Quote: Presentation of the innocense [sic]


Quote: The curse of knowledge is when you know too much about subject and not pay attention to what the audience needs.


The curse of knowledge
The curse of passion


They really make sure they find others who are exactly like they are.


To be fair, the guy is a political refugee from the Soviet Union who came to the US as a 12 year old. Nonetheless, according to his website, he has a BA in English Literature from the University of Chicago and an MBA from the University of Dallas. He is fluent in English, Russian, and conversant in Japanese.

From his website:

Quote:
Leo Novsky is an award winning speaker whose dynamic, humorous and inspirational approach is sure to fire up any audience. He has won numerous speaking competitions, taught lectures, led workshops, and inspired people to action.

Coming to America as political refugee from the Soviet Union, Leo has been living an American Dream ever since. His educational background includes a BA from University of Chicago, 2 years of medical school at Northwestern University, and an MBA from University from Dallas. When not speaking, Leo leads his own start-up, Fitness Arch, Inc—creating innovative fitness equipment for people with physical limitations.

Leo has extensive knowledge on the topics of leading meetings, facilitating events, fitness, disability, interpersonal communication, business consulting, and motivation. Drawing on his experience in the medical, fitness, and start-up industries, Leo connects with and empowers audiences of all ages & sizes.


Quote:
ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL [sic]

Leo Novsky is a professional speaker and executive speech coach whose dynamic, humorous and engaging approach has helped hundreds of professionals to rid themselves of destructive communication habits and to speak with power.

Leo has more than 10 years experience in communication, marketing and business development. He is a published author, inventor and founder of several start-ups.

His educational background includes a BA in English Literature from the University of Chicago and an MBA from the University of Dallas. He is fluent in English, Russian, and conversant in Japanese.



At his website there is somewhere at the bottom of the page a video that shows him giving one of his speeches.



What amazes me most is that an experienced judge like Heavey thinks or has been told he needs a professional to improve his speech. I mean, come on, we all have seen the result. Is that it?


Hi Nell,
On the value of American universities; I'm not sure ALL have that much value, or even rather, validity, look at Knox and the things she has been accredited with. Apparently many American universities do not have a high level of competence, some of them do have a high degree of competence.
I helped a guy a couple of months ago, he had a masters to do and wasn't really doing it, I told him, you must be nuts, why did you get into it if you are not going to do the work. he had been telling me he was not going to make it, this was in the summer, but he'd told me ages ago that he was busy with the degree in management and I told him I would help. He was in fact being lazy, and told me he would be able to retake it in 6 months. I then said, again, are you nuts, why wouldn't you get it done with so you can concentrate on other things. What I said influenced him, he got down to work. The work was monitored by a professor at a British university. This guy/neighbour of mine is a non-native English speaker. He had a good level of English on the one hand, in that you could tell his ability was there and some of it was expressed in English, yet so much of his English was simply NOT English. This was one of the things the mentor repeated in his notes, then he said: I've told you now several times so I will not be repeating myself any longer.
So here you have a guy, a non-native English speaker, with all of the thinking ability, knowledge and skills in his own language, but the exams are all English based, which in a way is unfair, then again it IS fair, since the main language of economics in the world is English, most of the books are in it, many from America but Britain too, Australia, Canada, together that's a lot of potential readers and that is one of the reasons books in English are cheaper than say German-language books, Germany with quite a large population yet incomparable to the figures one gets when all of the different populations from the English speaking countries are added up. More copies get sold, larger amounts get printed, the prices can be reduced. His thinking therefore was absolutely qualified, his own language very good, yet he had to do his degree in English.
If I had not helped he would have failed.
I edited and had to get him to rewrite some parts in his own language so I could translate it into English, that raised the standard of his work, the stuff he had in English, some bits, made no sense, his mentor told him so. The content was all his own work.
Like this Russian, some bits (I did point them out) are incorrect, and he has a degree?
I think it is wrong, he does not deserve a degree, he needs more lessons.
What does it say about the value of the degrees being issued (or is it churned out) at the university he attended? His level of English would not get him a British A level, let alone a degree, an A level is something one gets before the age of 18, so from school.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:59 pm   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:

What amazes me most is that an experienced judge like Heavey thinks or has been told he needs a professional to improve his speech. I mean, come on, we all have seen the result. Is that it?



Considering he was a judge for so many years, it's hard to imagine why he would need to get lessons from someone like this guy.

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

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:19 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:

From what I understand, Leo Novsky seen in the photo posted above at Raffaele Sollecito's book signing tour is there to work, he is not a supporter. He is there because he is being paid.

The views and opinions of his clients are not necessarily his own. It could be, but in this case I believe it is unlikely.



This is an assumption that could well be true Nell, however, his lack of writing skills, fails to make that clear, I noticed that immediately.
He writes in the same lousy way that journalists have been doing, he does not say: Former judge Heavey is of the opinion that/former judge Heavey thinks/ In former judge Heavy's opinion/view...

He states what he is saying about someone else (Heavey and his opinions) as though it is fact and therefore makes no such distinction; there is no separation of his own views with those of Heavey.

That is NOT good.

One can work out that he may not share the views of his clients (assume it), but, as a professional, he should make that clear in his words.

What it amounts to, this failing to set things out properly, is an addition to these opinions Heavey has, because this man fails to articulate and separate his own views from those of his clients.

In such fields one cannot leave things like this to guesswork.


The Russian cat: He came to me with the goal of improving and streamlining his presentation on the innocense of Amanda Knox who was wrongfully accused and convicted for a murder of her roomate = FAIL

He came to me with the goal of improving and streamlining his presentation on his belief in the innocence of Amanda Knox who in his opinion was wrongfully accused and convicted for the murder of her roommate.

(Oxford dictionary: Roommate American English. Room-mate British English)

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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Latest update from Andrea Vogt:

Amanda Knox Appeal II / Meredith Kercher Murder
Update: Jan.8, 2014
By Andrea Vogt

Defense lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori will give closing arguments on behalf of Raffaele Sollecito Thursday in Florence, starting at 10 a.m. [...] Tomorrow his lawyers will make the case for his innocence formally to the judge and jury. Expect fireworks from Bongiorno, famous for her captivating oratory and no stranger to high-profile cases — having cut her teeth as defense lawyer for former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti.


THE FREELANCE DESK
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

LUFC1972 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.

My best guess, is that it used to occupy an old stone wall that used to serve as a boundary between the cottage and the main road there, long since demolished and replaced with the relatively modern metal railings that we see today. Those railings are pretty buckled, no doubt from various car prangs, and that indicates why a stone wall would have been replaced with a more flexible (so safer) and cheaper to maintain metal railing.


Michael, thanks for this - I asked about the origin of the rock up thread. It does look like it was part of a wall. It is fairly clean with no signs of soil so would not have come from the garden. I was hoping that someone who had visited the cottage could suggest a likely source close by. At 9lbs it would not have been carried far.


There's an ounce of truth in every lie. Knox stated that she ran around the cottage to see if it was possible to see into Meredith's bedroom. The truth might have been that she and Sollecito ran around the cottage looking for a good rock to use to break the window. It's possible that the rock came from somewhere at the bottom of the steps that are used to access the downstairs flat.
Top Profile 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
Ergon, I am unable to see the image in the above comment, but I right clicked on it and this came up (along with close up knife photos). I have seen debate about whether the clasp was cut or torn, and that definitely appears to be cut. It's stretched until the clasp is bent, and then cut.

Image


If it were cut and removed as suggested wouldn't there be much more blood on it from the murder weapon? That would strengthen the case for a second clean knife used. If torn we know who left evidence on the clasp. Either scenario points to more than one perp.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline malvern


Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:27 pm

Posts: 503

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
LUFC1972 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.

My best guess, is that it used to occupy an old stone wall that used to serve as a boundary between the cottage and the main road there, long since demolished and replaced with the relatively modern metal railings that we see today. Those railings are pretty buckled, no doubt from various car prangs, and that indicates why a stone wall would have been replaced with a more flexible (so [float=][/float]safer) and cheaper to maintain metal railing.


Michael, thanks for this - I asked about the origin of the rock up thread. It does look like it was part of a wall. It is fairly clean with no signs of soil so would not have come from the garden. I was hoping that someone who had visited the cottage could suggest a likely source close by. At 9lbs it would not have been carried far.


There's an ounce of truth in every lie. Knox stated that she ran around the cottage to see if it was possible to see into Meredith's bedroom. The truth might have been that she and Sollecito ran around the cottage looking for a good rock to use to break the window. It's possible that the rock came from somewhere at the bottom of the steps that are used to access the downstairs flat.


true and didn't she tell us that she ran around to check at the neighbours? Again explaining footprints or being seen in the garden . I also think of her Mary pace story. There was a part where she was sitting outside with her boyfriend on the porch and the cars lights shone in her blond hair which is probable given the location of the cottage. He had on fingerless gloves or some nonsense.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ergon

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Posts: 7180

Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:

What amazes me most is that an experienced judge like Heavey thinks or has been told he needs a professional to improve his speech. I mean, come on, we all have seen the result. Is that it?



Considering he was a judge for so many years, it's hard to imagine why he would need to get lessons from someone like this guy.


Oh, the judge was angling for the whole Amanda Knox package: the book, the movie, the SNL sketch :)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline zorba


User avatar


Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am

Posts: 4233

Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:16 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:

What amazes me most is that an experienced judge like Heavey thinks or has been told he needs a professional to improve his speech. I mean, come on, we all have seen the result. Is that it?



Considering he was a judge for so many years, it's hard to imagine why he would need to get lessons from someone like this guy.


Oh, the judge was angling for the whole Amanda Knox package: the book, the movie, the SNL sketch :)



Such an idea struck me too Ergon, seeing mentalist Dempsey sat there a-lounging about with whoever the other one next to her was... (is that a recovering alcoholette too like the Vargas woman?) out a ranting and subjecting the good folk of the world to her sanctimonious know all bullshizen, Frank the onion seller clicking away in the background on his camera... no film in it and that sort of business is really finished for him isn't it since he must first serve prison terms for running away after battering people across distances of 4, 5 and 10,000 miles = just the guy you want when you are trying to build up a respectable reputation.

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

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:26 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

This is the short answer. The longer answer means moving the diagram fence closer to the arrow. A right hand throw would, I imagine, mean straddling the fence. Then it's possible to throw the rock to that side of the window. Anyone throwing the rock from the parapet/parking pad definitely had to aim around the middle where the two window frames meet and any shutter that wasn't completely open.

But all the other evidence suggests an inside job.

Are we on today?

Here's an overlay

Image

Did the outer shutter on the left, when looking at the house, have a tendency to swing closed?

Image


Last edited by Jester on Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:45 am, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
Jester wrote:
Ergon, I am unable to see the image in the above comment, but I right clicked on it and this came up (along with close up knife photos). I have seen debate about whether the clasp was cut or torn, and that definitely appears to be cut. It's stretched until the clasp is bent, and then cut.

Image


If it were cut and removed as suggested wouldn't there be much more blood on it from the murder weapon? That would strengthen the case for a second clean knife used. If torn we know who left evidence on the clasp. Either scenario points to more than one perp.


So you're thinking that she was stabbed and then the bra was cut? If she was bleeding all over the front of her bra, she wouldn't necessarily also bleed all over the back. There is blood on the thread of the clasp, probably transfer from the knife. Here you are: extensive blood spatter on the exposed front of the bra.

Image
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:48 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Ergon wrote:
zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:

What amazes me most is that an experienced judge like Heavey thinks or has been told he needs a professional to improve his speech. I mean, come on, we all have seen the result. Is that it?



Considering he was a judge for so many years, it's hard to imagine why he would need to get lessons from someone like this guy.


Oh, the judge was angling for the whole Amanda Knox package: the book, the movie, the SNL sketch :)


I do remember, when Frank Sfarzo still had his original blog, he bragged about how he would end up with a movie deal. Good old times. Dreams are free.

Now he is back living from handouts.


In one of his Rotary speeches Heavey dropped George Clooney's name. That movie was being shot at the moment, said Heavey, but Spezi mentioned in one of his interviews they were still trying to convince Clooney to attach himself to the project. He had doubts, he said.

Looking up the project, I found Clooney was planned to be Preston, a lead role, and he is named as producer as well. So far no director. Long story short, Heavey announcing the movie being shot 'as we speak' in March 2012 was a bit premature to say the least.

From one of Heavey's Rotary speeches:

Quote:
“Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston will be a George Clooney movie here in a year or two. They’ve already started shooting.


Trouble has a way of following them.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:29 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

malvern wrote:
Jester wrote:
LUFC1972 wrote:
Michael wrote:
Someone asked where the rock came from. If one looks at the picture of it here:

From this angle it looks pretty "square" (with the broken parts reassembled). It appears to me that it's been dressed and so it probably originated from someones wall, be it a property boundary wall or wall of a building. It's probably unlikely to have been taken directly from said wall for use in the staging (due to no apparent mortar around its edges) and so it probably originates from a wall that was demolished some time years before and was left lying around.

My best guess, is that it used to occupy an old stone wall that used to serve as a boundary between the cottage and the main road there, long since demolished and replaced with the relatively modern metal railings that we see today. Those railings are pretty buckled, no doubt from various car prangs, and that indicates why a stone wall would have been replaced with a more flexible (so [float=][/float]safer) and cheaper to maintain metal railing.


Michael, thanks for this - I asked about the origin of the rock up thread. It does look like it was part of a wall. It is fairly clean with no signs of soil so would not have come from the garden. I was hoping that someone who had visited the cottage could suggest a likely source close by. At 9lbs it would not have been carried far.


There's an ounce of truth in every lie. Knox stated that she ran around the cottage to see if it was possible to see into Meredith's bedroom. The truth might have been that she and Sollecito ran around the cottage looking for a good rock to use to break the window. It's possible that the rock came from somewhere at the bottom of the steps that are used to access the downstairs flat.


true and didn't she tell us that she ran around to check at the neighbours? Again explaining footprints or being seen in the garden . I also think of her Mary pace story. There was a part where she was sitting outside with her boyfriend on the porch and the cars lights shone in her blond hair which is probable given the location of the cottage. He had on fingerless gloves or some nonsense.


I remember the part about fingerless gloves, toques, knives and olive jars. I'm sure that her Marie Pace is as clouded as the first rape short story she wrote. Her book is apparently a huge fog. I'm sure the publisher was disappointed with her efforts.

I don't remember anything about Knox running to the neighbours other than to run down to the downstairs flat to see if anyone was home, but she already knew that everyone was away that long weekend. It sounds like a ruse. This was the same time that she ran around the cottage to check if she could see into Meredith's bedroom, since the downstairs door is near Meredith's window. Knox had apparently already checked whether she could see the window from the deck. What would she hope to see in Meredith's window, a window that was just as high off the ground as her window.

Image
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

I am expecting Bongiorno to actually defend Sollecito this time and not mostly Knox like last few times but what do I know. Didn't she once say there was more evidence pointing to Knox than to her client? I am curious what she will make of the photo that was admitted into evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:32 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Ergon wrote:
zorba wrote:
Nell wrote:

What amazes me most is that an experienced judge like Heavey thinks or has been told he needs a professional to improve his speech. I mean, come on, we all have seen the result. Is that it?



Considering he was a judge for so many years, it's hard to imagine why he would need to get lessons from someone like this guy.


Oh, the judge was angling for the whole Amanda Knox package: the book, the movie, the SNL sketch :)


I do remember, when Frank Sfarzo still had his original blog, he bragged about how he would end up with a movie deal. Good old times. Dreams are free.

Now he is back living from handouts.


In one of his Rotary speeches Heavey dropped George Clooney's name. That movie was being shot at the moment, said Heavey, but Spezi mentioned in one of his interviews they were still trying to convince Clooney to attach himself to the project. He had doubts, he said.

Looking up the project, I found Clooney was planned to be Preston, a lead role, and he is named as producer as well. So far no director. Long story short, Heavey announcing the movie being shot 'as we speak' in March 2012 was a bit premature to say the least.

From one of Heavey's Rotary speeches:

Quote:
“Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston will be a George Clooney movie here in a year or two. They’ve already started shooting.


Trouble has a way of following them.


It's always good to see the wood lying on the ground beneath the trees.
Top Profile 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:33 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
I am expecting Bongiorno to actually defend Sollecito this time and not mostly Knox like last few times but what do I know. Didn't she once say there was more evidence pointing to Knox than to her client? I am curious what she will make of the photo that was admitted into evidence.


Are we going to hear more about Amelie, or will there be a separation of defence?
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:00 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
I am expecting Bongiorno to actually defend Sollecito this time and not mostly Knox like last few times but what do I know. Didn't she once say there was more evidence pointing to Knox than to her client? I am curious what she will make of the photo that was admitted into evidence.


Yes, Giulia Bongiorno said her client was only guilty by association. The wording was so interesting that I still remember it.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Jester wrote:
max wrote:
I am expecting Bongiorno to actually defend Sollecito this time and not mostly Knox like last few times but what do I know. Didn't she once say there was more evidence pointing to Knox than to her client? I am curious what she will make of the photo that was admitted into evidence.


Are we going to hear more about Amelie, or will there be a separation of defence?


I don't think a separation is possible at this stage of the proceedings, but I do remember Bongiorno saying that the verdict of the acquittal might have been too generous or something like that right after the Supreme Court ruling.

She will attack the bra evidence and there is not much to say if you ask me, the DNA results from the bra clasp are sound.

Whatever she decides to do, I am sure it will be a great show.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jester


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:24 pm

Posts: 2500

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:10 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Jester wrote:
max wrote:
I am expecting Bongiorno to actually defend Sollecito this time and not mostly Knox like last few times but what do I know. Didn't she once say there was more evidence pointing to Knox than to her client? I am curious what she will make of the photo that was admitted into evidence.


Are we going to hear more about Amelie, or will there be a separation of defence?


I don't think a separation is possible at this stage of the proceedings, but I do remember Bongiorno saying that the verdict of the acquittal might have been too generous or something like that right after the Supreme Court ruling.

She will attack the bra evidence and there is not much to say if you ask me, the DNA results from the bra clasp are sound.

Whatever she decides to do, I am sure it will be a great show.


Waiting ... are we good to go?
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione just tweeted that Raffaele Sollecito arrived in the court room.

Quote:
Processo Meredith, Raffaele Sollecito in aula prova il video proiettore #Meredithnazione http://twitter.com/qn_lanazione/status/ ... 92/photo/1


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Malvern wrote:
If it were cut and removed as suggested wouldn't there be much more blood on it from the murder weapon? That would strengthen the case for a second clean knife used. If torn we know who left evidence on the clasp. Either scenario points to more than one perp.


Well, no. The bra was removed when they moved and posed the victim's body, some hours after the actual murder. By that time, the knife would have been rinsed off (which they probably did when they washed their hands and so forth right after the murder).

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Quote:
Machiavelli (@Machiavelli_Aki)
9/01/2014 7:39 pm
Sollecito is in courtroom


The timestamp is of course confusing because it's my time. In Italy it is 9:39 am now.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Thanks for the first tweets, Nell. We're all ready to go. Would you like me to cover tweets again? If you'd like to do it, I wouldn't mind. ;)

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 28m
Process Meredith, Raffaele Sollecito in the courtroom trying out video projector
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:53 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

By the by, and this will probably get lost among the court day chatter, a more satisfying reason (to me at least) for why they didn't dispose of the kitchen knife has occurred to me. I think, it makes a good deal of sense.

I think, the answer lies with Sollecito's pocket knife. If it had been just the kitchen used in the attack, then they may well have gotten rid of it. But, it wasn't, Raffaele's pocket knife, one of them, was also used. Why then, go out of their way to dispose of one knife and not the other? Raffaele's pocket knife was not only very expensive and was something he'd carried on his person for a very long time, he was very attached to it, his pocket knives were his pride and joy even. Moreover, friends and family may have later noticed if he no longer had a knife they were very familiar with him having. There was no way he was going to throw away that knife. He decided to clean it instead. Therefore, why go through the hassle and risk (as they might be seen), in their minds, of disposing of one knife (the kitchen knife) when they were going to keep the other? Why would they not have decided that the treatment they planned for the pocket knife (to clean it and remove all traces) would have been therefore, also served well enough for the kitchen knife? It would have seemed odd to them, to develop two different plans for two knives, may as well adopt the same plan for both.

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

guermantes wrote:
Thanks for the first tweets, Nell. We're all ready to go. Would you like me to cover tweets again? If you'd like to do it, I wouldn't mind. ;)

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 28m
Process Meredith, Raffaele Sollecito in the courtroom trying out video projector


Oh, yes please. Thank you. It's a pain on the tablet. Thank you so much!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione now
Processo Meredith, Raffaele Sollecito in aula #Meredithnazione


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

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:02 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Michael wrote:
By the by, and this will probably get lost among the court day chatter, a more satisfying reason (to me at least) for why they didn't dispose of the kitchen knife has occurred to me. I think, it makes a good deal of sense.

I think, the answer lies with Sollecito's pocket knife. If it had been just the kitchen used in the attack, then they may well have gotten rid of it. But, it wasn't, Raffaele's pocket knife, one of them, was also used. Why then, go out of their way to dispose of one knife and not the other? Raffaele's pocket knife was not only very expensive and was something he'd carried on his person for a very long time, he was very attached to it, his pocket knives were his pride and joy even. Moreover, friends and family may have later noticed if he no longer had a knife they were very familiar with him having. There was no way he was going to throw away that knife. He decided to clean it instead. Therefore, why go through the hassle and risk (as they might be seen), in their minds, of disposing of one knife (the kitchen knife) when they were going to keep the other? Why would they not have decided that the treatment they planned for the pocket knife (to clean it and remove all traces) would have been therefore, also served well enough for the kitchen knife? It would have seemed odd to them, to develop two different plans for two knives, may as well adopt the same plan for both.


That makes sense, if you want to give them that much credit. I am convinced they didn't think that far ahead.

They didn't have a well thought out alibi either. I firmly believe they never thought it would get that far. They thought with saying "we were together", the thing was over for them. It did not occur to them they would have to respond to questions regarding their phone records etc. That's how they got stuck.

For the same reason, they thought no one would ever have a look into Raffaele Sollecito's apartment. They thought it was safe because they had established an unrelated intruder had committed the crime, or so they thought ...

Once the police grew suspicious, it was too late for them. They made a lot of mistakes.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:05 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 24s
Meredith process, hearing begins soon


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

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:17 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, the hearing begins. Today it's up to the lawyers of Raffaele Sollecito

I.e. Today it's Raffaele Solecito lawyers' turn.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione @ 6s qn_lanazione
Meredith process begins harangue lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, defense Meredith (sic)

Re-tweeted with correction

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 4s
Meredith process, begins harangue lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, defense Sollecito
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:25 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Nell wrote:
Michael wrote:
By the by, and this will probably get lost among the court day chatter, a more satisfying reason (to me at least) for why they didn't dispose of the kitchen knife has occurred to me. I think, it makes a good deal of sense.

I think, the answer lies with Sollecito's pocket knife. If it had been just the kitchen used in the attack, then they may well have gotten rid of it. But, it wasn't, Raffaele's pocket knife, one of them, was also used. Why then, go out of their way to dispose of one knife and not the other? Raffaele's pocket knife was not only very expensive and was something he'd carried on his person for a very long time, he was very attached to it, his pocket knives were his pride and joy even. Moreover, friends and family may have later noticed if he no longer had a knife they were very familiar with him having. There was no way he was going to throw away that knife. He decided to clean it instead. Therefore, why go through the hassle and risk (as they might be seen), in their minds, of disposing of one knife (the kitchen knife) when they were going to keep the other? Why would they not have decided that the treatment they planned for the pocket knife (to clean it and remove all traces) would have been therefore, also served well enough for the kitchen knife? It would have seemed odd to them, to develop two different plans for two knives, may as well adopt the same plan for both.


That makes sense, if you want to give them that much credit. I am convinced they didn't think that far ahead.

They didn't have a well thought out alibi either. I firmly believe they never thought it would get that far. They thought with saying "we were together", the thing was over for them. It did not occur to them they would have to respond to questions regarding their phone records etc. That's how they got stuck.

For the same reason, they thought no one would ever have a look into Raffaele Sollecito's apartment. They thought it was safe because they had established an unrelated intruder had committed the crime, or so they thought ...

Once the police grew suspicious, it was too late for them. They made a lot of mistakes.


EXACTLY. I think they very much underestimated the police attention they'd be subjected to. In their minds, the police might question them once, maybe twice at most and then be off chasing the phantom lone rapist-burglar. It was only in the days following the attack they realised it wasn't going to go down like that, they were called in for questioning again and again. I think then, they realised it was too hot and reluctantly, decided they were going to have to get rid of the knives. they changed their minds, BUT, they'd made things too risky because they had missed their window which was the best time for doing that, the night of the murder and morning right after, before the body was discovered and everyone was on high alert. At the time they disposed of the phones was the best time to get rid of the knives, but having made a wrong initial decision they were stuck with a problem. Raffaele's pocket knife was relatively easy to get rid of as it was small and folded easily into ones pocket...the kitchen knife did not, so for the kitchen knife they had to bide their time and wait for an opportunity to get rid of it. After all, they had no idea that they'd be arrested on the night of the 5th.

Okay, that's me, I've now got to get ready and rush out the door. I'll be back as soon as I can :)

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:28 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 38s
Bongiorno quotes Italian author Satta. Talks about "chase" of the two accused

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Reads book snippet about French revolution, describe a hord of sanculots and armed citizens

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 8s
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito): "Raffaele and Amanda have become the symbol of depravity '

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 44s
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito): "Sollecito branded a murderer when there was no evidence"
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:35 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Bongiorno: a blood thursty mob chasing defendants

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Bongiorno was shocked by the angry mob before Perugia courtroom

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 29s
Bongiorno speech hinges around the persecution of defendants. Describes her fear, fleeing from Perugia. Says people didn't know trial papers

La Nazione @ 1m qn_lanazione
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito): "Against Amanda and Raffaele horde of sans-culottes"
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:41 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 1m
Meredith process, Bongiorno (Sollecito defense): "In investigation record, the case was closed immediately, after four days"

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 2m
Meredith process, Bongiorno (Sollecito): "An attempt was made to chose a motive that would cause less fear in Perugia, a party gone wrong"

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 1m
Bongiorno: Perugia declared "case closed" 4 days after Kercher murder, w/no murder weapon and a motive intended to calm public fear.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:44 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 5m
Bongiorno focuses on the "early bias" against accused, since four days after finding of body.

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 4m
Complains Sollecito doesn't find a job because has a murderer's face

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 3m
Why did they accuse and put them in jail so early? They didn't even have the knife.

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Bongiorno: authority had to choose between a "tranquillizing" student motive and a dangerous serial killer "worrying" scenario.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione 4m @ qn_lanazione
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito): "You have chosen an ideal motive and then followed the lombrosian criteria"

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 5m
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno: "Starting from the motive of a party, Amanda seemed the perfect choice of a guilty person"

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 3m
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito): "Amanda was a protagonist before the start of the process"

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 3m
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito): "Amanda was the stronger part of the couple with Sollecito"

ETA:
Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 3m
Bongiorno: "Amanda amanda amanda amanda amanda . . . And raffaele? Basta with sollecito always being considered Knox's other half."

La Nazione @ 1m qn_lanazione
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito): "Raffaele is not only the other half of Amanda. Just a quick passion"
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:52 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 5m
Says: it was Perugia population who chose the less disquieting scenario, and the investigation was based on "less alarming motive" choice

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 4m
Investigators followed Lombrosian criteria (inpired by Cesare Lombroso theories)

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 3m
Started from a sex party gone awry theory. They asked themselves: who could take part in such party? A 20y American sexy

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Bongiorno: women are suspected because of today women's empowerment movements.

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Most active and free women are seen as more suspicious.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:54 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione @ 1m qn_lanazione
Meredith process, the lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito) is showing some slides of the footprints at the crime scene

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 11s
Shows pictures of Vinci's anslysis of pillowcase prints.

La Nazione @ 1m qn_lanazione
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno (Sollecito): "On the footprints attributed to Sollecito there was a big mistake"

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Bongiorno: Raf thinks he was put in jail because of wrong print. But not true: it's because he was Amanda's boyfriend.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:56 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 2m
Bongiorno also said other reason for suspicion was that Knox had the keys. The motive chosen was "ideal" not real.

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki now
Speaks about "creativity" before the trial. Speaks at length about the bloody shoeprint.

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Says Knox was the main character, she was so before the trial.

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki now
She is tired of Raffaele reduced by "half", a half character seen as a reflection of Amanda
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:11 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione now
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno ( Sollecito ): " The identikit of Amanda the killer precedes and generates slander"

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 3m
Shorprint attributed in advance because boyfriend of Amanda. Speaks about "admission" by Rinaldi-Boemis

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 1m
Impression that Bongiorno's start of defence speech was rather weak. Too much over the top, reveals weakness.

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 24s
Says Raffaele "halfed" against him only half pieces of circum evidence: half shoeprint; knife compatible only if you consider half of blade

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki now
Only half of the house of murder investigated. An interrogation considered evidence of Knox's calunnia.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:14 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 7s
Calunnia doesn't mean there is evidence of murder.

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione now
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno ( Sollecito ): "Amanda and nighttime interrogations without a lawyer"

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 36s
Nencini interrupts Bongiorno: how could I read all interrogations entirely, when Supreme Court prevents me from doing so?

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 3s
Bongiorno says if the court doesn't want to read the whole interrogation (of Dec 17) they should at least read the memoriale
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:22 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 32s
Amanda was caught by anxious urge to answer. She became uncomfortable because police asked too much, altering her serenity

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki now
Says they also insulted Knox

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione now
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno ( Sollecito ): " According to the documents, aunts of Sollecito insulted by those who listened to the wiretaps"

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 8s
Sollecito's aunts wiretapped as if they were the most dangerous murderers.
Top Profile 

Offline max


Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:55 am

Posts: 1564

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:24 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Bongiorno showing once again that there is no way to defend Sollecito without defending Knox. Again mostly talking about Knox at the moment. She is even attacking all the people of Perugia now the trial is in Florence. I agree that is a sign of weakness. She should be careful not to start discussions with the judge. Still plenty of time for a rabbit and a hat but I doubt it.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:27 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione @ 1m qn_lanazione
Meredith process, Bongiorno ( Sollecito ): "There are black pages in this investigation"

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 30s
Talking about insults, Bongiorno cries.

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 2m
Bongiorno just read wiretapped comms of Perugia cops Napoleoni and Zugarini insulting Sollecito's family.

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 3m
Process Meredith , lawyer Bongiorno ( Sollecito ): " Amanda says that the interpreter during her interrogation invited her to remember"

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 2m
Process Meredith , lawyer Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : "The interpreter confirmed in the courtroom that she was acting as a medium"
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:40 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 2m
Process Meredith, Bongiorno ( Sollecito's defense ): " The interpreter says in the courtroom she has helped Amanda to perceive her needs "

La Nazione @ 1m qn_lanazione
Process Meredith, according to the lawyer Bongiorno interpreter on the night of interrogation of Amanda did not just translate

La Nazione @ 1m qn_lanazione
Process Meredith, Bongiorno ( Sollecito's defense ) : " Amanda doesn't sidetrack, it is she who is derailed "
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Bongiorno live on La Repubblica TV:

http://video.repubblica.it/cronaca/in-diretta-da-firenze-processo-meredith/152128/150634?ref=HREC1-6

La Repubblica Photo Gallery:

http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/01/09/foto/sollecito_in_aula_per_il_processo_meredith-75473725/1/#1
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:47 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

max wrote:
Bongiorno showing once again that there is no way to defend Sollecito without defending Knox. Again mostly talking about Knox at the moment. She is even attacking all the people of Perugia now the trial is in Florence. I agree that is a sign of weakness. She should be careful not to start discussions with the judge. Still plenty of time for a rabbit and a hat but I doubt it.


I will wait how it ends, but so far the absolute highlight is Bongiorno crying in court.

With a smiling Amanda Knox and a forever holidaying Raffaele Sollecito as client material to work with, maybe she wasn't pretending when she cried in court?

Anyway, so far it sounds like an EPIC FAIL.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:49 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 53s
Bongiorno reading amanda's statement: "If you believe this is a confession, where's Raffaele? He is never, never, never mentioned."

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 2m
Meredith process, Bongiorno ( Sollecito defense ) : " Amanda never pulls Raffaele into dance"

La Nazione @ 1m qn_lanazione
Process Meredith, lawyer Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : " Absurd Amanda putting herself at the scene of the crime"

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 44s
Process Meredith. Bongiorno ( Sollecito's defense ) : " Amanda didn't accuse Raffaele even when they told her that he had accused her" (withdrew her alibi)
Top Profile 

Offline Nell

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:38 pm

Posts: 5041

Images: 0

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:55 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   



Thank you! To see that woman in action is eye opening.

She just downplayed that Sollecito accused Knox. Maybe I misunderstood?

Fascinating.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:59 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Sollecito is looking attentively at the faces of popular judges, trying to guess their reaction to Bongiorno's speech.
Top Profile 

Offline guermantes

Links & Gallery Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:49 am

Posts: 4860

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:06 am   Post subject: Re: XXVIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, SEPT 30 -   

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 3m
Bongiorno defending #amandaknox, while at the same time clearly separating Sollecito's position from that of Knox.

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 27s
Process Meredith , Bongiorno ( Sollecito's defense ) : " The witness who spoke of the friendship between Raffaele and Rudy Guede was denied "

Andrea Vogt ‏@andreavogt 2m
Bongiorno on witnesses found by local journos: "This trial had an Aladdin's Lamp. Every time cops needed a witness, one materialized."

La Nazione @ qn_lanazione 28s
Process Meredith , Bongiorno ( Sollecito's defense ) : " Absurd to think that Sollecito and Guede got to know each other that night " (i.e., got acquainted)
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 13 of 30 [ 7308 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 30  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Linkdex [Bot] and 2 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

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


29,150,126 Views